HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance September 29 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
44
45
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
September 29, 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, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Absent:
None
(Clerk's Note: Committee first discussed Items 4 and 5 under Consent Agenda.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1998 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 8 (AB98 -315)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, requested that the first supplemental request from
the Prosecuting Attorney be the last item discussed.
Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request item #2.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend supplemental request item #3.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend supplemental request item #4.
Wareing stated that items #4 and #5 are the result of the County Criminal Law And
Justice Group. A statewide formula is used as a model for allocating BECCA bill money. The
Group applied the model and recommended to the administration how to use the money.
Nelson questioned the administration costs on item #3. Gary Wood, Juvenile Court
Administrator, stated that the costs refer to the State administration, not County administration.
The 10% overhead is the amount of time he puts in as the administrator. Any capturing of
money by the County for administrative overhead is prohibited. Money has been received from
the State for past BECCA bill activities. The entitlement money for the current fiscal period of
July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 is approximately $322,000.
Nelson questioned why there is more money than expenditures. Wood responded that
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
there is more money available than is used.
Nelson questioned whether the extra money would go into the General Fund. Wareing
stated that the Public Defender is using the extra money for added personnel through the end of
the year. There is a positive net amount of additional funds to the County.
Hoag asked for clarification of the reason the County is not allowed to count
administrative overhead, yet Wood's salary is allowed. Wood responded that capturing
administrative overhead is prohibited. However, in this case, he chose to capture some of his
time, so the County does not have the expense. There are some programs that are allowable that
are federal pass - through dollars.
Steve Paus, Juvenile Court Probation, clarified that legislation does not allow indirect
costs. They consider the administration of the program within the court, i.e. Wood's salary, to
be a direct cost.
Dawson moved to recommend supplemental request #5.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request item #6.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend supplemental request #7.
Nelson asked for clarification on the reason that the Treasurer needed additional
appropriation. Michaelyn Dixon, Chief Deputy Treasurer, stated that it is because of the number
of foreclosures on Sudden Valley have depleted funds available to do the actual foreclosures.
Nelson stated that the County knew about this last year. He questioned why the
Treasurer wasn't prepared for this. Wareing stated that it was not known that this would occur.
Hoag questioned whether the Council approved the money. Wareing stated that the
Council requested that administration fund from the Current Expense Fund as part of the deal
with the Public Utility District.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request item #8.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that the request for $25,000 for the jail kitchen equipment seemed like a lot
of money. Wareing stated that this has been discussed for a while. It is a large component of the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
kitchen. They have tried to fix it, but it has failed. It is rusted throughout the inside. It must be
replaced because various components fail.
Dan Fitzgerald, Chief Corrections Officer, stated that he had a bid from a kitchen supply
company in Seattle. This is a multi- component unit with the jail. Over 900 meals per day are
served. It consists of two steam ovens and a steam generator. They are used every day. The
steam generator has been replaced and repaired a number of times over the last couple of years.
It is beyond its average life.
Nelson stated that it is specialized equipment with a single source provider.
Hoag questioned the only bidder. Fitzgerald stated that they would have to bid the item
out. The cost is a close estimate. There are only two manufacturers of this kind of equipment.
The outfit that issued the quote does not sell equipment. They repair the equipment.
Hoag questioned whether there are other types of equipment that can be used instead.
Fitzgerald stated that it has been used twice its life span, which is why it breaks down. The
company in Seattle stated that this was the best type of equipment available.
Nelson questioned whether the funds go into an equipment rental and revolving (ER &R)
fund. Wareing stated there is no ER &R for jail equipment. It is being looked into.
Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request #9.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request #10.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request #11.
Motion carried unanimously.
Knapp stated that the current code enforcement workload requires more staff. They need
two staff personnel so one can handle the fieldwork and one can do clerical work. Planning and
Development Services has many calls and requests to that only one person in the field creates a
burden on the current staff. Additional staff persons would allow the needed work to be done.
That additional team would be in the field with a cellular phone, but they would be concentrated
on their work. Currently, the division managers pick up the burden of the Code Compliance
officer.
