HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance September 15 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
September 15, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Marlene Dawson in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Present:
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
MICHAEL BOBBINK FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES FOR 10/1/98
THROUGH 9/30/99 (AB98 -317)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
EXPENSES AND /OR TRAVEL (AB98 -143G)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Whatcom County Council Member Kathy Sutter requested two items be added to the request.
The first item is the American Water Resources Association Conference for the amount of $95. Their
focus is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The second item is the Watershed Planning Conference,
sponsored by the Association of Washington Cities for the amount of $15.
Dawson asked whether lodging is included. Sutter responded that there are no lodging costs.
Hoag stated that Brenner might have other items to add.
Nelson stated that Brenner's items could be brought up during the Council meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned agenda item #1 regarding the Hearing Examiner contract. She heard that Mr.
Bobbink holds down a large number of jobs. His contract calls for him to look at sites, but there have
been a number of hearings in which he hadn't looked at the sites due to lack of time.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, Page 1
2 Nelson stated that at one point he had a part time position for Island County.
3
4 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that he is also a municipal court
5 judge for the City of Bellingham. Some of his Hearing Examiner services are sub - contracted
6 out. She has been impressed by how thorough of a job he does.
7
8 Hoag stated that during one hearing, he stated he hadn't been able to get to the site.
9
10 Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that municipal court jobs are small
11 jobs that take a few hours per week. Therefore, one would put together a number of municipal
12 court jobs.
13
14 Hoag questioned whether it interferes with his performance. Gibson stated that Bobbink
15 runs a tight ship. It is not a problem in this case.
16
17 Nelson stated that the County doesn't get many appeals.
18
19 3. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR
20 THE ACME/VANZANDT SUB -ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT,
21 SETTING A DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES
22 AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF INTEREST AND PENALTIES ON
23 DELINQUENT PAYMENTS OF ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING
24 PROCEDURES FOR RECORDATION AND FORECLOSURE OF LIENS
25 RESULTING FROM DELINQUENCIES (AB98 -279A)
26
27 Bob Mitchell, citizen, stated that there isn't anyone representing the County Flood
28 Section of the Engineering Division of Public Works Department. An alternative for funding
29 had previously been presented. The Council felt that the funding mechanism wasn't what they
30 wanted. There was a joint meeting of all three sub - districts to get input from everyone. In
31 looking at each sub - district, it is impossible to shrink the district down to only the area that gets
32 flooded. There is not enough assessed value or parcels within the district to fund any type of a
33 program. Second, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan dictates that the program be
34 implemented by the sub - district within the sub - district. Adequate funds are essential within the
35 sub - districts for the implementation of the County -wide plan. They propose to assess those
36 within the flood plain twice the amount of the County flood fee. Those outside the flood plain
37 would be assessed 30% of the amount of the County -wide fee. This will not provide enough
38 funds for total implementation. This mechanism will keep funding going for one more year.
39 The County -wide fee was cut in half two years ago. The amount of funds is less than half of
40 what they used to be. The Acme/Van Zandt Sub - District budgeted $47,000, and they will
41 receive $11,000 to put in an emergency fund. The Lynden Sub - District budgeted $122,000,
42 which a certain amount has already been spent due to their levy surveying contract. They will
43 receive $27,000. The Nooksack/Everson/Sumas Sub - District budgeted $170,000 because of the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Swift Creek project and the bank stabilization project. They would receive $60,000.
Dawson stated that there is an appeal process. Mitchell stated that the districts were
drawn out with the best local knowledge available. There is a mechanism to address people who
believe their water drains the other away. The districts can go through the database and make
adjustments for those things. The people that contribute to the flooding should be assessed in
addition to those who benefit.
Hoag questioned the appeal mechanism.
Mitchell stated that, to appeal, a citizen would contact the sub - district, which would
recommend modification in the assessment role.
Barbara Cory, County Treasurer, stated that something needs to be formally adopted to
adjust the assessment role. The sub - district committees have no authority to authorize a reduced
assessment, unless that authority is given to them. The only entity with the authority to reduce
the assessment role, once it is turned over to her, is the County Council. Council can create a
procedure to give the sub - district committees authority to reduce the role.
Mitchell stated that some issues could be dealt with, but he was not implying that anyone
who said that they are outside the flood area would be exempt from the flood assessment. If
their drainage contributes, then they will be included.
Gibson clarified that boundary changes are recommend by the sub - zones. They
recommend to Council who actually adopts the procedures.
