HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance November 9 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
November 9, 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: Absent:
Tom Brown None
Robert Imhof
CONSENT ITEMS
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR JD EDWARDS PROGRAMMING
ASSISTANCE TO THE ONLY RESPONSIVE VENDOR, SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT, TO BE USED AS NEEDED SHOULD ANY PROBLEMS
ARISE, WITH COSTS POTENTIALLY EXCEEDING $15,000 (AB99 -437)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Imhof questioned what the potential to exceed is.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the amounts will probably not be
more than $15,00, but there are some JD Edwards issues have to be addressed this
year to be Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant. They have not been able to make the
changes with the existing programming staff.
Imhof questioned what the cap would be. Desler stated the most spent
would be $25,000.
Brown moved to approve $15,000, not to exceed $20,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
100 FOR THE ANNUAL LIST OF VENDORS AND RENTAL RATES FOR
VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT USED ON COUNTY
ROAD PROJECTS (MORE THAN $35,000 COULD BE SPENT WITH ANY
ONE VENDOR) (AB99 -438)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
3. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE
THAN A YEAR OLD FOR THE JAIL INMATE TRUST FUND ACCOUNT, IN
A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,006.57 (AB99 -439)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Hoag questioned whether the warrants could be reissued if someone asks.
Dan Fitzgerald, Chief of Corrections, stated these are warrants that were
issued to inmates that were discharged from the jail over a period of the last couple
of years. They never cashed those checks, which range from a few cents to a
maximum of a little over $100. If someone showed up with a warrant that wasn't
honored, the County will reissue it.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND
ACCEPTANCE FROM WORLDWIDE FIBER NETWORKS, INC., THE
ENTITY INTO WHICH PACIFIC FIBER LINK, L.L.C., THE ORIGINAL
GRANTEE OF THE FRANCHISE, HAS MERGED (AB99 -440)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the company was
originally a company located in Washington State, and merged with a Nevada
company with the same name. After the merger, the name was changed.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND EXIGENT COMPUTER
GROUP, INC. FOR THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE COMPUTER IMAGING
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,417 (AB99 -441)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Hoag asked if this could be delayed in light of I -695.
John Romaker, Chief Deputy Assessor, stated this has been money that has
been out there for two years now. There has been some delay as the County
measures the performance they are getting from Exigent. Now the County is
confident they can move forward. There has already been quite a bit of investment
made in the hardware and the preparation within the Assessor's Office to get ready
for this phase.
Brown questioned how this would help the Assessor. Romaker stated there
is a crushing space problem right now. Records are out of control. It will reduce
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
48
many records down to digital format and will be made available countywide. These
are TIFF format images that can be transmitted over the internet.
Brown asked if they are consolidating records so that they will be easier for
the public to find. Romaker stated it would create speed and efficiency. The
clerical division spends a large part of the day answering phone calls from the
general public and the regular professionals who seek information from the
Assessor's Office. This is one of the pieces they anticipate will make records
retrieval more efficient and take the demand away from the clerical division.
Brown asked if they could reduce the staff with the added efficiency.
Romaker stated they are maximizing the use of staff right now.
Nelson asked if there would be additional impacts due to I -695 with the
automobile assessments. Romaker stated they don't anticipate so. The governor
has gone on record saying the state is not interested in going after something that
the population has voted against. In this county, the measure didn't pass. Clearly
it is not the motivation of the Whatcom County population to pursue motor vehicles
as part of the personal property tax.
Brown stated he has heard people say the Assessor's Office is constantly
trying to train on new equipment. Romaker stated he spends too much of his day
answering questions about those kind of issues as they change systems. This is
going to be an unseen change, except to the end user. It will tie into the existing
AS400 system that is used by both the Assessor and Treasurer. It is another
keystroke that puts the user to a record that now has to be manually retrieved.
The migration to the new system will be painless.
Brenner stated everyone is supposed to cut 1.5 percent out of his or her
budgets.
Imhof stated this money is from the 1999 budget, not the 2000 budget, and
is not affected.
Hoag stated that if they don't spend the money this year, it would go into
next year's budget.
Brenner stated they might want to take the 1.5 percent from this project or
somewhere else in the Assessor's budget.
Imhof stated that is a decision the Assessor will make. If it goes forward, it
won't be in his budget. It will go back into the general fund.