Hoag questioned the job descriptions and their duties and whether a clerk instead of a
second specialist could handle the paperwork portion of the service.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated that is the role of the Clerk III on board. It
is very effective. Part of the request came from the Administrative Water Team, from whom the
advice was taken. Both the Portage Bay and the Administrative Water Team reviewed the
requirements. Additional services request for 1999 will include a Land Use Specialist and a
Clerk III to work as a team.
Knapp clarified that the additional service request for 1999 will be for the existing
workload, in addition to the agricultural nutrient services.
Hoag stated that the request for the Land Use Specialist and Clerk III can be taken up in
the budget process. Knapp stated that the issues should not be confused. He wanted to be sure
the people can work both areas of ag nutrient and other code enforcement.
Dawson questioned whether a clerk would have a reduced salary. Knapp stated yes, but
the clerk couldn't go into the field.
Hoag questioned the Clerk III salary. Knapp stated that it would approximately be in the
$20,000 range.
Wareing stated that the budget is going to be tight. There is a need and interest in adding
another code enforcement person. This is an opportunity to provide a person that can do double
duty, both paperwork and enforcement. From the administrative point of view, the County
should keep two code enforcement officers, for a total of three, because they would get more for
the money.
Nelson questioned the amount of the revenue generated by code enforcement and
whether they offset the expenditure. Knapp stated that it has not been tracked.
Middleton stated that it does not. Fees collected in the Land Use Division cover 40% of
the cost. Knapp stated that the reason is because the Land Use Division gives someone a chance
to comply by issuing warnings.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that the fees collected by
the Building Services Division pays for itself. The Planning Division does not generate revenue.
Fees collected by the Land Use Division covers about 40% of their costs.
Hoag stated that this isn't the time to address this issue. It should be discussed during the
budget. She preferred to fund a Land Use Specialist I and a clerk. It would accomplish the job.
If the County needs two Land Use Specialists, they should both be Land Use Specialists I, not
Land Use Specialists II.
Middleton stated that the difference between a Land Use Specialist I, a Land Use
Specialist II, and a Senior Land Use Specialist is the complexity of the cases they deal with. The
Land Use Specialist I does not handle cases going to the Prosecutor. The difference is the level
of complexity and the degree of authority and responsibility. The current code enforcement
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 4
I officer is a Land Use Specialist I, but he gets paid out of class a lot of the time.
2
3 Knapp stated that the senior level people have to pick up the burden, to the detriment to
4 other things they should be doing.
5
6 Hoag stated that the job description of a Land Use Specialist I describes all the things
7 that is expected of the ag nutrient enforcement officer.
8
9 Middleton clarified that the Land Use Specialist I "assists with" certain duties, but is not
10 directly responsible for them.
11
12 Knapp stated that it is a high turn over position and is very stressful. They don't want to
13 lose an experienced person.
14
15 Sutter questioned the enforcement for the manure ordinance. When the Portage Bay
16 program was adopted, it stated they would authorize $183,000 for a farm inspector and an
17 enforcement officer. This request is for less than that amount. Also, enforcement of the manure
18 ordinance only takes six months of the year.
19
20 Hoag stated it would be nine months. Sutter stated that they would not be full time
21 enforcing that ordinance, so they would be doing a lot of other things too, which may require
22 two Land Use Specialists.
23
24 Sutter questioned whether future requests for additional FTEs could be for clerks if the
25 two requested Land Use Specialists are approved. Knapp stated that it is possible. The winter
26 months are the peak time for the spreading of manure, when enforcement has to take place.
27
28 Hoag stated that few farmers will violate the ordinance from November through March.
29 It is during harvest time that the department will be swamped, when spreading gets close to the
30 ditches. The low time would be November through January. There is already one code officer.
31 If a Land Use Specialist and a clerk were approved, there would be two Land Use Specialists.
32
33 Hoag moved to change the request to a Land Use Specialist I and a Clerk III.
34
35 Dawson stated that she preferred to wait for the budget process to approve more clerks.
36
37 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
40
41 Wareing stated that the position in supplemental request #13 begins compliance with
42 grant from the State Department of Ecology (DOE). DOE stated that the County must put forth
43 a good faith effort or else the grant would be withdrawn. The County advertised the position to
44 make a good faith effort. Barry Hill may have applied. The position is within a day or two of
45 interviews. Whatcom County is responsible for administering the grant, but doesn't have
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 5
I latitude to solely hire the person. They have to hire in concert with other participating
2 jurisdictions.