Dawson asked whether it would be possible to allow the boards to change the assessment
roles. Gibson stated that there would not be a problem if it is within an appeal process. Total
authority to determine and amend assessment roles cannot be delegated. There can be a
mechanism to give discretion to the body that recommends, but Council would have to give final
authorization.
Nelson stated that the appeal process could begin with the advisory board, but the County
Council, acting as the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, must make the
decision. Gibson stated that the appeal process could allow the advisory board to make a
decision, as long as there is a loop back to the County Council if a citizen wanted to appeal that
advisory board decision.
Hoag stated that she preferred to get recommendations from the advisory board to the
County Council, who would make final approval.
Fred Nowicke, 3341 Berg Road, stated that eventually the decision would have to come
back to the County Council for approval. The sub -zones could make recommendations.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, Page 3
2 Mitchell questioned whether the County Council has time to hear all of the appeals.
3
4 Cory stated that another proposal is outlined on Council packet page 466. It involves the
5 sub -zones as well. It proposes that $25 be refunded to those that paid the assessment and are
6 found to be outside the flood plain. There is a conflict in principal. On one hand, the Council is
7 going to refund the assessment that they already authorized to be collected. However, on those
8 same parcels, they propose a charge on the new assessment.
9
10 Dawson stated that she was uncomfortable going forward with the refund because the
11 money has already been given to the districts and some of it has already been spent.
12
13 Hoag stated that, had she been on the Council and voted against it, people outside of the
14 flood plain should not have been included. However, this is something that has already been
15 approved and the money has already been spent. It is not appropriate to change. She would not
16 support the refund.
17
18 Hoag questioned whether there are maps of the sub -flood zone districts and the flood
19 zones. Mitchell stated that each sub -flood zone has its own maps.
20
21 Mike Parker, Everson /Sumas District Committee Member, stated that all they can do is
22 make recommendations. The boundaries were created using maps provided by the County. Any
23 parcels inside of that area were defined as being in the flood zone, including parcels that are
24 partly in the flood zone.
25
26 Hoag stated that she heard there are areas along the bank, but are high and outside the
27 flood zone. Mitchell stated that some of the highest lands around the river are right on the bank.
28 It is in the area of the flood plain, but could be taken out of the County flood ordinances by a
29 survey.
30
31 Hoag stated that the proposed assessment is 200% for those parcels within the flood plain
32 and 30% for those parcels outside the flood plain. There is property right along the river that is
33 not in the flood plain because it is high up, but the County is protecting it because it would be
34 damaged because of erosion. Mitchell stated that those parcels would be assessed.
35
36 Hoag stated that the language of the ordinance specifies that if one is in the flood plain,
37 they would be assessed 200 %. If there are properties not in the flood plain, they would not pay.
38 Mitchell stated that the definition refers to the map for final determination. In each sub -zone, the
39 map includes an area from the river out to the flood plain.
40
41 Hoag moved to add to the language of all three ordinances to state, "NOW THEREFORE
42 BE IT ORDAINED... District shall pay a service charge per parcel of two times the County -wide
43 Flood Zone assessment for all parcels within the 100 -year flood plain and/or within 200 yards of
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
the Nooksack river." If a parcel were not in the flood plain, they would still be in the
assessment. This language change would occur on Council packet page 18, line 14; page 37,
line 14; and page 78, line 14.
Parker questioned whether it should be kept along the Nooksack, or should the Sumas
river flood plains be included. Hoag stated it could be changed, but Sumas does not have high
banks.
Randy Watts, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, questioned from where the
measure would be and at what time of year. The Nooksack River is subject to alluvial
movement.
Dawson suggested the ordinary high water mark, which is the vegetation line.
Hoag asked for clarification on the exempt parcels, item C regarding the mineral rights
parcels. Gibson stated that it is about the reservation of rights. If one sells property, but reserves
the rights, then the property owner would be taxed, not the owner of the mineral rights.
Hoag questioned whether the problem had been cleared up with the people who own
mobile homes and lots and were being assessed twice.
Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, stated that they were trying to
fix the problem, but got stuck with the definitions. They notified 391 parcels within this
category. Not all were mobile homes and parcels. There were 391 duplications of tax within the
three sub - zones. The Division sent them a letter, which stated they couldn't fix the problem at
this point in time. There are procedures for consolidation through the Assessor's office that
would take care of it. Every home in a park is being assessed, as well as the park itself.
Hoag questioned whether the 391 parcels included land that was divided into smaller
parcels being assessed more than once. Henken stated that he referred to one parcel having more
than one parcel number. That is what happens when the land is in the name of one owner and
the home is in the name of another owner.
Cory stated that if the same person owns the land and home, they could be consolidated.