Nelson stated the office has made the updates in their office to prepare for
this. It doesn't make much sense to spend time and money getting ready for
something, and then not do it.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Nelson stated there would be impacts from I -695. They can do what they
currently are budgeting, and then make amendments throughout the year. They
can look at various types of levy increases or other options that are available for
funding programs, or they can punt.
Brown stated they have been collecting the license tab fees, and will be
through the end of the year. Therefore, those funds should be forthcoming during
the first half of next year.
Nelson stated the question is whether there is revenue that will be generated
by the end of the year at the same rate as this year. License tab fees will end in
January.
Imhof stated it would end in December because no one will pay his or her
tabs that are due in December.
Brown stated the fees are paid to the County every six months. He
questioned whether that revenue will come forward, and how much it will be.
Imhof questioned whether that amount is already included in the budget.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they haven't done a quick
analysis. There are some issues with people not licensing their cars. They are
always a couple of months behind in terms of revenue collection that occurs now.
He can't provide a direct answer. They should continue to assume that they are
going to receive the funding for which they've projected, which is close to $1.5
million. They are not projecting to receive that same revenue in the year 2000.
They anticipate collecting the revenue that they've already projected, or close to it,
for the motor vehicle excise tax for 1999. They don't anticipate collecting that
money in the year 2000.
Imhof suggested the next agenda items be taken in order. They have a
logical sequence.
Hoag stated the levy and the budget are pretty wide open. She requested
that the Unified Fee Schedule and the Flood Zone Fee be addressed first.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
4. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM (AB99 -392)
Nelson stated packet page 145 was the beginning of the resolution for the
assessments in the years 2000 -2002.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Hoag stated that is the original exhibit. The alternate resolution with the
amended exhibit begins on packet page 155.
Nelson stated he liked the resolution that began on packet page 155.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, distributed current data from the
Assessor's Office, the number of parcels, and the amount of revenue to be
generated under the current formula compared to the proposed formula. He made
a guess that the difference would be $100,000, but it is an $83,000 difference.
They've been talking about $3.4 million up until this point. With the increasing
number of total parcels as well as a gradual inflationary shift into higher value
parcels, it is closer to $3.6 million.
Brenner asked how the number of parcels valued greater than $150,000 and
less than $200,000 are different between the two proposals. There is a discrepancy
in the numbers. Monsen stated there are different ranges.
Hoag stated that they are not the same range. They need to add the income
brackets.
Nelson stated he was concerned about the low cap. He moved approval of
the second version with the cap raised to $1 million.
Brown stated he did not agree with extending it for three years. Monsen
stated they would move more aggressively into the watershed project if it was
funded for three years.
Nelson stated it could be altered any time they wish. Monsen stated that
was correct.
Brenner stated they couldn't charge a fee based on an assessed value. This
is not legal. They should get a legal opinion. She asked for a new version in which
people who contribute more to the flooding pay more and the rest of the county
residents pay a flat fee. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee said
they didn't want it.
Gibson stated they have discussed this and if they want to discuss it in detail,
they can go into executive session.
Brown stated they could discuss it in executive session. There was recent
court ruling that said the fees had to be based on recouping the cost to produce a
specific item that someone requested. He agreed with Brenner that this is not
falling under the fee schedule, but right now they are discussing what the amounts
will be set at and for how long.
Hoag stated it is something she has been trying to look at. If they are
seeking protection from flooding or looking at contribution to flooding, then the
monetary value of the parcel relates to the size of the parcel and the amount of
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
impervious surface that exist. Beyond that, she wanted to get on with the vote.
The second resolution is much more equitable. Otherwise, they should take it up in
executive session to discuss other issues with the resolution.
Brenner stated they should take it up in executive session before it is
approved. Fees are set up on contribution, not on assessed value. There are
expensive parcels that are not big and without impervious surfaces, but have other
amenities. The flood plain and floodway make the biggest contribution to flooding.
Hoag stated that the in the sub -flood zone districts, they charged more if
they are in the flood zone.
Brenner stated they are also charging a second fee to people who are not in
any flood zone but are in the sub - districts.
Brown moved to amend resolution number two to approve it only for one
year instead of three years. It would be mandated to come back yearly because of
I -695.