3
4 Sutter questioned how a person could engage in duties before the scope of work is
5 created. Wareing stated that the Water Team is moving the components forward at the same
6 time. The position will begin when the planning process is established and the scope of work is
7 established.
9 Nelson moved to recommend supplemental request # 13.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Dawson stated that item #1 is proposed to address the Ferndale Sewer Lagoon settlement.
14 The contractor is willing to reduce the charges by $50,000, for an amount of $126,251.84 to add
15 to the $135,000 currently being requested to add to the Tort Fund. The total would be
16 $261,251.84.
17
18 Randy Watts, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the County has been involved
19 in ongoing negotiation. Hours have been reviewed. 100 hours have not been billed. They
20 discussed the rate per hour. The contractor was willing to change the same rate for everyone
21 who worked, which reduced the labor rate to $35.22 per hour. They've indicated they will take
22 the offer off the table and they will bill every hour at the different rates. The contractor wants to
23 be paid by October 5.
24
25 Hoag wanted clarification that the contractor would withdraw his offer. This project
26 always comes in at the last minute, with a request that has no time for review. There has been
27 plenty of time to work out the negotiation.
28
29 Wareing stated that they have been working to bring it to settlement. Administration has
30 stated that it is important for A -1 to provide documentation of the charges and support the
31 billings he submitted to the County. The administration refused to sign any additional
32 amendments to the original contract because they felt that they required Council approval.
33 Administration has pushed A -1 to provide documentation. He is not an easy person to deal with.
34 He would not provide information until he has an assurance that he would be paid. Wareing
35 told him that this would not go before the Council until they had documentation that they could
36 review. There is an offer to settle at a reduced amount. Wareing calculated the amount of the
37 settlement. Administration is not obligated to consider paying interest to A -1. Watts stated the
38 contractor has waived the interest charge. The County stated that they would not pay interest
39 until the contractor comes up with documentation to prove his billings. He has charged interest
40 at 18 %. The County would not pay any interest. They are not in a bid situation. He is willing to
41 reduce the hourly billings. Wareing deducted the interest for a total of $127,395.49. There is a
42 charge for a four -day delay and for the transport and set up of a machine in the amount of
43 $20,000, which is too high. Also, he charged the County for business that he had to forgo.
44
45 Watts stated that, in addition, the contractor charged the County for lodging for the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 6
I operators of the equipment.
2
3 Wareing stated that the money charged for loss of other business, when he was being
4 paid full price for the job in operation, doesn't make sense. The administration would not pay
5 him a dime until charges have been verified. That Tort Fund replacement of $135,000 plus all
6 the extra would total $229,683.33.
7
8 Hoag stated that someone told her that A -1 was told what was going on at the site and
9 that the material would have to be pumped out and other details of the project. A -1 stated they
10 did not have that information. She questioned whether she could discuss change of contractors.
11 Watts stated that was discussed in executive session.
12
13 Sutter questioned what would happen if the amount is not approved. Watts stated that the
14 bill does not get paid and the County is likely to go into litigation. It is likely that litigation
15 would cost more than this settlement.
16
17 Wareing stated that the savings he calculated is fair for both parties. Situations such as
18 this come down to the most acceptable choice. If the administration is authorized to make the
19 transaction, there is not a better deal. Litigation would cost at least the same.
20
21 Hoag questioned how the cost compared with the original estimate of the work to be
22 done. Wareing stated that those figures will be provided. After they found out they would have
23 to remove the materials from the site, the initial estimate from him was $48,206.11. The whole
24 process cost a great deal more than that. The County has already paid $226,471.84.
