HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance December 8 1998I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Finance and Administrative Services Committee
3
4 December 8, 1998
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Marlene Dawson in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent
10 Ward Nelson None
11 Connie Hoag
12
13
14 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
15
16 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1998 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10 (AB98 -410)
17
18 Dawson stated that there are two items under the Consent Agenda, items #1 and #2, that
19 address the issues in the budget request. Those Consent Agenda items would be addressed first.
20
21 (Clerk's Note: Committee moved to Consent Agenda items #1 and #2.)
22
23 Dawson stated that item #1 was approved with Consent Agenda item #1. Items #2 and
24 #4 were approved with Consent Agenda Item #2. The only item remaining to be approved was
25 item #3 regarding changes in the copier system.
26
27 Hoag questioned how administration was paying for the copiers before and whether the
28 new arrangement costs more money.
29
30 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, responded that it was similar to
31 Equipment Revolve and Rental (ER &R) fund. The County would buy the machine and lease
32 them to the departments and recover their costs. Upon looking at that procedure, administration
33 decided that they could lease for the same cost, which allows for more flexibility in upgrading
34 machines as the use changes. They are not costing the County more money. The change in
35 methodology means that, instead of spending a lot of money one year and nothing succeeding
36 years, the County is now spending a more even amount annually. The lease allows trade -ins and
37 a 97% up -time and service within four hours. The County is able to get a favorable rate. They
38 are extending the life of the copiers to five years instead of three. For all of the copiers that were
39 leased, payments went down because of a five year amortization instead of a three year
40 amortization.
41
42 Hoag questioned the source of the funds when the County was on the ER &R program.
43 Bennett stated that there used to be a central purchasing system within the County, and there was
44 a balance that was brought in to current expense when central purchasing was consolidated into
45 Administrative Services. Concurrent with that consolidation, the decision was made to lease the
46 copiers. As a result of the consolidation, the balance went into the general fund and was no
47 longer dedicated to copiers.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, 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
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated they are looking at what they are actually
buying. There were a lot of copiers that were old and needed service, which cost money. The
County now doesn't pay for service and upkeep, only pays for the copies. If the machines don't
produce the copies that they are supposed to at the quality that they are supposed to, then that is
the problem of the leasing company. The County doesn't have to worry about trading them off,
or capitalizing new ones. The County just pays for the copies that it receives.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend approval of the Supplemental Budget Request ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
EXPENSES AND /OR TRAVEL (AB98 -143L)
Dawson stated that the request was for a conference that Council Member Imhof attended
and lunches for herself.
it.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Nelson questioned whether they were within their budgeted amount. He would look into
Motion carried 2 -0 with Dawson abstaining.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES AND A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR
UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR 1999 (AB98 -418)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that this is also scheduled before Committee
of the Whole for executive session and full Council.
Hoag questioned the date showing 1997 on packet page #19. She also asked for an
explanation on the percentages of elected officials' salary. Wareing stated that the Whatcom
County Home Rule Charter outlines the percentages of salaries that are allowed. The
Prosecuting Attorney is 100% and everything else is a percentage of that.
Hoag questioned the movement between the ranges and the percentage increases and
whether the Engineer's changes affected everyone else's steps and ranges.
Wendy Wefer - Clinton, Human Resources Representative, stated that the Engineers are
under the master contract and have nothing to do with this resolution.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, 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
Hoag questioned item 5.5 on packet page 21 regarding the Sheriff's arbitration and
whether there are still two bargaining units within the Sheriff's Department. Wendy stated that
there are still two bargaining units. The deputy sheriffs for their own guild, and then there are
the corrections officers. Wareing stated that there are actually three contracts, because there is
also a master contract.
Hoag questioned the sick leave on packet page 22 and whether the 960 hours gets added
to every year or is the most that could be accumulated. Wefer - Clinton stated that it only
accumulates to 960 hours at most. At the end of the year, if there is 960 hours accumulated, they
can accumulate more hours through the year so that the maximum they can have is 1008 hours,
but it reverts back to 960 hours at the end of the year.
Dawson asked about sick —leave sharing. Wefer - Clinton stated that one can donate up to
16 hours in the case of a catastrophic event.
Hoag questioned the vacation on packet page 23 and why the County would allow up to
40 hours of vacation to be cashed out per year. Wareing responded that it is only for employees
whose workload and responsibilities don't allow them to use the vacation time. It allows
administration to cash out vacation time. It is based on workload and the necessity of the person
to be there. Administration is trying to limit the number of hours accumulated over time.