Nelson stated Monsen's question would be about consistent funding for the
water programs. He questioned whether they need the funding for three years for
consistency.
Monsen stated it could be funded only for one year. The recommendation for
three years was to show an ongoing commitment towards those activities. They
can always pull it back and reconsider it another time. The message sent to the
County's partners in this process is different if they fund it for one year and not
three years.
Brown stated he made a commitment to stick with the existing revenues for
one more year. His problem was that there are a lot of people in the county that
don't see any benefit coming from the flood tax. They watch what is building in the
flood reserves and believe a lot of the planning is a waste of time. By giving them
a three -year mandate to pay taxes before they have a chance to vote on it again
means that there could not be a lot of meaningful activity. The program should
have to justify itself annually.
Nelson stated they cut the tax in half when they had the same problem
previously when they didn't see results from the expenditure of funds. They always
have that option.
Sutter asked if the commitment of three -year funding would be a bonus
when applying for grants or funding. Monsen stated it wouldn't, as long as they can
say they have the revenue. It would give the state and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) the assurance that revenue will be there for programs. There is a
benefit from a regulatory standpoint, but not from a funding standpoint.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Brown in favor.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Motion to approve funding option number two for three years carried 2 -1
with Brown opposed.
Monsen stated it would be appropriate to deal with this prior to having a
hearing of the sub - districts, because the sub - districts rely on the flood control zone
funding.
1. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND
STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE
YEAR OF 2000, PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER, SECTION 6.10
(AB99 -428)
Nelson stated he had concerns regarding the impacts of I -695. They need to
look at the options.
taxes.
Brenner stated the number is only about keeping the status quo or raising
Imhof stated the proposal is to keep the property tax at its current rate.
Nelson stated there are several options for funding the anticipated shortfall,
or the County can do nothing and take it out of reserves. The departments are
already stretched. They haven't addressed criminal justice impacts. He didn't
know what the legislature is going to do. There are rumors the legislature will
adjust for shortfalls. There has been talk about whether or not tobacco money will
be a one -time fix. He asked what revenues the administration would expect from
the shortfall.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they are proposing a series of
across - the -board reductions to all general fund departments and operations, then
targeted reductions on things that can be delayed or slowed down, and taking
$500,000 out of cash reserves to make up the shortfall of about $1.5 million.
Nelson summarized they would have to take $500,000 out of reserves and
have a 1.5 percent reduction in all departments.
Brown asked if they would have to make those cuts with the proposed levy
rate. Desler stated that was correct. The administration is not proposing a
property tax increase.
Imhof stated there is a good amount in reserves. The carryover from this
year will be substantial. It will not make a dramatic impact this year. They need to
keep the county as whole as possible without the tax increase. They need to see
where I -695 goes and see what develops. They should wait and see what happens
over the next 12 months.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Brown stated he agreed with Imhof's remarks. He wanted more time to work
on the budget and not act on it tonight.
Hoag suggested they hold this in committee until after they've looked at the
budget and decide on the cuts.
Nelson stated they have to have the hearing at the evening meeting.
Imhof stated they could deal with it after the hearing.
Nelson asked what assurance they have that the state will continue with the
ability with the 1 /10th of 1 percent.
Imhof stated that is an option, but until the criminal study is done, the
options should be left on the table.
Nelson also asked about the current reserves regarding the percentage of
current expense. Desler stated the current amount is about $8.8 million in
reserves. It would be based on a $50 million budget. That is the total reserve.
They've locked up parts of the reserve. Prudently, it ought to be a minimum of $6
million.
Motion to recommend approval of the levy carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE YEAR 2000 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE
(AB99 -431)
Desler stated the information he distributed included changes that reflect
proposed amendments to the fee schedule.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson stated they would work from the substitute document.
Brenner stated the fee schedule was not to generate revenues. She was
concerned. Desler stated that in some cases, the fees went down. The fees reflect
the true cost in most cases.
Brenner stated they are not supposed to raise fees unless they can justify
the associated cost also had been raised. Desler stated they have tried to do that.
Brown moved to recommend the fee schedule forward to the full Council for
a public hearing.
Hoag asked about a fee on page two regarding the report - programming fee
for the Auditor's Office.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Shirley Forslof, Auditor, stated that because of the computerization, certain
people have asked for information from the computer system that requires a lot of
staff time to generate.