25
26 Wareing stated that in the original agreement to address the issue, the Council's intent
27 was to see the sewage lagoon shut down. It could not be done in the manner that was initially
28 proposed. All solids had to be removed and transported away. That process was far more
29 expensive. Administration administered the process as best they could. Subsequent
30 amendments were not approved by the administration. They were sent back to Watts for Council
31 approval. Settlement is for the cost of the tasks that were done for which the County is
32 responsible to pay.
33
34 Nelson stated that the issue has gotten blown out of proportion. He questioned how
35 administration would prevent this situation in the future. Wareing stated that information is
36 coming forward to prevent this situation from happening again.
37
38 Hoag stated that there are witnesses that stated the owner knew what the job would entail.
39
40 Nelson stated that the witness's credibility cannot be established. It is not a fair
41 discussion. The issue is whether the County can take care of the problem. Certainly the price is
42 excessive compared to original price tag. It is a responsibility the County undertook and they
43 agreed to with the City of Ferndale.
44
45 Wareing stated that the administration was not involved in this. If it had been, they
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
would have referred to the department that would have researched the issue in the normal course
of their business.
Hoag stated that she referred the witness's call to Brenner, who got a written statement
that was distributed to the Council Members months ago.
Nelson moved approval for the funding the $229,683.33 to pay for the $135,000 plus the
$94,683.33.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag abstaining.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 97 -073, AUTHORIZING EXCESS CASH
IN CERTAIN FUNDS TO BENEFIT SAME (AB98 -336)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that certain funds in the County's drug fund,
which are administered under the auspices of the Prosecuting Attorney, had to be entirely
benefited by any interest that was generated by those funds. Federal rules and law require that
all the money from the operation of the drug fund benefit the fund and anti -drug efforts. The
ordinance enables that money be credited to the fund.
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Nelson stated that in the past, the County tried to use funds for other issues regarding
criminal justice. He questioned whether this would remain in the drug fund. Wareing stated that
it is credited back to drug fund for the use on the war on drugs.
Nelson stated that there are other impacts from war on drugs, such as education. Wareing
responded that all the federal government requires is that any interest that is developed from the
drug fund is put back in the drug fund. The County accounts for a portion of the funds
separately. The appropriations from the fund can be used for law enforcement or drug related
efforts. The County has to look at the requirements of the laws and rules as to how that would
apply in any situation. It just places the money back into the fund. It doesn't change the use of
the funds.
Wareing discussed the supplemental budget item #1 and referred to the last section of the
summary statement on the Agenda Bill form. This adds the jail crew supervisor approved from
supplemental #3 to the full -time equivalents (FTE). It would not require any further action by
the committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND AND THE
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 8
I WHATCOM LAND TRUST TO PURCHASE THE CANYON LAKE CREEK OLD
2 GROWTH FOREST UTILIZING CONSERVATION FUTURE FUNDS NOT TO
3 EXCEED $700,000, WITH THE REMAINING $2,992,000 IN PURCHASE FUNDS TO
4 BE PROVIDED BY THE PAUL G. ALLEN FOREST PROTECTION FOUNDATION,
5 CROWN PACIFIC TIMBER, AND AN ANONYMOUS DONOR (AB98 -346)
6
7 Dawson stated that Council Members have visited the site. Many are supportive. She
8 was concerned about using the Conservation Futures Fund. The Council's responsibility is to
9 put easements in place to prevent development. Parts of the agreement request that no resources
10 be used. The second growth at some point will be needed. She wanted to leave that open to be
1 I used if needed.
12
13 Dawson moved to amend the conservation easement, under the Facts and Objectives, in
14 the second paragraph, to state, "The Land Trust is a publicly supported, non -profit corporation
15 organized to preserve the ecological wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural, recreational, and open
16 space value of the land while at the same time providing an avenue for education and research."
17 and to further amend on page 2, the last paragraph, to state "The purpose of this conservation
18 easement is to protect the core old growth from human activity, to enhance and also manage the
19 evolution of the second growth trees to a ,,.,,,tufe forest so as to maintain the biologically and
20 structurally diverse forest for educational purposes." That language regarding the mature forest
21 is too vague. Cutting and harvesting is an education in itself. Also, page 3, section 2 states
22 "conduct unobtrusive, non - scientific science research." That sentence prohibits cutting. It
23 should be modified to state, "conduct non - intrusive, non - destructive scientific research in the old
24 growth forest."
