Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM122401District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt Count/Administrator: Charles Saddler Depu~/ Count/ Administrator: David Goldsmith Depuh/Counh/Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 24, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Richard Wojt were both present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: fiscal responsibility means being good stewards of current tax dollars; County staffing levels and benefits for employees need to be reviewed; combining services with Clallam County and Port Townsend could reduce staffing in several areas; Jefferson County has the second worst ratio in the State between earnings and the cost of housing; the building industry will suffer from the increase in development fees; don't adopt the new fee schedules until after the beginning of 2002 to allow more time for review; most family wage jobs in the County are in the building industry and at the Paper Mill; if fees go up, building will go down; the County needs more retail businesses so that residents can spend their money here; businesses that create more family wage jobs need to be encouraged; thanks for improving the road from Center to Chimacum; and cut personnel to balance the budget. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Item 1 and to approve and adopt the balance of the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETE: ORDINANCE NO. __ re: Adopting and Approving Certain of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed and Reviewed During the 2001 Amendment Cycle (See item later in minutes.) 2. ORDINANCE NO. 07-1224-01 re: Revisions and Additions to the County's Unified Development Code Associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendments Approved Via an Ordinance During the 2001 Amendment Cycle 3. RESOLUTION NO. 98-01 re: Rejecting Certain of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed During the 2001 Amendment Cycle 4. AGREEMENT, Amendment #4 re: Consolidated Contract; Extending Period to December 31, 2002; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Health Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 10. AGREEMENT 0609-01-CO-001, Modification #2 re: Collection Services; Hoh River Engineered Log Jam Access Request; Jefferson County Public Works; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic National Forest AGREEMENT re: Coordinated Prevention Grant Program Funding for Implementing Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Management Plans and Programs; Jefferson County Public Works - Moderate Waste Facility; Washington State Department of Ecology AGREEMENT #G0200153 re: Flood Control Assistance Account Program Grant Funding for the Acquisition of Quilcene Floodplain Properties; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Ecology AGREEMENT re: Emergency Management Services; Hamlin & Associates AGREEMENT re: Officer/Deputy Labor Agreement; Jefferson County Sheriff' s Office; Teamster Local Union No. 589 Letter of Support for Washington State Employment Security Department's National Reserve Grant Application; United States Department of Labor ORDINANCE NO. 08-1224-01 re: Adopting and Approving Certain of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed and Reviewed During the 2001 Amendment Cycle: (See Iteml on the Consent Agenda.) Commissioner Wojt stated that he is still concerned about MLA01-00227, the redesignation of a parcel from 1:20 acres to 1:10 (yielding two parcels) on Marrowstone Island because he thinks it will set a precedent. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt Ordinance No. 08-1224-01. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Titterness and Chairman Huntingford voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Final Short Plat Approval, #SUBOI-O0014, Pal Short Plat; Located off of Adelma Beach Road, Port Townsen& Lyle and Patricia Boulange, Applicant: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the Pal Short Plat. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinances 12-1209-96, 13-1213-99, 11- 1115-99, and 10-1108-99 the Fee Schedules for the following Departments: Health & Human Services, Animal Services, and the Department of Community Development: Chairman Huntingford acknowledged that the Board has received and reviewed the written testimony regarding the proposed fee schedules. County Administrator Charles Saddler explained that the proposed 2002 Budget requires realignment of development fees that generate income for several County departments. A substantial amount of staff hours are needed to review development proposals and the current fees do not represent the amount of staff time that is necessary to complete the work under County and State law. The fee structure needs to be amended to reflect the total cost of processing fees that are directly related to the proponent. Staff has developed a fee structure that shifts the burden for dealing with governmental regulations that are performed by County staff to the individual applicant. In the past the General Fund subsidized the departments and the proposal before the Board will limit the subsidies for Environmental Health and Community Development reviews. Subsidies would only be provided when there is a broad countywide interest such as the costs for the State mandated Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Fees that deal with development of a single lot or subdivision would be tied directly to the proponent. In order to build a $100,000 single family residence, the current fees are $1,722.36. The proposed fee structure would increase them to $2,299.78 or a lA % increase in the total cost of the home. In developing the proposed fees, the departments focused on whether the fees were appropriate for the work being done and how Jefferson County's fees relate to those of other jurisdictions. They found that these proposed fees are very competitive. Commissioner Wojt asked about the fees for open space/open space. Assessor Jack Westerman answered that under the Timberland statute, the Assessor's Office handles applications for designated timberland over 20 acres. There are three types of open space property: open space/open space, open space/timber and open space/agriculture. DCD reviews the open space/open space and the open space/timber (under 20 