Also, a parcel owner who owns more than one parcel can be consolidated by a request from the
Assessor's office.
Nowicke stated that someone would not want to consolidated more than one parcel
because when someone wanted to sell the property, they could not.
Hoag stated that someone can consolidate for tax purposes, but they can still maintain
individual parcels.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Willnauer stated that the County -wide Flood Control Zone resolution has a definitive
definition of a parcel. The County is trying to align parcels in the Assessor's property tax
mechanism to the billing mechanism for the County -wide Flood Control Zone. The definition
comes from a parcel as defined in the Assessor's database. The problem is that the definition is
driven by taxpayer activity. There may be a situation where an owner has two parcels. If the
owner doesn't combine the two parcels, then the Assessor assumes they want two separate tax
bills. Any taxpayer can define any configuration of their property.
Nelson asked for clarification on how someone can increase the amount of parcel
numbers within a zone, which would create more density allowed in the zone. Cory stated that
an owner cannot legally sell beyond the density.
Willnauer stated that there is no connection to land use or land use regulation.
Sutter stated that an owner can sell a parcel, but it is not considered a buildable lot.
Willnauer stated that there is no connection to subdivision or land use capability as a definition
within the Assessor's database. Assessor's parcels are accounts and have no connection to land
use.
Motion to add language carried unanimously.
Dawson asked Gibson to draft a clause regarding the appeal process for someone who
doesn't think they should be included in the sub -zone. Hoag stated that if the appeal process
could go through the advisory committee first, then provide recommendations to the Council, it
would weed through much of the information.
Frakes stated that she could do it.
Gibson stated that drafting an appeal mechanism is more complicated. Nelson stated
there is an inherent appeal process and the ordinance can be amended to include the process at a
later date.
Parker suggested that the committee could include the language, "subject to an appeal
process to be adopted at a later date."
Hoag stated that she wanted it clear that the appeal is about whether or not a parcel is in
the sub -zone, not whether or not the owner wants to pay the tax. She suggested leaving it alone
to come up with language later.
Nelson questioned whether open space valuations are assessed at different valuations.
Willnauer stated that they are assessed at a lower market value than similar parcels.
Hoag expressed a concern about the amount of money generated. It is not enough. She
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, Page 6
I didn't like including people outside the flood plain, but suggested that people in the flood plain
2 pay three times the County flood tax instead of two times. At a later time, the Council needs to
3 take up the issue of funded work that is being done outside the flood plain. She will pursue an
4 amendment to the original flood tax, which states that if improvements are made outside of the
5 flood plain for the general benefit of the County, then the work would be funded 100% from the
6 County flood fund. That work should not be handled by the districts and it is a general benefit
7 for everyone.
9 Hoag moved to increase the sub - district assessment for those within the flood plain to
10 three times the County wide flood assessment.
11
12 Nowicke stated that the burden can't be put on the people in the flood plain. It is a
13 County -wide program, a sub -zone program.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
16
17 Nowicke continued to state that the water is coming down at greater rate than before.
18 They are contributing to that erosion. The people down in the flood plain are not asking for all
19 of that water. It is the responsibility of everyone.
20
21 Hoag stated that the County -wide fund already covers 70% of the projects of the general
22 benefit and contributions of folks. The people that benefit directly from the protection should
23 carry the brunt of the 30 %.
24
25 Sutter stated that would be similar to saying the victim of a crime has to bear the cost of
26 his or her own restitution. If someone up the hill has taken out all the trees, plowed up all of the
27 dirt, and paved over everything, and the water comes washing down on her property, then she
28 should not have to be responsible for taking care of that.
29
30 Nelson stated that he agreed with Sutter. All people have impacts on the river. Because
31 people settled on the river, it is the arterial of the community. All contribute and participate. A
32 lot of those pieces are large agricultural lands from which everyone benefits. The County can't
33 penalize specifically for working and developing the land for generations. The proposal will not
34 control flood problems. All people County -wide should participate, possibly by bringing the
35 flood control tax back up to the maximum amount. The tax was halved because there weren't
36 any projects. Now there are sub - zones. Everyone is impacted. The County needs to make sure
37 the agricultural community benefits the County, and the small cities are able to function and
38 participate as a whole. Everyone has to function as a whole community.
39
40 Dawson stated that she would support a community wide increase in the general flood
41 tax.