Hoag requested and explanation of section 7.3.1 on packet page 23. Wefer - Clinton stated
that there are a few FLSA non - exempt employees that are eligible for overtime. If they are a
part-time employee, then they only get a portion of a holiday. If they are working additional
time, then they are just paid additional time that they would have earned if they were a higher
full time equivalency (FTE). Rather than adjusting FTEs throughout the year, they just pay them
out. If an employee is only a .5 FTE, then they only get 4 hours of holiday pay per day instead
of 8 hours.
Nelson moved to the full Council for deliberation. It is also scheduled for Committee of
the Whole.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES AND TIDEMARK COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., TO INCREASE THE
CAPABILITIES TO RESPOND TO WHATCOM COUNTY PERMIT TRACKING
SOFTWARE FOR YEAR 2000 UPDATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,233 (AB98 -419)
(Clerk's note: The committee discussed this item concurrent with the first item on the
Supplemental Budget Request #10; AB98 -410)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the Tidemark software has had
problems. Also, it is the only software available in the United States and Canada. They have a
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 3
I new version that is Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant, and they have figured out how to make the
2 software work. They are hoping the new contract and software upgrade, in addition to keeping
3 the software uncontaminated with old data, will work. This is a good example of where the
4 technology and software helps the County. If Planning and Development Services didn't have
5 the program, then they would need 4 -6 more people to do the work. They recommend approval
6 of the Tidemark software for approximately $67,000, with the remainder being funded in 1999.
7
8 Nelson questioned whether this qualifies for federal dollars available for Y2K
9 compliance. Wareing stated that this is also an upgrade and it wouldn't qualify for federal
10 funding. It is based on an Oracle database and it runs on Novell.
11
12 Hoag questioned Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, if he was
13 in favor of the expense. Knapp stated that he is because it also helps with cashiering, linking
14 with the Geographic Information System (GIS), and offers greater reporting capabilities. They
15 will also be able to monitor the manure compliance. Even though it is flawed, it would be
16 helpful to the Department.
17
18 Wareing stated that the hope is that the new system will not be flawed. The software
19 works well when it is an optimum environment. The Planning Department has had operating
20 system upgrades from the DOS operating platform through Windows 3.1 and to Windows 95,
21 with old data being brought forward through each update.
22
23 Hoag moved to recommend approval.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID #98-
28 128 WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER RL BATES CONSTRUCTION,
29 FOR A WHATCOM COUNTY STORAGE BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
30 VEHICLE AND BOAT STORAGE FOR USE BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IN THE
31 AMOUNT OF $182,721 (AB98 -420)
32
33 Nelson stated that the Committee just dealt with item #1 in the Supplemental Budget
34 Request #10 concurrently with Consent Agenda Item #1. He questioned whether there was a
35 second item on the Supplemental Budget Request.
36
37 Hoag clarified that packet page #2 is an amended agenda bill, and is the correct document
38 to be followed.
39
40 Dawson stated that they would now address Consent Agenda item #2 concurrently with
41 the second and fourth items listed on the Supplemental Budget Request #10 regarding the
42 funding for the Sheriff's storage building.
43
44 Hoag questioned the difference in the figures listed on the agenda bill, packet page #2,
45 and the information provided for the bid on packet page #55. Wareing responded that the
46 supplemental provides for the funding that has already been approved and will be rolled forward
47 next year. It also provides additional money from the drug funds and the general fund. That can
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 4
I be provided directly, or they can look to recoup the funds from the drug and boat funds in a year
2 or two.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag questioned whether they also have to approve funding if they approve the bid.
Wareing responded that is what the Supplemental Budget Request would do.
Hoag stated that the Supplemental Budget Request is only for $153,000, and the bid is for
$182,000.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that the Sheriff is
utilizing other appropriated money that is in their budget.
Wareing stated that this money requested is to supplement what the Sheriff currently has
budgeted in their budget.
Dean Sandell, Undersheriff, stated that there is $90,000 identified dedicated boating
funds, $70,000 identified from the drug fund, and an additional $22,000 can be funded from their
1999 budget. That totals $182,000.
Nelson questioned the source of the $22,000 from the 1999 budget. Sandell stated it is a
line item for the evidence building that they can divert to that use next year for the new building.
Hoag questioned the amount the committee was approving. Wareing stated that they are
approving $153,000 as part of the supplemental budget. The other money is already contained in
the 1999 budget and doesn't need approval. Assuming the Council gives approval for the bid to
go forward, they would roll it over into the new year.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee returned to Item #1, the Supplemental Budget Request,
under Committee Discussions and Recommendations to Council.)