Hoag asked about increases in the license fees on un- sterilized dogs. She
questioned whether they raised that fee last year.
Imhof stated they did not raise the rates last year. This raises the rates to
the City of Bellingham's rates.
Brown stated he didn't understand why the County gives a discount for
owning many dogs instead of just one.
Hoag stated there are Health Department increases on page four. The
increases have an impact on people using the services.
Charles Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated those reflect
the changes in the cost of the vaccine.
Imhof stated they just approved the state contract for vaccines, which was
up considerably from last year.
Benjamin stated the costs for vaccines go up and down throughout the year.
Brenner stated the costs of drugs are going up more than the inflation rate.
Benjamin stated they received the proposed fee schedule and saw some
mistakes and made corrections. That may be what Hoag is questioning.
Hoag asked about fees for solid waste on page six, which have been deleted.
She asked why they are not charging for this anymore. Benjamin stated they now
charge a base flat rate for every solid waste facility. That gives them their base
permit and allows a certain amount of hours for monitoring. If they go over the
allotted monitoring hours, the facility is charged a per hour fee. The Unified Fee
Schedule was never changed to reflect the new rate.
Hoag asked about the extra vehicle fee for the Silver Lake campsite on page
16 of the new handout. It is a new fee.
Roger DeSpain, Parks Department Director, stated that when there are extra
vehicles, there are extra people using the campsite. When they do that, it adds
more cost to maintaining the restrooms, water, and power. It encourages more
activity. Instead charging per campsite, they charge by the car. That is the reason
for the increase.
Hoag stated that many times two vehicles still are only for one family. She
questioned whether it would be more appropriate that they charge extra for extra
recreational vehicles or tents. That would indicate more people camping. DeSpain
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
stated there are people who take advantage of that and bring in more people than
what a campsite is designed for. Over time, that has been the pattern. There is no
other way to charge the campers individually.
Nelson asked if they included an enforcement fee for noxious weeds. Desler
stated he wasn't aware of that fee.
Hoag stated they are charging $25 to send a certified letter, which is
expensive. She asked about zoning site plan review for residential having a $5,000
fee cap, .12% of the building valuation with a $20 minimum. She questioned
whether they used to charge for residential and why they are now. She also asked
for clarification on whether this applies to residential development or a single - family
dwelling.
Imhof stated it looked like the fee cap was $5,000 in 1999. For the year
2000 they are changing the cap to .12% of the building's valuation with a $20
minimum. Desler stated they would clarify that question.
Hoag asked about the difference between the old and new ferry rates on
page 23 of the substitute version. She had the same question on the motor pool
car rental on the next page. Monsen stated he didn't know.
Hoag asked about the debt payment accounting fee for Superior Court on
page 26 of the substitute version.
N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Clerk, stated that some parties are choosing to
pay at the courthouse rather than pay the creditor. It is an onerous process. They
have to negotiate the instrument, deposit it, write a new check, and send it on to
someone else. It costs about $5 per transaction. It would permit Superior Court to
assess a fee for using the Clerk's forwarding accounting.
Hoag asked if this applies to someone who makes payments on a traffic
ticket. Jackson stated he doesn't do traffic fees. This is only for Superior Court.
Some counties use it to collect a fee for every payment made by a criminal. They
are philosophically opposed to that, thinking that if there are any fees, the money
should go to the victim. It is being applied to civil cases only.
Hoag stated the language is the fee schedule doesn't say that.
Nelson stated it is a good idea. One could always go to the bank and have
an exchange done.
Hoag stated she didn't have a problem with that. She didn't want to create a
problem for people who aren't doing that. Jackson suggested she append the word
"Civil." It is almost entirely rent due or child support, where the paying person
refuses to give it to the person with custody.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Sutter stated they are acting as an intermediary. Superior Court is taking
the money and sending it somewhere else. The person making the payment does
have the option of not paying the $10 by going somewhere else.
Imhof stated they do have the option to not pay the $10 by paying directly.
Hoag asked about non - certified copies and returned checks on page 29 of the
substitute version. There isn't a difference between the current rate and new rate.
Desler stated administration would respond to the questions that have been
brought forward.