42
43 Gibson stated that there is a proposal to assess at double the County -wide rate. That
44 proposal has been advertised and is before the Council. There comes a point when dealing with
45 a taxing mechanism when adequate public notice must be given to go further than what is
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
proposed. There may not be enough adequate notice to triple the mechanism. That is a
judgement call.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Nelson moved to recommend approval of agenda items 3- 5, as amended, by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR
THE LYNDEN /EVERSON SUB -ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT,
SETTING A DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES
AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF INTEREST AND PENALTIES ON
DELINQUENT PAYMENTS OF ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES FOR RECORDATION AND FORECLOSURE OF LIENS
RESULTING FROM DELINQUENCIES (AB98 -280A)
5. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR
THE SUMAS/NOOKSACK/EVERSON SUB -ZONE FLOOD CONTROL
ZONE DISTRICT, SETTING A DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE
CHARGES AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF INTEREST AND
PENALTIES ON DELINQUENT PAYMENTS OF ASSESSMENTS AND
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR RECORDATION AND
FORECLOSURE OF LIENS RESULTING FROM DELINQUENCIES
(AB98 -281 A)
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO RENEW THE
INSURANCE POLICY ON THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY (AB98 -323)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Randy Watts stated that there are two options. He introduced Ken Culver, The Unity
Group, who would explain the two options.
Culver stated that the County could stay with the two current underwriters at a reduced
premium. Those two carriers stuck with the County during periods of adversity. However, the
market place dictates an alternative. There is not a track record with the new company, but
they are an established company. Both alternatives cost less money than the expiring policy.
Hoag requested clarification regarding the types of coverage. Culver replied that there
are two portions to a marine insurance policy. First, the hull and anything that could happen to it
is insured. Separately is the marine protection indemnity /liability policy to cover anything the
ferry or its crew might be involved in. That is where most of the claims have occurred. Those
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
are priced separately. The Marine Office of America Corporation (MOAC) bid for the liability
portion is slightly higher than the existing carriers. His belief is that the hull portion may be
under - priced in order to get the County's business. The decision to be made is between a known
group of underwriters that have been with the County vs. the underwriters that are established,
but have bid higher.
Hoag questioned the likelihood of returning to the previous provider if next year's
premium with the new company were to be raised. She would rather go with lower cost.
Nelson's concern is that there is adequate coverage. Culver stated that the terms and
conditions are identical. The coverage itself will be in one package and there will be only one
underwriter.
Hoag moved to recommend the MOAC option.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO RENEW THE
INSURANCE THROUGH WASHINGTON COUNTIES RISK POOL (AB98 -324)
Randy Watts, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it is an already budgeted
amount. It is 95% of last year's premium.
Hoag asked for clarification of the chart on Council packet page 150. Watts stated it is
97% of last year's premium, not 95 %. The premium has gone down, based on rating and history.
Rating is based on fewer accidents, the market rate, and other factors.
Hoag questioned which factors go into the rating. Watts stated that it is also the number
of claims, the deductible, and the market rate. The amount of the insurance and the deductible
remain the same.
Nelson moved to recommend approval
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD RFP 98-
104, INTERNET APPLICATION SERVER IMPLEMENTATION, TO THE
LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER IBM, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$75,000 (AB98 -325)
Hoag questioned why there was only one bidder.
George Reid, Administrative Services Information Services Manager, stated that there is
no explanation. It is a tight market place. There is a lot of computer work in the market place,
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
and some people just don't want the work. The bid received has a good price tag. The County
budgeted approximately $90,000.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID 98-
102, EXTERIOR INSULATION AND REFINISH AT NW ANNEX, TO THE
LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER NORTHERN MARINE AND GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE TOTAL BID AMOUNT OF $161,700
(AB98 -326)
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that the County went out
to bid twice, and received one bid each time. The initial bid was over the County's budget. It is
possible that there is a tight timeframe in getting in place. There may be not have been enough
people to do the work. The budgeted amount was approximately $160,000.
Dawson questioned whether an increase in the response time would have generated more
bids. Bennett stated that they are required to advertise for two consecutive weeks. Each time,
bidders were given two weeks to respond, for a total of a month. The County went through the
full process twice. When times are good, it is tough to get bids. The County wanted this
completed this year and the construction season is running out.
Hoag questioned whether extending the time would get a lower price. Bennett stated that
going out to bid again might result in a higher bid. This may be it.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH EMCON TO PROVIDE ON -CALL
SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB98-
327)
Hoag requested clarification. There seems to be duplication. She wanted to see the
original contract.
Dick Prieve, Public Works Maintenance and Operations Division Assistant Director,
stated that they use a consulting firm for on -call services whenever there is a soil problem. They
have used the company two other times this year. A third problem was brought on board due to
a complaint of a Council Member. The County Executive, Pete Kremen, signed up to $15,000.