(Clerk's Note: The committee took action on this item again, for clarification, after
Consent Agenda item #4)
Nelson moved approval of Consent Agenda item #2.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee returned to Consent Agenda item #5)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID #98-
133 WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER DIEHL FORD, FOR TWO
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 5
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
SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES TO BE USED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,671.70 (AB98 -421)
Hoag questioned whether the bids were received or the vehicles were received on
Tuesday, November 17, 1998.
Dean Sandell, Undersheriff, stated that it must be the bids because the vehicles have not
been ordered.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID #98-
134 WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER FRONTIER FORD, FOR 13
REPLACEMENT SEDANS FOR USE BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, PLUS
TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
COUNCIL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $331,889.25 (AB98 -422)
Hoag stated that Mary Ewing, Public Works Department Fleet Manager, recommended
the bid be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder for $24,014.25 each. However, on the memo
from Brad Bennett, Finance Manager, shows the price to be $20,525.00. The amount of
$24,014.25 is the total tax calculated on the total amount of 15 vehicles purchased for
$20,525.00 each.
Wareing confirmed that the amount of $20,525.00 is the correct amount for each vehicle.
Nelson questioned whether the amount of $331,889.25 was the correct amount.
Sandell suggested approving up to 15 vehicles at the amount of $20,525.00 each. There
is a chance that they may not have to order all 15 vehicles.
Wareing stated that the dollar amount in Bennett's memo on packet page #62 is correct.
Nelson stated that many sedans were purchased four years ago and questioned whether
they are same vehicles that are being surplused.
Sandell stated that they are surplusing the 1994 — 1995 vehicles. They each have 100,000
miles or more.
Hoag stated that she would like to raise that number a bit because vehicles are being built
to last longer.
Nelson requested that the maintenance cost on the vehicles should also be evaluated. A
vehicle that lasts longer requires added maintenance.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson moved to recommend approval of up to 15 vehicles at the recommended bid price
of $20,525.00
Motion carried unanimously.
Wareing stated that the committee needed to take a vote on Consent Agenda item #2.
(Clerk's Note: The committee moved to Consent Agenda Item #2.)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RUSTAND, INC. FOR OFF -
SITE WORK RELEASE HOUSING FOR PARTIAL CONFINEMENT OFFENDERS,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $511,000 (AB98 -423)
Hoag questioned whether the contract compares with what the County has been paying.
Wareing stated that it is a good contract that helps the County. The County is getting a very
good value. The amount of money per inmate per day has remained the same. They can run an
effective business operation and it takes a drain off of the jail. SSP is one of the best contractors
the County does business with.
Nelson questioned whether the County has maximized their capacity. Wareing stated
that the contract increases by 10 beds.
Sandell stated that they are expanding to 10 more beds, for a total of 50 instead of 40.
Nelson questioned whether Rustand has had to increase his monitoring. He also
questioned whether the County has examined to make sure he meets specifications for services.
Sandell stated that the improvements are specified in the request for proposals (RFP) to
County standards
Nelson moved approval
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH JONES ENGINEERS, INC., FOR A DESIGN
ROUTE STUDY FOR THE WHATCOM CONNECTOR FROM YEW STREET ROAD
TO LAKE LOUISE ROAD, CRP 997016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 (AB98 -424)
Dawson stated that there is a concern that going ahead with the study means that the
County is committed to the project.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the purpose is to carry forward
discussions and the wishes of the Council from a few years ago. The level of effort is to finalize
a route selection and enough of a design to get an adequate estimate to determine whether to
pursue a project of this type, whether it is done now or in five years. It is design work needed to
be able to make decisions.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Nelson stated that this has been before the Council for the last five years and many
people have spoken to the Council about it. The Council decided that they needed more
information to make a good decision. There will be impacts to Lakeway, Electric Avenue, and
North Shore, unless they can transfer all development rights into the City. If they are not
prepared for the future, there will be impacts to the watershed.
Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council, stated that there is a letter from the City Council.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council Member, read the letter from Bellingham City
Council into the record. The letter did not support the connector or any consultant studies. The
estimate to build the road is now at $15 million.
Nelson questioned how the connector would promote urban development in excess of
what is there. Bjornson stated that it would open a road to an area that is not served by a large
road.
Nelson asked why they would increase the density in the area. Bjornson stated that there
is planning for the watershed that would address concerns. Studying the road now is
inappropriate until the watershed planning is done.
Nelson agreed that it is necessary to do the study to determine what is needed. A concern
that was brought forward regarded urban development impacts as far as transportation. It would
behoove all to have the knowledge and understanding of what the environmental impacts and
engineering requirements would be if this had to be an option utilized to protect Lake Whatcom.