Motion to recommend approval carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY
FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF
CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN (AB99 -429)
Gordon Rogers, Whatcom County Council of Governments (COG), stated this
is in relation to a concept of adding a grant writer to the budget. This had not been
submitted by COG at this time. It had been a discussion item for the last few years.
There are a number of reasons to do this, including the fact that some of the
smaller jurisdictions can't afford to hire a grant writer on their own. It is the COG's
Executive Board decision that this is a good idea, and should be moved forward to
the jurisdictions with a request for funding. From the staff perspective, it is an
opportunity for the community to tap sources of funding that the community wants
to tap, and to keep an eye on the grants that are of benefit to the jurisdictions. If
that jurisdiction wants to pursue it, then they have a way of doing that without
trying to hire someone at the spur of the moment. Many times the grants have a
short time period for applying. There are many sources of information for grants.
Nelson asked if they were requesting a dollar amount. Rogers stated the
County's amount is $21,572.
Brown stated the budget proposed a .5 full -time equivalent (FTE) employee
at $20,000 and a contractual grant writer for $40,000. He asked if COG would be
supplying the grant writing expertise for eight jurisdictions. He also questioned
whether one person would be able to do that. Rogers stated one person can cover
more than what is being covered now. There has been a fair amount of discussion
by the Executive Board. They all agree, including the City of Bellingham and Port of
Bellingham.
Brenner asked what kind of policies or oversight is in place to ensure they
know what they are going to get. Rogers stated they couldn't imagine an event
wherein all grant applications are approved. It would be a matter of identifying the
grants and making everyone aware of them. COG would apply for it, but the grant
money would come straight to the jurisdiction and not flow through COG.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Sutter addressed the $60,000 for the half time grant writer for the County
and the amount requested from COG. The County could double the amount
requested by COG, which would give them another half -time person with money
left over. They will see a return on what they have invested. A professional grant
writer can research and find grants for more than $21,000 per year.
Hoag asked how competition between jurisdictions for grants would be
handled. Rogers stated there has been discussion about that at the Executive
Board. It would have to be a task for the Executive Board, who would have to work
through that.
Nelson asked how much of the contributions are going to be shared by the
other jurisdictions. Rogers stated it is based on the same formula as the current
COG dues.
Nelson questioned the staffing level for all the jurisdictions. Rogers stated it
is for one staff person.
Nelson questioned whether the funding was for all the jurisdictions and all
their various needs. Rogers stated that is the current proposal. They can tap the
sources of the grants. There are a number of publications that have information on
available grants. Some of the grant sources are brought together. It is difficult to
take the time to go through them consistently and carefully, and then to seek out
likely candidates for the use of those grants.
Brown stated COG currently applies for grants. Rogers stated that was
correct.
Brown stated there is already some staff that would be involved. This would
be an additional person to facilitate that. It is not as though they are not starting a
process they haven't been involved in before. Rogers stated that was true. He
couldn't think of any grants they have in process currently. There are 15 grants
that they handle under their normal responsibility right now. They are all
transportation - related grants. It is not as though they are starting a process that
they have not been involved in. It is likely that the person they hire would not
focus much on transportation because they have that already well covered.
Dawson questioned how Desler thinks the County would be best served,
since he used to do a lot of this. Desler stated that if it met all the County's needs
to support this effort, it would be a good deal. However, he didn't believe it is an
adequate response to the kinds of things they ultimately need to do as a county to
address criminal justice. Part of the County's proposal would allow them to
contract with COG, along with other organizations they've identified that can write
specific applications. The administration is not recommending this particular
approach. They could contract for part of it.
Imhof stated they are talking about a 1.5 FTE in the County's budget. This
may be a way to begin. They need to decide whether they are going to take some
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
47
small steps and see how well the County moves into the process. If the person
identifies sources that they don't have time to handle it, it may be appropriate for
the County to hire its own person. He was open to any and all decisions.
Brenner stated it sounded good, but she was hesitant because there are so
many jurisdictions involved. She disagreed that it is easy to see that the person
earns his or her salary. The County would have found some of those grants
anyway. It is a very complicated issue to determine whether the position would
pay for itself. She would rather be sure the grants the County receives are
targeted to the County rather than have the County be lost in the shuffle. She
wouldn't mind having COG write the grants once the County finds a grant.