acres) applications that go through the Hearing Examiner process. The Assessor's Office reviews the open space/agriculture and the open space/timber (over 20 acres.) These reviews do not have to go before the Hearing Examiner and the only cost that applies is the base fee. He supports a base fee increase from $113 to $121 for these applications. Environmental Health Director Larry Fay offered fee comparisons from several counties including Island County and the Bremerton/Kitsap Health District. In the public health field, everyone is struggling to pay for programs and services. The fees that seem to generate the most interest are the septic and short plat fees and the proposed fees are mid-range compared to the other counties. The fee for evaluation of an existing septic system is going from $100 to $175. Earlier this year, the Board of Health adopted a licensing procedure that allows consultants in the private sector to do this inspection. These consultants suggested that the County charge $250 for an inspection. Larry Fay suggested that temporary food service fees be broken down into a one event fee of $55 or multiple events fee of $90. Animal Services wants to increase adoption fees from $55 to $60. An animal license has been included in the adoption fee in the past. He recommended that the Board make the license fee an added expense. Commissioner Titterness had the following questions about the Environmental Health fee schedule: · Is the Department going to continue to do wet season evaluations? Larry Fay replied that the current policy states that a wet season evaluation is required if there appears to be less than 18" of soil. They want to modify the policy to state that a wet season evaluation will not be necessary if the designer and Environmental Health agree that there is between 12"-18"of soil. · Is the license renewal fee higher after January 31 because a late fee is added? Larry Fay answered yes. · The complex food service establishment fees increased substantially depending on the number of seats in the establishment. He asked why the increase is so great although the Sanitarian's review doesn't really change that much? Larry Fay replied that the fee is also based on the number of employees. Why do both DCD and Environmental Health list a notification of water availability fee? Larry Fay explained that DCD collects the fee for Environmental Health and it is paid through interdepartmental transfers for administration. This fee should not be listed on DCD's fee schedule. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Chairman Huntingford made it clear that the Board directed staff to develop these fee schedules and he asked that any testimony that is given by the public be directed to the Board. Commissioner Wojt asked that the people who comment use facts to address their concerns. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Alan Frank, Port Townsend, stated that in his opinion this is a staff driven ordinance. He heard Deputy County Administrator Gary Rowe report at a budget workshop that the fee income for 2001 was below the projected amount and at that time the suggestion was made to increase fees. He is concerned about the lack of process and study that has been done. The Commissioners are forced to take staff' s word that these increases are necessary and he feels that there needs to be an independent verification. The County must also look at citizen's ability to pay the fees. The average income in other counties is significantly higher than in Jefferson County. Stakeholders who use these fees need to be consulted. Can the process be streamlined to be more efficient? A balanced budget for 2002 should not depend on an ordinance to increase fees that is approved in the last minute. In a County of 26,000 people, the County and the City need to work together to increase efficiencies and decrease staffing and costs. Scott Broderson, asked what percentage of the current fees cover administration costs? Charles Saddler answered that currently 0% of the fees in DCD go toward administrative costs. The Development/Review Division is being subsidized by the Current Expense Fund. It depends on the program in the Health Department. Larry Fay added that the onsite sewage program does not cover direct costs or administration. Chairman Huntingford stated that it is his understanding that the plan check fees in the Building Department are paying their own way, but he is not sure about administrative costs. Al Scalf said that approximately 50% of the fees for permits pay for Development/Review. Long Range Planning is totally subsidized by the Current Expense Fund. Scott Broderson asked about wages and benefits in the Health Department and DCD and if the County plans to hire more people? He said that if the fees are increased, people may decide not to develop. He pointed out a shoreline/waterfront property fee that went from $250 to $2,250. Local residents won't be able to afford to develop their property and they will have sell to people from out of the County that have the money to develop. What about affordable housing? A lot of fees have doubled. The shoreline fee he mentioned went up 9 times. The County shouldn't be any different than local businesses who have to cut wages or employee's hours when times get hard. The 2002 Budget is over $38 million and in a County of 26,000 people that means that the County is spending over $14,000 per person. The County needs to encourage retail businesses so that residents don't have to go to Kitsap and Clallam Counties to spend their money at Costco, Staples, or Walmart. Prices are high and not competitive in Port Townsend. The residents don't have a choice, they have to use the County's services. Hank Sukert, explained that he owns a restaurant and is concerned about his employees. The Paper Mill has laid off employees. The costs to run a business, including electricity and utilities, keeps going up. If these fees are approved, his permit from the Health Department will double and once the County raises fees, they Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 will increase every year. His restaurant only had one health inspection last year and they were supposed to have two. The inspection only took one hour which is the same amount of time it has always taken, no matter how many "seats" they have. The Sanitarian doesn't