The contract is exceeding it's $15,000 limit, which is why it is before the Council.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Sutter stated that the original agreement was for $10,000. As of July, $8,000 had been
spent. In August, the $10,000 was increased to $15,000.
Hoag stated that she would like to see exactly what the spending history was.
Nelson stated that he would like to know the testing results.
Nelson moved the item forward without a recommendation because additional
information is needed.
Nelson stated that the item should be tabled at the Council level.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT CFHMP
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN A TOTAL AMENDMENT
AMOUNT OF $29,980 (AB98 -328)
Hoag moved to forward without a recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
FOR REVISION OF THE EXISTING CFHMP DOCUMENT FOR A TOTAL
PAYMENT NOT TO EXCEED $62,095 (AB98 -329)
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $18,649.78 (AB98 -330)
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated that he had an amendment.
A part of the write -off request included services provided in 1998. They can bill Medicaid
services for up to one year. He distributed an amendment. All services in the packet are from
1995 through 1997. The dates listed in the packet are the dates that the last attempt was made to
collect payment. They aren't the dates of services. All services have been billed to Medicaid,
but have been denied. They may have been denied due to administrative errors. The former
Health Department administration didn't bill properly to Medicaid, Medicare, and private
insurance. They are also trying to do a better job at applying a sliding fee scale. The
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
amendment would decrease the amount of the write -off to $17, 034.53.
Hoag questioned whether state law allows that they be turned over to collections.
Benjamin stated that it is not allowed if they are not Medicaid eligible.
Hoag questioned whether the accounts could be sifted through to weed out those that can
be turned over to collections. Benjamin stated that he would like to begin do that, but not do it
retroactively.
Nelson stated that the Health Department probably does not have coupon evidence to
prove whether they are Medicaid eligible. They are getting Medicaid eligibility verified by the
coupon, and entering the PIN number. There needs to be a signed copy of the coupon to verify
to the state that there is a Medicaid eligible person.
Benjamin stated that soon there will be a fiscal policy to include what would be billed for
and other billing concerns. This will come to the Board of Health.
Hoag moved to decrease the amount to $17, 034.53.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend as amended to Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE
THAN A YEAR OLD IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $6,262.72 (AB98 -331)
Dawson questioned whether the individuals were called or administration tried in other
ways to notify the individuals.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that it would cost more
for the County to call and then issue new warrants. It may be a banking problem. This
resolution would put money back in the bank accounts due to people who have not cashed
County checks.
Hoag questioned one warrant for over $5,000. Bennett stated that the recipient, such as
the Fire Department, may have requested the warrant, then decided they didn't need it and tore
up the check. He may have called on that warrant.
Hoag questioned the liability the County would incur if someone later claims the amount.
Cory stated that the County could reimburse someone.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE MULTI -
JURISDICTIONAL NARCOTICS TASK FORCE PROGRAM NO. F98- 37498-
019, IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,069 (AB98 -340)
Hoag questioned the amount that the County must match according to the contract and
why the amount is so high.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that he met with the
Sheriff about this. The entire match is in -kind. The County is doing the administration, but
there are no out -of- pocket costs. The group is comprised of Customs, Bellingham Police
Department, Whatcom County Sheriff, and groups down the I -5 corridor.
Hoag questioned whether the appropriation was the same as before. Bennett stated that it
is the same.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING YEAR 2000
UPGRADE TO THE COUNTY'S COMPUTER SYSTEM (AB98 -322)
Nelson stated that there is a packet of information from the Information Services
Division of Administrative Services.
George Reid, Information Services Manager, stated that in 1995 the County began
discussing the year 2000 (Y2K) issue with County computer systems vendors. The
County is in good shape. The financial system is compliant and in user test mode. It
may be put in production early next year. The Treasurer and Assessor systems are due
for completion by March 1999. Other systems are being done in -house and will take 250
man -hours to get 350 programs done, hopefully by January. Other issues that have been
brought to the departments' attention are specific applications used by the individual
departments, such as permit planning, voter registration, and the fueling system at the
shop. The telephone system is compliant. The voice mail system needs an upgrade,
which will be requested during the 1999 budget process and will be updated early in first
quarter.
Other issues that don't include computers include imbedded chips, such as used in
elevators, fax machines, and anything that is date - specific. Computer and
telecommunications should be done and fully compliant by the first quarter of 1999.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, 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
Nelson requested a report during the first quarter of 1999.
OTHER
Nelson moved to recommend approval of adding $15 for tapes to the request for
reimbursement of Council Member Brenner's expenses.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Member
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/15/98, Page 14