25
26 Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust, stated that there is no problem with the intent. The
27 problem is that the document is tightly constructed and they need to talk about the intent and
28 work it into the document. He suggested Council approve the agreement subject to an agreement
29 of the added intent.
30
31 Dawson stated that she had concerns with #8 and #2, and interprets it as only allowing
32 harvest of the downfall. Jack stated that these are permitted uses, stating what is allowed. One
33 addresses forest management, and one addresses the kid of research to be done. Adding the
34 language "cuts" is narrower than "operations," which also include logging roads and clearance of
35 brush. It would create problems to amend a legal document without working through the whole
36 document.
37
38 Dawson stated that other language preserves the second growth.
39
40 Hoag expressed concern with #2. It is important to differentiate between old growth and
41 second growth. In item #8, she didn't like the word "cuts." The current language leaves it open
42 to the County and the Parks Department to manage, subject to approval of the Land Trust, which
43 is appropriate. The last sentence is not intended to turn the second growth into old growth, but
44 to be used for recreation and education. Language directs turning the entire area over to old
45 growth. Jack stated that the second growth would not be managed as a tree plantation, but
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, 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
logged in a way characteristic of an old growth forest. There is no problem with working the
intent out, but they have to rewrite it to work not only for the Council members, but also the Paul
Allen Foundation and the anonymous donor. He suggested they delegate someone on the
Council to work it out. It must be done quickly because the option expires at the end of October.
Crown Pacific stated that they would reduce the purchase price if the deal is closed by the end
of November. They must begin the process quickly. If they don't exercise the option, then they
would have to pay the $100,000 to extend the option from the Paul Allen Foundation.
Dawson agreed to negotiate the intent.
Nelson questioned who did the appraisal.
DeSpain stated that Mr. Newman from Everett conducted the appraisal.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
Nelson questioned the revenues. Jack stated that they have $50,000 for maintenance and
operations (M &O). Parks estimated an M &O budget for the first year to be $6,000. It is likely
that an additional $200,000 would be added to the maintenance care fund by the end of March.
Nelson questioned whether the County could take Conservation Futures money and
designate them for M &O. DeSpain stated no.
Jack stated that a similar thing was done with Squires Lake and it has not come back to
the Coucil for M &O.
DeSpain described the schematic.
Jack stated that the conservation easement allows for maintenance of a clearing to
maintain a view.
DeSpain stated that there is not a lot of maintenance.
Nelson questioned how to pay for development of the area. DeSpain responded that
development would be paid from the M &O funds from the Land Trust, not from the County
current expense fund. Jack stated that the abandoned logging roads into the second growth
would be expanded to the trail network. Crown Pacific has agreed to do additional roadwork.
Nelson questioned the vision of the educational purposes and park maintenance. Jack
stated that there will be scientific research and environmental education.
Nelson would like students to see logging practices done right. He questioned whether
there a mechanism for that education. DeSpain stated that there are people from the County,
Western Washington University, and the Land Trust that would create an advisory committee.
Jack stated that the vision is for a management committee, who would have subgroups on issues
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 10
I such as environmental education. Public recreation would be managed through the Parks
2 Department, education and scientific research would be managed through the University.
3
4 Hoag stated that she believed the County and the University would make plans for the
5 operations, and would run the plans through the Land Trust for approval. Jack stated that the
6 Land Trust would participate as an advisor /observer. The County would be the property owner.
7 There is a good working relationship with the Land Trust and the County.
9 Hoag questioned who would pay for the construction of a caretaker facility. DeSpain
10 stated that the Parks Department would have to come to Council to come up with that money.
11 That would only be once the land is used for camping and more research.
12
13 Hoag stated that she was surprised Crown Pacific asked for fair market value and
14 questioned whether Crown Pacific would reduce the price.
15
16 Russ Paul, Land Manager for Crown Pacific, stated that they sold the area to Trillium,
17 then purchased it back. When negotiations began, timber values were higher. The appraisal
18 price was three times what it is now. Crown Pacific could hold the property until timber prices
19 rise again, and they could sell for three times what they are currently asking. Jack stated that
20 they already reduced the price $146,000.
