HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole August 4, 20151
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
August 4, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 3:13 in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barry Buchanan, Carl Weimer, Barbara Brenner, Satpal Sidhu, Pete
Kremen, and Rud Browne
Absent: Ken Mann
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2015 -025, WHICH CREATED A
WHATCOM COUNTY INCARCERATION PREVENTION AND REDUCTION TASK
FORCE INTENDED TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS, OVERSIGHT, AND
SPECIFIC TIMEFRAMES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW, OR ENHANCEMENT
OF EXISTING, PROGRAMS DESIGNED ALONG A CONTINUUM THAT
EFFECTIVELY REDUCES INCARCERATION OF INDIVIDUALS STRUGGLING
WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AND CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY, AND MINIMIZES )AIL
UTILIZATION BY PRETRIAL DEFENDANTS WHO CAN SAFELY BE RELEASED
(AB2015 -047P)
Jack Louws, County Executive, gave a staff report and stated it's in the County's best
interest to modify the ordinance to include the Bellingham Mayor and incorporate other
changes suggested by the City of Bellingham. He referenced language the Council added to
the next -to -last bullet point on the third page, "Any new agreements shall include
formulas... benefits to the Signator Cities." That language conflicts with language earlier in
the ordinance. If the Cities are not willing to augment diversion programs, there won't be
as much money for the County to do those programs. If any programs are beneficial to the
Cities, they can all sit down and talk about funding them jointly. The additional language
doesn't make a material impact to this ordinance. Conditions change over time. This
particular ordinance does not bind the County over the next 30 years. It's fine to include or
not include that sentence either way, except for the inconsistency. Look at the ordinance
from the perspective of the City of Bellingham.
Weimer stated there was some concern that the County was opening its wallet, with
no control, based on what the City wants. However, language about working within existing
revenue took care of their need to put in a clause about coming up with more revenue.
Sidhu stated they were trying to say that, if there are any new agreements in
addition to the existing agreements, those new agreements shall include revenue. Louws
stated this ordinance can be changed anytime. This ordinance doesn't bind the County to
any other City in the county. They can't bind future councils to expenses without revenue.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/4/2015, Page 1
Browne stated he authored the original language. His primary concern was about
giving control of the programs to the Task Force, including timing and funding. The County
has multiple priorities to fund based on need, and the Council must retain control of timing
and funding. An option is to change the word "benefits" to "savings," so that if the County
saves a City money, then the County would like a percentage of the savings. However, he
can accept the Executive's comments that the County can choose whether or not to start a
new program, based on a new agreement with the Cities. If it moves the process along and
makes the City happy to remove the sentence, he has no problem with removing it.
Louws stated they may not need interlocal agreements, if the County is providing
everything free. The Health Department, for example, is a countywide department. The
County doesn't charge Bellingham specifically for the services used by city residents. If
they are doing work with the behavioral health money on behalf of all citizens countywide,
there aren't interlocal agreements with each jurisdictions. Interlocal agreements are
necessary for the transfer of funds and for contracts. If they come up with a new program
in the future, and the County asks for money from the Cities, they will have to have an
interlocal agreement to legally transfer the funds. The County is committed to providing the
services in this document, and doesn't need to insist on an interlocal agreement if it's not
required.
Brenner moved to amend to delete the seventh bullet point.
Browne asked if the Executive added the first sentence of the seventh bullet point as
a result of his discussion with the Bellingham Mayor. Louws stated he did. However, in this
context and within this ordinance, it's not necessary. They could leave the sentence in and
add "if necessary." However, the sentence obligates them to negotiate an interlocal
agreement when they don't need to.
Browne stated he prefers to leave the language if the Bellingham Mayor and City
Council have requested it, and the County doesn't care about leaving it in.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Browne. If it doesn't make any
difference, leave the sentence with the addition of the words, "if needed."