Ryan stated the more they know, the better decisions they can make. They were hoping
the work on the watershed plan would reveal impacts of development on the watershed.
Nelson questioned whether the Lake Whatcom Management Committee would have the
expertise to answer concerns about engineering impacts to traffic, water, and wetlands. Ryan
stated that the study would help them understand.
Nelson questioned the amount being spent on the watershed planning. Ryan stated the
total per year for five years is $375,000.
Bjornson stated that they should get more information by the end of the year.
Dawson stated that just because there is a connector doesn't mean there will be
development.
Sutter stated that they are not proposing to build the connector. Tying this study to the
stormwater study is important. There is going to be additional development to increase traffic on
the Lake Whatcom Boulevard. They should try to alleviate it in an environmentally sound way.
This is just a piece of the stormwater management puzzle. She wanted to know if the road would
be a benefit in the future to the entire County.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 8
I Hoag stated that she was pleased to see a local engineer chosen for the bid. However,
2 this is premature and she agreed with the City of Bellingham to delay until the stormwater study
3 was done. The Planning Commission has to still deal with the development impacts to Lake
4 Whatcom. It is not appropriate now.
5
6 Dawson stated that they may have to agree to disagree.
7
8 Nelson questioned whether the Stormwater Management Plan was a study and is it the
9 administration's intent to do more studies.
10
11 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the early effort is on the Stormwater
12 Management Plan. Some aspects are studies, but it is mostly action plans.
13
14 Nelson questioned how this study was premature to the Stormwater Plan, when it was
15 actually an implementation plan. If there is a plan, and a connector is an option that will be
16 utilized later, it should be included in the plan. They should know the impacts of the connector
17 to include in the planning process.
18
19 Monsen stated that the proposal of the connector and the Stormwater Plan are not close
20 enough tied to affect each other. The connector issue is purely one of transportation needs. The
21 Stormwater Management Plan will address the current conditions and impacts, and how they are
22 addressed. It would also address a stormwater plan if transportation patterns change.
23
24 Nelson stated that it has nothing to do with being premature. They are separate issues.
25
26 Monsen stated that they are not tied as far as what being studied, but they are tied to
27 future development.
28
29 Nelson stated that is an assumption.
30
31 Monsen stated that it should be clear that the Stormwater Management Planning effort
32 deals with water quality and development patterns. This study deals with an alternate
33 transportation network in that area. Ultimately, the level of development drives both issues, but
34 neither one is trying to predict development.
35
36 Dawson stated that the County decides what the development level would be.
37
38 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, read a letter into the record. (Handout on file.)
39 She stated that the most recent transportation study was in 1991 and is justified principally on
40 transportation questions of the Sudden Valley neighborhood and its immediate neighbors. The
41 County is predicting $200,000 for the present study, which is a simple preliminary to a following
42 study. There is a rough estimate to build the road at $12 million. The justification is traffic
43 access to Sudden Valley. She suggested someone call WTA and ask them how many buses they
44 can run between Bellingham and Sudden Valley at the cost of $12 million.
45
46 Sutter stated that given that some development will occur and that traffic on Lake
47 Whatcom Boulevard contributes to stormwater runoff into the lake, then an alternative should be
48 examined as a viable alternative. Perhaps a connector could be designed to contribute to the
49 management of stormwater in Lake Whatcom. She assured Beddill that they are monitoring the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 9
I process closely and making sure there aren't any detrimental mistakes is a priority. Buses
2 currently going to Sudden Valley are empty. She needed more information before making a
3 decision on whether it is viable to construct a road. Consider it as a possibility as a part of
4 stormwater management. The decision would be made on information instead of speculation.
5
6 Nelson stated that it is a political perspective on how to protect the lake. People have
7 different views on what would effect the lake. He questioned the amount of money the County
8 spent on Lake Louise Road. Monsen stated that they are still working on Lake Louise. It is not
9 done. Phase I was to do basic safety improvements to Lake Whatcom Boulevard. Those are
10 being completed now. The next phase, phase II, is to begin the reconstruction of Lake Louise
11 Road. Phase III was to decide whether or not to pursue a connector.
12
13 Nelson questioned whether there have been any traffic pattern changes from Lake
14 Whatcom Boulevard to Lake Louise. Monsen stated no, because they have not completed
15 reconstruction. At this point, they would not want to encourage a shift in traffic to Lake Louise,
16 until the reconstruction is done.
17
18 Nelson stated that the re is a lot of information that everyone needs to have. They should
19 not be alarmed just because a study is proposed. The County concern is not to increase the
20 density, but to remove the impacts, potential damage and hazards created from the impacts from
21 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, and alleviate congestion on Lakeway.