21
22 Sutter questioned Western Washington University's (WWU) contribution and
23 responsibility. Jack stated that their contribution has been nothing. It would take two years for
24 them to get funding. The Board of Trustees would be discussing the issue and they would be
25 responsible for the costs associated with scientific research or environmental education, when
26 they are the primary movers. DeSpain stated that the grantors were interested in the University's
27 participation. The donated money could be given to the University, but it would increase the
28 cost of the transaction.
29
30 Sutter stated that she would like to approve subject to an agreement with WWU
31 regarding who would be responsible for various issues. Jack stated that WWU officials would
32 not have a problem with developing a management agreement.
33
34 Sutter questioned the term "supervised public access ". DeSpain stated it is the tour.
35
36 Sutter questioned whether the amount remaining in the Conservation Futures Fund is
37 calculated after the Nessett Farm has been paid for. DeSpain stated yes, and next year there is a
38 projected income of approximate $680,000, which brings the balance up to $1.2 million.
39
40 Hoag questioned whether there is a way for the County to front money to WWU while
41 they apply for grants for education. Jack stated that the problem is that they can only apply for
42 grants, but can't guarantee that they would receive grants. Realistically, once the property is
43 purchased it would be impossible to receive grants. The Land Trust has said they will make this
44 work.
45
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 11
I Nelson moved to recommend approval subject to the approval of a management
2 agreement between all parties and a conservation agreement that addresses forest practices and
3 education.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT
8 AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH SOUND REGIONAL SUPPORT NETWORK, TO
9 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PLANNING
10 AND COORDINATION, AND FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS OF
11 WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $111,954 (AB98 -347)
12
13 Benjamin stated that this pays the County money for administration for planning for adult
14 and child resource coordination efforts and also provides for reimbursement for administrative
15 costs. There is an amount that would go to a program for the mentally ill and chemical abusers.
16
17 Nelson moved to recommend approval.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
22 AGREEMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) FOR FEDERAL
23 MATCHING FUNDS FOR POTTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT IN THE
24 AMOUNT OF $76,053, WITH THE BIA SHARE OF $60,843, AND WHATCOM
25 COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,210 (AB98 -348)
26
27 Nelson moved to recommend approval.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
32 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND
33 PARADISE LAKES COUNTRY CLUB, FOR THE TIME FRAME OF OCTOBER
34 THROUGH DECEMBER 1998, FOR REIMBURSABLE SERVICES FOR TWO
35 DESIGNATED DEPUTIES ASSIGNED TO THE PARADISE LAKES AREA, IN THE
36 AMOUNT OF $85,000, AND WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT
37 OF $13,000 (AB98 -349)
38
39 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that this has been through negotiations
40 between the County Sheriff and the Paradise Lakes Country Club. There are a lot of law
41 enforcement issues in the area. A problem is that the Sheriff is spread thinly throughout in the
42 County. Paradise Lakes and that area is located outside the Sheriff's normal work area. The
43 area itself is a heavy load work area. The Club has opted to enter into the contract for sheriff
44 deputies in the area. It would cost the County $13,000 in the first year. It is a fairly small
45 amount compared to the amount contributed by the Country Club. It is financially reasonable. It
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 12
I puts more sheriff deputies in the area.
2
3 Hoag questioned the use of the $13,000. Wareing stated that the amount that the Country
4 Club would provide would be total coverage of the entire cost of the two sheriffs. The total cost
5 includes hiring the deputies, purchasing and equipping two patrol vehicles, equipment, and
6 training.
7
8 Dean Sandell, Undersheriff, stated that the first year cost is for the last quarter of 1998.
9 $85,000 represents $60,000 for capital equipment, and $25,000 is for two deputies. In 1999
10 there will be $100,000 for the deputies, and no additional capital costs. It will cost $97,000 total
11 to equip and staff two sheriff deputies for three months. Paradise Lakes Country Club will pay
12 $85,000.