Brenner amended her motion and moved to amend the seventh bullet point,
"Negotiate interlocal agreements to provide services to the cities consistent with this
ordinance, if needed. Any Fiew agreements shall iflelude ferngulas Wh ecy —t�iw S'.ztmr
�'4� the G ty F e ci.-... -ter ,hies ..�,afe
�r�° �• scFil— �e+ rrrl3t l����rr��nEl'FTr�rBf -�I'ic = ���_.�•_•,_ _._.__ _.._. a t_sf the
servtees that have pFsvided additlenal benefits to the SigiqateF -` hies."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann (1)
Weimer stated the City Council concern is that the City is paying money into this
project for a number of years, and they want some of that money to be designated for
these types of programs.
Brian Heinrich, City of Bellingham Deputy Administrator, stated they are fine with the
language. The City Council did not take action last Monday. The intent was to find a
balance between giving the Task Force direction, without saying what they will ultimately
recommend to the County Council.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/4/2015, Page 2
1
2 Weimer stated he heard from the City Council that this is about starting to expand
3 existing programs using existing money. They don't have any existing money to expand
4 programs at this point. Nothing will happen by adding language that says the County will
5 expand programs using existing money. It sounded like the Mayor and City Council
6 expected the County to start using some of the tax money collected for the bond to instead
7 pay for these programs.
8
9 Heinrich stated an area of contention with the overall financing model is that there is
10 an existing one -tenth of one percent approved ten years ago. Those are what the City
11 considers as the existing dollars available that the Task Force could recommend using.
12 There is also one -tenth of one percent for the behavioral health program, which could be
13 programmed differently. Any new dollars from an approved ballot measure would be
14 potential new funding sources. If the ballot measure were to pass, there would potentially
15 be four - tenths of one percent available. The Task Force could recommend how to spend
16 those dollars. There is a difference of opinion among the City, the County Executive, and
17 the County Council.
18
19 Weimer stated he's fine with the wording, because the Task Force can make a
20 recommendation. The Council may or may not agree. If it addresses the City's concern, it's
21 fine.
22
23 Brenner asked if they can use the existing one -tenth of one percent tax approved ten
24 years ago for programs. Louws stated that money will pay for the increased operating cost
25 for the County to run the replacement jail facility. Over the next 30 years, if they continue
26 to get good sales tax reports, there would be additional money in the system for the County
27 and all the Cities. In the future, they may be able to use a portion of that to program into
28 different areas. The financial model is based on everyone paying the same fixed cost into
29 the capital charges for the next 30 years. Now, the City would collect $2.1 million in taxes
30 and pay $1.3 million for the capital costs. In 33 years, the City would still only pay $1.3
31 million per year, but could be collecting over $3 million per year. As they move forward,
32 there will be opportunity for the County to continue to invest in programs. He's comfortable
33 with the existing language in the sixth bullet point because it gives the Task Force the
34 opportunity to look at and determine what is most appropriate to spend money on.
35 Immediately expanding the programs without knowing whether or not it's an effective use
36 of money is something the County can't do. They have to have the language this way. He
37 hopes Bellingham realizes that this is the best the County can do, and the County is
38 committed. The County spends $11.5 million per year now on keeping people out of jail
39 and making sure they don't go back to jail.
40
41 Browne stated it's not clear why the City believes the County has a surplus of funds
42 that it is not deploying or what programs aren't appropriate, should be shut down, and
43 funds redeployed to other programs. In the absence of that guidance, it's difficult for him to
44 respond to the questions from the City of Bellingham. Heinrich stated the overall financing
45 mechanism is, in some way, zero -sum budgeting. Any dollar that is added to the City is at
46 the expense of what the County would expect to receive. They're trying to look at the
47 totality of the money collected and understand how it's programmed and where it goes.
48 They haven't argued a great deal about the capital contribution model. It's the operating
49 costs that they struggle with. Today, there is a $5 million hit to the County's general fund
50 for jail operations. That amount goes up to $5.3 million by 2019. The City's contribution to
51 operating costs goes up quite a bit more than the County's contribution in the same time
52 period.