Sutter stated the benefits of having COG do this include finding out about the
grants that the County doesn't even know about now. Also, applications for
competitive grants could be directed toward the jurisdiction that could put it to the
best use for the good of the entire county. Multiple jurisdiction grants could be
submitted. If more than one jurisdiction supports a grant, it lends strength to the
grant and provides a better chance of securing the grant. The small jurisdictions
can't afford to pay for their own grant writer, even if they got together. The person
who is looking for grants may find some that government is not eligible to apply
for, but they could send the information to someone in the community who could
apply to it. The County will still receive a benefit of having the money come into
the county for projects that need to be done. Unless the County's half -time grant
writer can fulfill those expectations, the money is better spent by considering the
county as a whole and its needs, rather than just considering the County
government. Rogers stated that was a topic also discussed at the Executive Board.
There are grants that counties can apply for and there are grants that are limited to
other entities. From a staff perspective, COG is very neutral on this. It is added
work for all the staff to add a new person. In dealing with all jurisdictions in the
county, they see a fair number of grants that are not applied for. Sometimes it is
just a matter of not having the staff time. That is part of the benefit of having that.
Brenner questioned the kind of qualifications a grant writer would have to
have. The County doesn't have any control over whom COG hires or what his or
her qualifications are. In the past, she believed that COG has done political hiring.
She wanted to make sure that the most qualified person is hired. Rogers stated
they would hire the person with the best track record.
Nelson questioned whether the entire Executive Board approves the new
hire. Rogers stated that typically the Executive Board does not approve hires. It is
the Executive Director's prerogative to select employees.
Brenner stated she was not talking about hiring people who are incompetent.
She was talking about hiring people who have been board members and others that
don't look good. The County is out of the loop. When the County does it, they
have more say on qualifications and are much more accountable. Rogers stated
that Executive Kremen expressed concern. He indicated that the Council was
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
46
47
48
looking to include a grant writer in the budget. Given that, he was still supportive
of filling the COG position.
Bob Ryan, Bellingham City Councilmember, stated this is a proposal for one
year only. The City of Bellingham already has grant writers on staff. They know
they miss millions of dollars per year in grants because they don't have someone
out there researching the available grants full -time. They are willing to give it a try
and see what happens. The issue of competition between different applicants is a
valid concern. It does happen. In the past, COG has spread the grants around
equally.
Hoag questioned whether the City's grant writers are employed full -time for
that purpose or are staff members who also write grants. Ryan stated they have
staff members who write grants as a part of his or her capacity.
Hoag stated she preferred the grant money be distributed in proportion to
the amount of money each jurisdiction is contributing to the position instead of
equally. Ryan stated that is taken into consideration. The COG's track record
shows they've done a good job being equitable.
Brown stated he believed there is someone in the criminal justice system
who is looking at and writing grants, but not full -time. He hoped COG would make
a list of the grant sources so the non - profit organizations could have access that
information. The County does have some grant writing going on. This program
would supplement it. It isn't the right time to add a .5 FTE to the County's budget,
when they are going to have to cut the budget. If they took the funds for the .5
FTE and budgeted it to COG, it would offset the cost without going into the
contractual aspects.
Ginnie Benton, Port of Bellingham Commissioner, stated this is a
consolidation of research information. They all have jurisdictions and they all have
staff who look for and write grants. There needs to be a central location. COG has
already been approached by County residents to find grants. They did that
research for them. The Port has been actively working with the Foothills, Point
Roberts, and Birch Bay areas of the county in doing economic development plans.
The next step in that process will be to find grants for those areas to put their plans
in place.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Benton continued to state that this is important. The Port has staff who
writes grants and makes applications, but it would be helpful to have a full -time
person doing that who would represent everyone.
Nelson moved to forward the ordinance to the full Council for a public
hearing, without a recommendation. He also asked that administration prepare a
proposal to meet the Council's recommendations.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, 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
Desler questioned whether the request was that the administration provides
an outline about how they would propose to deal with I -695.
Nelson stated that was correct.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. RESOLUTION EXTENDING CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM (AB99 -392A)
(WITH AMENDED EXHIBIT)
This item was not discussed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated the Capital Facilities ordinance was erroneously put into
Planning and Development Committee. It is supposed to be in the Finance
Committee. It is a financial matter.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Committee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/9/99, Page 15