13
14 Hoag stated that philosophically she is opposed. The County should provide all law
15 enforcement in the County.
16
17 Dawson questioned whether this is private association with private roads. Herman
18 Schoen, Paradise Lakes County Club General Manager, stated that all the roads are County
19 roads.
20
21 Sandell stated that the Sheriff's Office agrees that the County should pay for all law
22 enforcement. They would like to give all citizens more sheriff services. They do patrol Paradise
23 Lakes County Club and respond to calls. They receive the same level of service as other areas in
24 the County within the allocation of the resources that are available. This proposal is not a new
25 concept. It is done at Baker Lake with the Forest Service and Puget Power, because that area is
26 remote.
27
28 Dawson stated that the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) hires deputies from
29 the city of Bellingham to patrol the transit center downtown.
30
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 13
I Nelson questioned how Pt. Roberts is handled. Sandell stated that Pt. Roberts has
2 resident deputies. There are two deputies stationed at Pt. Roberts, which is more unique than
3 Paradise Lakes Country Club. It was not done through contract. If everything were equal, they
4 would not station someone in Paradise Lakes exclusively, but patrol at a higher level.
5
6 Nelson stated that with the additional population in the eastern portion of the County,
7 these measures are appropriate.
9 Nelson moved approval.
10
11 Wareing stated that there is a continuing cost. Also, there is an internal issue within the
12 County Club. There is a question as to whether the Club can do this without an internal vote.
13
14 Schoen stated that their legal requirements were looked into last August. They consulted
15 their attorney. There is no violation, and the Board has complete authority to enter into a
16 contract with the County.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
21 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY JUVENILE COURT
22 ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
23 JUVENILE REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION, REGARDING
24 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THE COMMUNITY JUVENILE
25 ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (CJAA) IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,283 (AB98 -350)
26
27 Gary Wood, Juvenile Court Administrator, stated that this is a Community Juvenile
28 Accountability Act (CJAA) grant, which is a legislatively appropriated joint effort between the
29 Governor's office and Urban Policy Research for the legislature. Urban Policy Research is
30 commissioned to research programs nationally that are proven to reduce recidivism. There are
31 five program choices, and one has been eliminated. Their choice of the four is a family
32 functional therapy program. All of the money for the program is available through the grant.
33 They will contract out services. There are no additional full -time equivalent (FTE) requests.
34 The actual program begins January 1, 1999. The service provider will be contracted to a masters
35 level therapist.
36
37 Hoag questioned the source of the dollars.
38
39 Wood stated this is not funded by impact dollars. There are several different funding
40 streams available. This is one called the CJAA. It is grant money, not County dollars.
41
42 Nelson questioned the specifics of program. Wood stated that the first program opton is
43 multi - systemic therapy, but it costs too much. Functional Family Therapy is designed to modify
44 poor family communication patterns and interactions, including parental supervision and
45 discipline. Targeted kids are the ones coming into the court system with multiple adjudicated
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/29/98, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
offenses. Interventions are individualized for the family. Problems are addressed that are found
during initial assessment. Intervention from school, peer, and community settings is provided to
address the problems in a full family therapy group.
Nelson paraphrased that the family is brought in to discuss the child's problems in
relation with the family setting, and solutions are provided to help the child and family.
Wood stated that there is a risk assessment tool that requires a minimum of two hours per
child, but in reality it takes three hours. They have to engage in doing risk assessments for each
of the 1500 filings per year with the Prosecutor's office.
Nelson questioned how outcomes are measured. Wood responded that Urban Policy
Research will set up a control group to maximize the evaluation. They have to identify the
effects of the control group, for which nothing is done for. The data goes to Urban Policy
Research, then the legislature will look at it again. It is a competitive open process with all
counties participating. The start -up money is minuscule compared to what it would cost the
legislature to fully fund up to approximately $9 million. Right now it is only funded to $2.4
million. The Governor's office stated that both legislative houses jointly agree upon the
appropriation level.
Hoag moved to recommend.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Committee next discussed item I under Committee Discussion and
Recommendation to Council.)
ADJOURN
Meeting adjourned at 11:25 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, 9/29/98, Page 15