53
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/4/2015, Page 3
1 Browne stated that doesn't answer his question. Mr. Heinrich is talking about jail
2 capital and operating costs, and he is talking about diversion programs. The City is asking
3 the County to invest more money immediately in diversion programs. He asked where the
4 City thinks that money will come from. The County is currently spending $11.5 million on
5 programs. If the City thinks that money is spent inadequately or inefficiently, he would like
6 to know what the City suggests for change. Heinrich stated there are two programs:
7 probation services and home monitoring. The City can make a greater financial contribution
8 to probation services. For an offender to participate in the home monitoring program, an
9 offender has to bear most of the expense of the technology. Those are two programs that
10 could be expanded immediately.
11
12 Browne stated he's in favor of programs that cost one dollar and save the County
13 two dollars. He supports programs that keep people out of the jail system or keep them in
14 jail for less time for appropriate reasons.
15
16 Kremen stated it's difficult to develop public policy in this process. It's frustrating to
17 have to develop an interlocal agreement through conjecture. What Mr. Heinrich says may
18 or may not be supported by the City Council. The County Council offered to set up a formal
19 negotiation process with the City Council in a unified effort. The County Council and County
20 Executive have gone the extra mile to make a concerted and genuine effort to come to an
21 amicable agreement. There are no assurances. It's difficult to make these adjustments
22 without knowing if they are going to reach an agreement. Heinrich stated he represents the
23 Mayor, and hasn't suggested what the City Council would or would not approve. The
24 Mayor's interests are in the document she sent to the County Council. If they want to know
25 the City Council's intentions, an article was written in the Herald. Their inaction and
26 statements last week were as illustrative as possible. He does not speak for the City
27 Council.
28
29 Brenner asked if the City Council can require the County to expand probation
30 services or home monitoring, or if only the courts have that authority. Heinrich stated he
31 thinks it's offered in partnership with the judicial system.
32
33 Weimer stated that from the perspective of the judges, the home monitoring
34 program is a budgeting decision that the County Council could probably change. The
35 District Court already has probation services. There are no probation services in Superior
36 Court because the State took that money away a number of years ago.
37
38 Sidhu stated he agrees with Councilmember Kremen. The County Executive gave to
39 the City three months ago the details of the operating expenses and capital expenses. The
40 County never received clear communication from the City, just hypotheticals. If the County
41 could have heard concrete proposals, it would have been much easier to make decisions.
42 There has been nothing accomplished by hypothetical posturing, which is really
43 exasperating. A professional needs to summarize everything in bullet points that they can
44 all just approve or not approve, and then move forward.
45
46 Weimer stated the Mayor asked to be included on the Task Force, which they are all
47 fine with. There is also a position for a representative of the City Attorney and Police Chief,
48 but the City hasn't appointed someone to that position. He asked if the City has discussed
49 filling that position or if the County Council should change that position to the City Mayor.
50 Heinrich stated they've about talked leaving that position as it is, and then sending either
51 the police chief, city attorney, or municipal court judge, depending on the topic the Task
52 Force is discussing. There are plans for the City to designate one of those folks to the
53 position.
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/4/2015, Page 4
1
2 Browne asked if the City would like the Task Force expanded to include all those
3 positions. He would rather expand the Task Force than limit it. Heinrich stated they have
4 the flexibility now to include all those participants within the one position. If the County
5 Council wants to expand the Task Force to include more representatives from the City of
6 Bellingham, he would support that. The Municipal Court Judge is an elected official. The
7 Mayor saw a value in the Judge being a part of the Task Force.
8
9 Browne stated one reason for expanding as reasonably possible is to make evidence -
10 based decisions. The Task Force should come up with ideas and seek evidence -based proof
11 that the ideas would be a good use of money. It takes time to do that properly. He would
12 also like some detail about what the County is doing currently for diversion. They just
13 approved an annual budget of $700,000 for behavioral health issues in the schools, for
14 example. He asked that the Bellingham City Council be made aware of what the County is
15 already spending for those programs. Heinrich stated this process has shown that the
16 amount of money that both jurisdictions contribute toward at -risk populations, in many
17 forms, is a significant amount of money over a variety of programs. It could be they're just
18 deficient in some of those programming areas. The Task Force would be the vehicle to
19 make recommendations to improve that service delivery.