22
23 Hoag stated that some statements are not backed up with facts. Studies show that adding
24 a new road would not alleviate traffic, only new traffic will be added. A new road would add
25 more impervious surfaces to the area. The study will not address whether or not water quality
26 will be addressed and if there will be more development. This is only a transportation study.
27 They need answers to impacts to water quality and adding development before spending more
28 money.
29
30 Ryan stated that there is fear that an additional road will create opportunities for
31 additional development. Additional development in the watershed will create negative impacts
32 on the quality of the water that we drink. It is odd to spend $200,000 unless one plans to build
33 the road. One doesn't build the road unless they plan to accommodate development. She
34 suggested working through the Council of Governments. They have questions about the impacts
35 of the road in the city, and connecting with Yew Street. She urged the committee to reconsider,
36 wait for other studies, and work with the City on how to prevent degradation.
37
38 Bjornson stated that the County is in the process of reconstruction of Lake Louise Road.
39 The County should wait until after that is done to see the change in traffic flows. Also $15
40 million is a lot of money.
41
42 Dawson stated that the County has no plans to rezone. Properties already platted will be
43 an increase in density along the lake. The stormwater studies would address impervious surfaces
44 of a future road. The question is how to protect the lake through different political perceptions.
45
46 Nelson moved approval.
47
48 Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
49
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 10
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
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC
CLINIC, TO PROVIDE FUNDING SUPPORT FOR THE RAINBOW ACTIVITY
CENTER, WITH FUNDING FROM COUNTY MILLAGE DOLLARS, IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,161 (AB98 -425)
John Hooper, Health and Human Services, Human Services Manager, stated that this is a
continuation and continues funding for the remainder of this year.
Hoag moved approval.
Nelson stated that this has been one of the best things to happen in the area of the
treatment of mental health. When originally funded, it was one -time funding. He questioned
whether they could get funding transferred from the County to the preferred provider network
(APN) or the North Sound Regional Support Network (RSN)
Hooper stated that has been discussed. The initial contract required the facility to match
funding. In the next year, they decreased the funding level by 50% and it is being picked up by
the agency. A board is seeking alternative funding. The contract expires at the end of December
1998. They will then come back for funding in 1999 with a budget 50% less.
Dawson questioned whether there is any resolution in helping the young people. Hooper
stated that the Whatcom County homeless coalition is proposing a drop -in center for youth.
Dawson asked about grade school children.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated that he recently served on
the RSN planning committee. He chaired a subcommittee on the evaluation of the treatment
center and forwarded a recommendation to collaborate with the APN the mental health managed
care provider, to do a mental health evaluation on all youth and adults in the treatment center.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the Ordinance authorizing the
issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds in the amount of $3,335,000 for repayment
of the interfund loan and improvements for the civic center building (AB98 -417) on packet
page 210 needed to be addressed. The percentage interest the County is paying is 3.75%
currently and goes up over the years to an average of 4.6 %, which is less than they estimated.
Nelson moved approval.
Hoag questioned the amount of interest at $1,739,182.50, at the bottom of the interest
column on the bond/debt service chart. Wareing stated that was correct.
Hoag questioned whether the contract allows for pre - payment without penalty.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 1l
I Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that there is a call option,
2 but it is toward the end of the maturity. That is why the County receives a low interest rate.They
3 are looking for an instrument with a maturity to put into their portfolio. The call option can be
4 exercised during the last five years of a 20 -year obligation.
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
Wareing stated that public sector bonding and funding spreads debt over a 20 -year
period, which bring other individuals into the process of paying for it. The County will be
paying less for the building as time goes on because of the decreasing value of the money.
Nelson questioned whether they will be financing part of the debt as well as the cost of
the building through the departments that utilize it. Wareing stated that they would as soon as
they implement this and extricate the County from other leases. They will have $147,000 that
they would apply to this. They will have $140,000 that is going to facilities that they will no
longer have. That amount would be applied to this.
Hoag questioned how they would get the current tenants out of the building. Wareing
stated that they are allowing the leases to run out. There is a terminating lease that runs through
mid -2000. They are making money on the building now; it is being set aside for future use on
the building. The County is not losing money on the building, they are just not gaining access.
Bennett stated that bonds that mature prior to December 2008 are not call -able. Bonds
after December 1, 2008 are subject to redemption at the option of the County. That means that
after 2008, the County can call all the bonds and pay them off, without penalty. They would
have to pay the accrued interest between coupon dates.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
38 ATTEST:
39
40
41
42
43
44 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
45
46
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Member
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 12/08/98, Page 12