20
21 Browne stated a part of that $700,000 went to Bellingham.
22
23 Brenner moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance as amended. The motion
24 was seconded.
25
26 The motion carried by the following vote:
27 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
28 Nays: None (0)
29 Absent: Mann (1)
30
31 Louws stated he thanks the Council for considering changes to the Task Force
32 ordinance on behalf of the City of Bellingham. If there is an opportunity tonight, make a
33 motion to encourage the City of Bellingham to work with the County on this and commit to
34 working together for the future of Whatcom County. He looks forward to resolving this.
35 Whatcom County and the Cities are at a critical stage. This opportunity to use sales tax will
36 close at the end of this year, based on the increases in construction costs and some of the
37 other issues and challenges. If the County doesn't get this now, it will probably have to put
38 everything on hold for a period of years, before they can take it up again. Whatcom County
39 government will be able to take care of itself, but at the expense of providing jail space for
40 the Cities. It's important that everyone realizes that. That's where they're at. They put
41 together a decent program. It's not perfect. It's financially sound. They will continue to
42 work together as a team on corrections operations. He hopes the Bellingham City Council
43 will take action. They can do so much more if they're working together. It would be
44 unfortunate if they have to diverge when moving forward.
45
46 Sidhu stated the operational costs are where they need to be wiser and more careful
47 over the next 30 years. That's where they can achieve the biggest savings. Pay more
48 attention to those costs.
49
50 Ray Baribeau stated that once a person is arrested and booked, there are three or
51 four options for diversion: bail, drug court, mental health court, and possibly a veterans
52 court. Once booked, a person is in the justice system and trapped by State laws. The bail
53 schedule comes from the State Supreme Court. People who want to change the bail
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/4/2015, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
schedule should lobby the Supreme Court in Olympia. True jail diversion is at the point
where the police officer makes contact with the person who is demonstrating antisocial
behavior. The police officer gets to decide whether to arrest the person or give the person a
warning. Those are the only options. The bulk of the homeless and mentally ill that they're
concerned about in Whatcom County are in Bellingham. In New York City, a police officer
and social worker together would talk to someone who was engaging in antisocial behavior.
If people aren't committing crimes, the police and social worker would take them to the
appropriate social service agency for their needs. That may be what the citizens of
Bellingham want. The issue is if there are enough social workers and if they are willing to
patrol the street. That's up to Bellingham. If they want to do prevention and reduction,
they must be present at the point of contact. Learn from Ron Buchinski and the staff from
the Lighthouse Mission. They do good work and have been called by the hospital to pick up
a mentally ill and homeless person who was being released. True jail diversion is at the
point of arrest.
Everett Barton stated he agrees with Mr. Baribeau. The Bellingham neighborhood
patrolmen are doing a good job. The Task Force should address those first contact
diversion efforts with social services before someone enters the justice system. True jail
diversion begins in the community.
Browne stated he agrees with Mr. Baribeau, with the caveat that programs should
start before law enforcement officers are called. Create programs that avoid first contact.
Identify problems early.
Kremen stated the behavioral health programs in the public school system are aimed
at doing just that.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
C� Th,q %G661ncil approved these minutes on
ATT
• o Oft
J
Dane, Brown- Davis, 'Council.,�lerk
f�/JJJIII IILI 1 \ \ \\
Jill Nixon, Minutes Tran cription
December 8, 2015,
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 8/4/2015, Page 6