check out each individual employee. He doesn't think the number of employees really matters. Ken McBride, Port Townsend, questioned whether staff is giving the Commissioners the correct data on how long it takes to do a health inspection, etc. The Commissioners need to listen to the general public as much as they listen to staff. There is too much bureaucracy and he thinks that less staff could be more efficient and do the same work. How many department heads does the County need to be efficient? Chris King, stated that he is a local business owner. He feels that another hearing needs to be scheduled in the West End because the West End residents will also be effected by these increases. He asked The Leader reporter to put this story on the front page. He is in the process of developing a location and is dealing with the permit process. He tried to hire a contractor to get his project through the process but most of the contractors he met said that they did not want to deal with the hassles at Jefferson County DCD. He finally found a Clallam County contractor who is helping him get through the permit process. The permit process needs to be simpler, easier to understand, and more efficient. They had to go out of the County to find someone to do their septic design. $250,000 is four jobs, how many County employees were hired in 20017 How many employees will be hired in 2002? Get rid of the employee benefit package and the retirement plan. Start County workers at minimum wage. He can't hire employees and then expect his business to increase; but if business increases, he can hire additional employees. If a person loses their job and can't pay their property taxes, they lose their house. Why can't building inspection services be privatized? Why not have the community be involved and help each other? In order to make Jefferson County a pleasant place to live, parks are being built and then the County has to pay to maintain them. Why not get community groups to maintain the parks? Why not get the Sierra Club to build the parks? Every time the County "upsizes," the taxpayers have to "downsize." This isn't the way government should operate. Don't raise fees, lower them. The County needs to encourage companies to locate here to support the economy. If Port Townsend becomes an unincorporated city in Jefferson County, maybe the City and the County will start working together. A lot of people in the County are on welfare, why not have them work for the County for the same amount they are getting from the Federal government? James Frit~, stated that a few years ago, 40 houses were built in the County in a year. Now there are 65 contractors and probably a few hundred houses go up a year. This could change in the coming recession. The County needs good job descriptions, good performance standards, and performance reviews for employees. If an employee doesn't have work to do, they should be laid off. The Board has worked hard to make the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC work; but this has created more regulations that have created more development costs. A lot of people in the County don't apply for permits and this will only get worse if fees increase. Gene Seton, Four Corners, pointed out that for the last few years all the County has talked about is raising fees and all they have done is provide less service. The problem is the Board's policy. Last year he had a chance to get a good contract and a good price on some equipment that required a conditional use permit. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 The permit process was lengthy and cost $1,000. By the time he got permit approval the equipment was sold so he didn't get the contract. Some projects that go through the permit process require several public notices. When garbage service got cut, more people started dumping their garbage on remote undeveloped property in the County. Building is a major industry in this County. Look at the whole permit process and simplify policies. It cost thousands of dollars when commercial and industrial property was tightlined in the Comprehensive Plan and now it is costing thousands of dollars to review those same properties to see if they can be redesignated commercial and industrial. The County's policy has been to discourage businesses that create jobs. Walter Moa's hotel project could bring tourism dollars into the County, but instead he is stalled by the County at every turn. These policies need to change. Bill Leavitt, speaking for the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce, stated that budget problems this year required cutting the Chamber's Executive Director position. This means more work for the Board members, but they are hoping that a tight budget this year will allow them to do more next year. Speaking as the president of Leavitt Trucking, he explained that he has been in business in Jefferson County for 20 years. He started with nothing and now he has several employees who are paid a family wage and benefits. He has never had a budget shortfall because he carefully oversees earnings and spending; and sometimes he has to make hard choices. Every year there are more constraints put on his business from all levels of government. Businesses pay for the government. He suggested that the Board read the book A Call for Revolution that lists ways to clean up and organize government. Clallam County also has budget problems, but they reduced employees hours by 2.5 hours per week and they reduced health care benefits. He suggested that the Board consider decreasing employees hours by only one hour. When he started in business, he had to travel throughout Western Washington to take jobs. In order to keep his current business, he has begun to take jobs out of the County again because Jefferson County has so many regulations it makes it hard for people to develop. Public Works doesn't need new heavy equipment and cars every year. Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock, pointed out that the County Administrator and his two Deputies receive the highest salaries in the County and he thinks there are too many administrative positions. If fees continue to increase, people will develop or remodel without permits. The County needs to look at cutting personnel, not services. Building is the biggest industry in Jefferson County and higher fees decrease profit margins and can put contractors out of business. He works with the EDC to encourage businesses to locate in the County. Commercial/industrial property was tightlined in the Comprehensive Plan and now there is very little land available for new businesses. The commercial/industrial properties that are available are priced too high and keep businesses away. Mark Grant., submitted and read his statement. (See permanent record.) He asked if there is a source of revenue to draw on to balance the 2002 Budget so that more time can be taken to review the proposed fees? He volunteered to help with the review. Pat Rogers, stated that he doesn't think raising fees will result in the predicted revenues. Providing revenues is not the underlying reason why the County issues permits and licenses. There are many areas in the County where people won't bother to get permits. The County is experiencing problems resulting from past policy Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 decisions. He is on the Planning Commission and he pointed out that fees for site specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are increasing by a substantial amount. Most of the property owners making amendment applications had their properties downzoned in the Comprehensive Plan. Now the County is wants over $2,000 in application fees from them when chances are less than one in ten that their application will be approved. He asked that the Board reconsider these fees in 2002 after they have been reviewed in more detail. Ryan Tillman, Port Hadlock, stated that he has repeatedly tried to get background information about this ordinance but was told that the information would not be available until today. The County is raising fees without establishing a record. Increasing fees will have a direct impact on the amount of revenue and the amount of business in the County. He took the time to compare the current fees with the proposed fees and his project list over the last two years. For each of those years, fees generated for the County ran over $100,000. Why are businesses that deal with development forced to pay the largest share of the fees? Guy Rudolph, said that it is getting harder all the time to be a homeowner in Jefferson County because of taxation and higher costs. There is all this talk about incentives for new businesses that bring in jobs. How is the County going to help the people who already live here? Alan Frank, said that a lot of good ideas have been suggested today. The public process on the proposed fee ordinance was next to zero and adopting it at this time would be a mistake. He asked the Board to take the extra time to put together a group of citizens who work with these fees to review the proposed changes. The County can use reserves to balance the budget, and then adopt a supplemental budget during the year to replace the funds. Gene Seton, asked why the County is planning non-motorized trails and parks that will need maintenance in the future? These aren't mandatory services and the County can't afford them. Don't give 35th Street Park away, sell it. The County needs the building industry because it creates good jobs and revenue. Bill Leavitt, pointed out that some of the fees aren't increasing that much. He suggested doing an interim, across the board, small percentage increase on all the fees. Raise all the fees by $10. People are going to be angry when they apply for a permit and see the increases. Chris King, noted that the fees effect everybody, not just the contractors. The Commissioners need to put together an advisory board to review the fee increases and come up with alternatives. He doesn't think some of the fees are necessary. Unidentified Man., stated that he realizes a lot of research and work went into the proposed fee schedule but he doesn't think it should be adopted today. Gene Seton, cautioned that the County will lose one of its largest contractors if the economic scene doesn't change. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Chairman Huntingford stated that over the past several years the Board has tried to get input from people in the community on the budget. It is difficult to get an overall picture of the budget process from one meeting. The County makes every effort to provide a good level of service. Revenues are fewer each year. People need to get involved to let the County know where they think services can be cut. Cutting back Courthouse hours from 40 to 37.5 hours may be inconvenient for people who need those services. The County needs to look at different ways of "doing business." Commissioner Titterness stated that the goal of this ordinance is to have people pay for the services they require and not rely on a subsidy from the General Fund. He understands that increasing fees may be detrimental to the economy. Staff has followed the Board's directive to make these departments self- supporting. He supports increased fees, but is willing to have an advisory board review the fees and methodology and come back to the Board with a recommendation. The Board will need these recommendations in January. He feels that staff did a thorough job and he doesn't see the advisory board making many changes. Commissioner Wojt reiterated that the County's main goal is not to raise property taxes and to have people who use services pay for them. The majority of the payment for services should fall on the proponent rather than the general public. Chairman Huntingford thinks that a fee increase is probably in order, but some of the proposed fees are out of line. Commissioner Titterness replied that the Board chose not to raise property taxes this year and he asked how they will balance the budget if the fees aren't increased? Commissioner Huntingford answered that he wants to look at the ten or eleven unfilled positions to see if they are necessary and he wants to review administrative costs. There will be less funding coming from the State each year and the County needs to start making adjustments now. Commissioner Titterness noted that when a person approaches the County for a service, they should receive excellent service and they should have to pay for it and not have it subsidized by property owners. He suggested that the Board delay the adoption of the fee ordinance for 20 days and appoint an advisory board to review the current proposal and make a recommendation to the Board. Chairman Huntingford stated that he disagrees with the policy that new growth should pay all the fees less 25% administrative costs. However, he agreed that forming an advisory board is appropriate; but because of the holiday season the Board should allow 30 days for the review. Commissioner Titterness moved to table the fee ordinance for 30 days until a Board appointed advisory board has had a chance to review the proposed fees and make a recommendation. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Titterness and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Chairman Huntingford advised that he is not in favor of raising the building plan check fees in order for them to be comparable to the City of Port Townsend's fees. He does not agree that comparing other county's fees is the best method. Discussion and Possible Adoption of the 2002 Budget: Charles Saddler reported that recent information from WSAC and the Secretary of State's Office estimates PILT tax revenue at $245,000 rather than the original estimate of $320,000 that was projected in the 2002 Budget. Gary Rowe reviewed suggestions from the Treasurer's Office to help offset the shortfall. · Gary Rowe does not feel comfortable increasing the amount from timber excise taxes because of information from the Assessor's Office. · Increasing the estimate on investment fees by $2,000 is an option. Gary Rowe agreed that this could be done. · Increasing the estimate on timber sales on DNR Trust Lands is also an option. Gary Rowe feels that this is too speculative at the current time. Commissioner Titterness asked what the proposed staffing levels are for 2002? Charles Saddler explained that the difference between 2001 and 2002 is an increase of 4.97 employees in 2002. Commissioner Titterness pointed out that the County plans to cut staff over the next three years as revenues decrease and asked why there is an increase in 2002? Charles Saddler responded that not all staff salaries are paid from the Current Expense Fund. The Health Department, for example, shows an increase in staff because of contracts and grants that the County receives from other agencies. Commissioner Titterness asked to see the numbers on FTEs per capita. Auditor Donna Eldridge pointed out that in 2002 the Health Department is receiving more than 18.2% of their budget from the General Fund. Chairman Huntingford asked why there is a substantial increase in the administration fee for Animal Services? Charles Saddler replied that in the past it had been subsidized from the Health Department budget, but the contract with the City of Port Townsend makes it advantageous to charge more becausel/3 of the increased amount will be paid by the City. The County will still pay a proportionate share out of the General Fund. Assessor Jack Westerman stated that he would not want to see hours cut by one or two hours per week to make up the budget shortfall. He would rather lay off a person. And he would rather not lay people off, but would prefer to see that vacant positions go unfilled. Charles Saddler said that in order to reduce staff hours the County would have to reopen union negotiations. Donna Eldridge commented that some employees only work 35 hours a week already. Donna Eldridge pointed out that one of the conditions for staff increases in the Sheriff's Office was that reoccurring revenues had to be available for salaries before new employees were hired. Charles Saddler explained that the change in jail services billing and the regional contract with the City of Port Townsend allows for additional positions. David Goldsmith stated that in 2001, hiring was staggered, but in 2002 the Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 new positions would be for the full year which means that three new positions are reflected in the budget. This also happened when Courthouse Security staff was added last year. The other two added positions for 2002 are the Building Official and two half-time staff in the newly formed Natural Resource Department which is grant driven. There was also a question about the Health Department filling a full time support position that was vacant for several years. Chairman Huntingford recommended that the full time support position for the Health and Human Services Department not be filled. Community Health Director Jean Baldwin explained that the Federal and State governments are decreasing funding. If the County cuts back, programs will have to be discontinued. She asked the Board to look at all departments when they talk about making cuts. Chairman Huntingford noted that they have been reviewing travel and seminar expenses for all departments. He asked why the Health Department shows $1,500 per employee for training and seminars? Health Department Financial Manager MaryAnne Preece replied that Substance Abuse and Developmental Disabilities grant funding provides for mandated training. Jean Baldwin added that the nurses and Environmental Health staff are required to attend specific training to maintain their licences. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the part-time nurses are also sent to training? Jean Baldwin said yes. She also pointed out that both she and Larry Fay are on State committees that require them to attend meetings. Commissioner Huntingford thinks that all departments need to look at sending staff only to required training. He asked for a breakdown from all departments of all training planned in 2002. Commissioner Titterness asked for information separating the number of FTEs from the Current Expense Fund from FTEs from all other funds. He inquired about the difference in the number of FTEs paid from Current Expense for 2001 and 2002 and explained that information he received in the Spring of 2001 lists 157.76 employees paid from the General Fund. He asked for the breakdown for 2002. Donna Eldridge cautioned that the Public Safety Fund was under Current Expense in 2001, but will not be in 2002. She offered to compile the information for the Board. Commissioner Titterness advised that this year's decisions regarding the budget will have to made using an educated guess. Next year, he wants to see the facts clearly presented. Donna Eldridge replied that the information is available, but the Board needs to be specific about what they want. Unfortunately, this kind of information isn't something that can be recalled from memory. Charles Saddler reminded the Board that the Elected Officials and Department Heads were asked to cut 2.5% from operating line items and from personnel lines items. Each Department has made these cuts already and they need to be sustainable for three years. The Board has to allow the Department Heads and Elected Officials to make choices about which positions are mission critical. The County can not be all things to all people. There are entire lines of services that are not mandated by State law that include parks and recreation, animal control services, and cooperative extension. There will have to be fundamental changes in the way the County does business. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that the Board has tabled the fee ordinance and will need to come up with approximately $300,000 to balance the budget. He is willing to transfer $215,000 in reserve funds at this Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 time, but feels that the other $85,000 will have to come from cuts. possible cuts: He suggested these areas be looked at for A support position at the Health Department. Travel and training. Breaking out grant funded positions from non-grant funded positions. Administrative overhead, including the County Administrator's Office. Programs that aren't mandated. Comprehensive Plan updates. Continued long range planning in Public Works and at DCD. All unfilled positions. Commissioner Titterness asked what the unencumbered balances will be in each department at the end of the year. Donna Eldridge replied that there are some departments that won't spend their entire budget in 2001. The Board agreed to continue the budget deliberations on Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. in order to give staff and the Auditor's Office time to compile the information they requested. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the business on Monday and reconvened on Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. with all three Board members present. Discussion and Possible Adoption of the 2002 Budget: (See item earlier in the minutes.) Charles Saddler reported that the Board asked for a breakdown of the number of staff paid from the Current Expense Fund and number of staff paid from other funds. David Goldsmith distributed a spreadsheet and explained the data. There were 147.24 staff in the 2001 Current Expense budget. In the proposed 2002 Budget, the staffing level would increase to 148.06. The remainder of the staff paid from other funds was 142 in 2001 and increased to 146.63 in 2002. The data also indicates the money being transferred out of Current Expense to support other funds. The increase in staff is in the Health and Human Services Department and the funding for the increase does not come from the Current Expense Fund. There is a decrease in the amount transferred from the Current Expense Fund to support the other funds in 2002. The fees for service that are paid from the Current Expense Fund for Facilities and Information Services are relatively the same, and I.S. decreased in 2002. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Chairman Huntingford asked for clarification on the YIPPEE Fund. David Goldsmith explained that originally YIPPEE, the summer enrichment program, was funded through the Community Services Fund when $25,000 was put up as seed money for a grant. In 2001, a separate fund for YIPPEE was established to be administered with the help of Cooperative Extension. They received a grant for an after school program. Both of these grants will run out in 2002, however they are continuing to look for new grant sources. The County gives this fund a $25,000 grant each year. There was a discussion about Health and Human Services Department programs. Chairman Huntingford asked about the Natural Resource Department that was established in 2001 as a division of the Health Department. David Goldsmith advised that a portion of the increased staff amount in the Health Department work in this department. Charles Saddler explained that the family planning program in Port Hadlock will be discontinued. They are also cutting back on the availability of flu and immunization shots. MaryAnne Preece pointed out that the Current Expense Fund supports 37% of the administrative positions in the Health Department. They charge other County departments administrative service fees for managing grants. They recently filled a position in Environmental Health that had been vacant for several years and the new person is support staff for several programs in the Health Department. They held the position open while they were reviewing how to best utilize support staff. Larry Fay noted that this position is different from the direct support person for the Administrator that was discussed on Monday. Charles Saddler explained that the Auditor's Office submitted a list showing current vacant positions. The following positions are paid from the Current Expense Fund: · Juvenile Services: This is a support position that is currently being covered by other support staff in the Office. Duties that are being deferred to other staff at this time are assistance with pre-trial intervention services, and probation Counselor and Guardian Ad Lidem support. Right now the trend is for lower case filings, but as funding for intervention is cut, filings may increase. · Community Development: The Deputy Director position is vacant and there are plans to reorganize the Department and create a Director of Development Services position to oversee the permit process. · Sheriff: There is a patrol deputy position that is vacant and they are to the point of offering the position. Charles Saddler asked that the Sheriff wait on the offer until the District Court Probation Office relocation and support staff issue is addressed. The following positions are paid from other funds: · E-911: There are three vacant dispatcher positions. · Health and Human Services: The Director position is vacant. · Public Works: Five positions are vacant. Chairman Huntingford stated that he wants to see staffing in the Public Works Department reviewed closely in 2002. He feels that they will also be running into financial shortfalls. He suggested that these vacant positions be reviewed before they are filled. Commissioner Titterness agreed. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Gary Rowe added that there is an Information Services position that is currently open that has General Fund support. They are currently doing an RFP on the financial system which may change support needs. Assessor Jack Westerman added that this position has a direct effect on all the offices and is essential for customer service. Commissioner Titterness asked about the Flood/Stormwater Fund. Gary Rowe explained that Public Works received grant funding from the State to do a new Flood/Stormwater Plan in 2002. The money in the 2002 Budget is matching funds for the grant. The County is mandated to do stormwater planning. The $10,000 in the Quilcene Flood Fund is also matching funds for grants. Charles Saddler presented the Board with information on the travel and training lines in all County Departments. This amounts to approximately $250,000 and $130,000 for the use of County vehicles. Travel will be looked at closely in 2002. The Commissioners and County Administrator's travel budget are approximately 15% of the entire County travel budget. The County Administrator has requested that all Departments estimate their travel budget for 2002 and have that information to him by January 11, 2002. Chairman Huntingford stated his concerns about the $20,000 increase in travel and training in the Health Department's budget and asked MaryAnne Preece to compile information about how much of this training is mandated. Charles Saddler reviewed a memo from Jean Baldwin regarding travel and training for various programs. She estimated that $8 out of every $10 is picked up by specific programs and grant funding. Charles Saddler added that the entire Health Department budget will have to be reexamined after the budget cuts that are predicted at the State level in July. Commissioner Titterness stated that the Board needs to cut $87,000 out of the 2002 Budget today. He mentioned that the positions of Director of Health and Human Services and Deputy Director of Community Development would total over that amount if they were not filled. The problem is that these two departments need to run as efficiently as possible and not filling those positions defeats that purpose. Chairman Huntingford asked about the phasing in of the E-911 dispatchers. David Goldsmith explained that according to the plan, there will be eleven dispatchers in place this year. In 2002, the County agreed to fund two of the positions, with the E-911 Users Group funding the remaining positions. In 2003, the Users will pick up one more of the positions, and in 2004 all of the positions will be funded by the Users Group. There was a brief discussion about plans to move dispatch out of the Sheriff' s Office. The Auditor's Office has estimated that the unencumbered fund balance in the 2001 budget is approximately 10% of the total budget. Charles Saddler asked that the Board not cut the two administrative positions in Health and Community Development. He had the following suggestions: · If the Adult Probation Office is moved into the Courthouse $11,000 per year could be saved. · COLAs for Elected Officials could also be reconsidered. · Limiting the fee increases to plan check fees at this time. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Gary Rowe made the following suggestions to temporarily make up the shortfall without using the reserves for recurring expenditures: · $25,000 for the Data Steering Committee which is project driven. · $40,000 to the Special Projects Fund for grant related projects. · $51,732 to the H.J. Carroll Park Fund. These funds are the County's portion of a new basketball court and a picnic shelter. · $171,620 to the Construction/Renovation Fund. $100,000 is for capital projects. $71,620 is for specific projects requested by the Sheriff. · $10,600 to the Quilcene Flood Fund. · $25,000 to the YIPPEE Fund. It is assumed that this is a one time expenditure, although it has continued for a few years. · $34,500 to the Flood/Stormwater Fund. · $25,000 in the Non-Departmental Special Studies line to support UGA analysis this year. The people who receive these funds would need to be given notice that they would not continue in 2003. After a brief discussion about YIPPEE, Commissioner Titterness recommended that the $25,000 to the YIPPEE Fund be removed from the list because it has been a recurring expenditure for the past few years. Charles Saddler summarized that removing YIPPEE as a one time expenditure would leave $358,560. Authorizing the relocation of the Adult Probation Office into the Courthouse would save another $11,000. The Board agreed that they do not want to adopt a budget with the fee increases included. Gary Rowe said that it is more complicated because expenses have to be increased and revenues reduced in some cases. Chairman Huntingford said one Health position has already been cut and he asked that the vacant position in Juvenile Services and the patrol deputy position not be filled at this time. Gary Rowe stated that the Juvenile position is approximately $16,000 and the patrol position, including a portion of the car, is $55,000. Gary Rowe explained that the Board can balance the budget today by identifying the amount of money out of the Reserve Fund as part of the monies to balance the budget. Commissioner Titterness said that the shortfall due to not raising fees is $231,870 and after the fees have been reviewed, it is likely that some of that will be returned. He suggested that they move ahead and balance the budget by utilizing the reserves. Gary Rowe added that there is also $60,000 available in the Health Benefits. Chairman Huntingford clarified that the County can amend the budget after the fee ordinance is adopted and some funds can be put back into the reserves. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 99-01, adopting the Annual Budget for 2002 including the General Fund, Public Works, Special Funds, Jefferson County Road Construction Program and County Tax Levy based on the discussion and the numbers presented today Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford interjected that there is still the issue about the Elected Officials not receiving a COLA in 2002. Commissioner Titterness said that he will not make that decision without discussing the issue with the Elected Officials at a budget meeting. The Chair called for a vote on the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 Approval of Deputy Prosecuting Attorney's Letter Concerning 35th Street Park; City of Port Townsend: Charles Saddler reported that this is a response to a letter that the County received from the City of Port Townsend. He had given the City Manager a verbal reply on the telephone, but the issue came up again in correspondence from the City Attorney. Commissioner Titterness moved to authorize Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez to send a letter to the City of Port Townsend requesting a Quit Claim Deed for the 35th Street Property with the addition that the property be returned in the same condition that it was when the City received it, and that the process for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan be started as soon as possible that returns the parcel's zoning to what it was before the agreement with the City. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Formation of a Nine (9) Member Advisory Board to Review Proposed Fee Increases: Commissioner Titterness suggested that this advisory board be set up similar to the Planning Commission, with each Commissioner picking three interested constituents from their district. A 30 day timeline has been set for the review. Charles Saddler stated that the Board needs to make it clear that this is an ad hoc committee for this project only. He also asked that the Board be very specific about what the advisory board is charged to do and the parameters they are to work within. Commissioner Titterness stated that he feels the ability to be able to review what staff does to justify the fees is appropriate. Commissioner Titterness suggested that the Board recruit advisory board members from people who have submitted letters. The Board recessed until 11:30 a.m. to make a few telephone calls to other people who would be interested in being on the Fee Review Advisory Board. Charles Saddler stated that he still has concerns about the Board's direction to this advisory board. Commissioner Titterness replied that the Board wants this committee to take a look at the recommended fee schedules as put forth by the departments, compare it to what the departments say the costs are for producing the services, compare it to other jurisdictions to have a benchmark, and recommend what is the appropriate fee for the services and if there are other recommendations about how money can be saved or efficiency improved in those departments. He wants the data available to the committee to show how the fees were determined. They also need to have the authority to ask staff additional questions. It is the Board's policy Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 24, 2001 that development fees are to cover the cost of the program and 75% of the administrative services. The report from this committee should be submitted to the Board no later than January 24, 2002. Chairman Huntingford suggested the following people: Phil Flyrm, Judi Morris, and Mark Grant. Commissioner Wojt suggested Susan Miller, Dave Sullivan, and Bill Leavitt. Commissioner Titterness suggested Sheila Westerman, Ann Avary, and Aldryth O'Hara. Commissioner Titterness recommended the advisory board have their first meeting on January 3 at 7 p.m. at the Courthouse. Discussion re: Intent to Ask Voters to Approve a 1/10 of l % Sales Tax to Fund Local Adult Jail and Juvenile Detention Facilities and Operations: Charles Saddler presented a draft resolution to the Board. He noted that there are several dates in 2002 when this issue can go to the voters. There is more research to be done before staff can recommend a date. However, it is important that the Board publicly state their intent to go forward and ask the voters for their support. The Board concurred that they are in favor of moving forward with this and that staff work to establish a schedule for educating the public and recommending a date. Commissioner Titterness recommended that this resolution be put on the January 7, 2002 agenda to give the public more notice. Approval to Carry Over Vacation Days; Public Works and Health Department: Charles Saddler explained that Public Works Director Frank Gifford and Community Health Director Jean Baldwin were not able to take their vacations as planned at the end of the year because of the additional work that was required on the 2002 budget. Commissioner Tittemess moved to allow Frank Gifford and Jean Baldwin to carry over vacation days and that they be used in the first quarter of 2002. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY ,,.'. .· . ~,, -, BOARD OF COMMISSION/E~ ~. \ ',, : ~ ~ f..,,,.'{.. Dafl'ritteme)ts,/MJl~m ,~,, ",'"i .'._5 t Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board Page 16 ,Vednesday at 3:00 o.m. Olympic College 1600 Chester Avenue Bremerton, WA Please call (360) 337-5285 to confirm this day, time, and class location on campus. Thursday at 3:00 p.m. Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District 109 Austin Drive Bremerton, WA Friday at 3:15 p.m. Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District - Poulsbo Annex 19540 Front Street Poulsbo, WA Evenin~ Classes at 6:00 0. m. Silverdale Community Center 9729 Silverdale Way Silverdale, WA Poulsbo Fire Station 911 NE Liberty Rd. Poulsbo, WA The evening classes are subject to the availability of the facilities at each location. Please call (360) 337-5285 to confirm the date and time of each classes. ~ PROPOSED SERVICE CHARGE INCREASES .... ..~ At the January 8, 2002 Bremcrton-Kitsap Co'anty Board of.,~eakh meeting, the Environmental Health Division (EH) will request increases in many service charges '(~ cov~r ~he basic costs of providing services. Historically, the Board of Health has supported establi~b, hsg set, ce c~mrg~:~ i0r environmental health reviews, permits, ?.. certifications and inspections that reflect 100% ofthg cost of the service provided. Service charges cover activities such as building site applications, on-site sewage permits, well construction reviews, real estate loan status repons (on-site sewage and drinking water wells), restaurant permits, solid waste permits and many other environmental health related activities. EH is currently completing an extensive analysis of service costs. Initial indications are that many service. charges are substantially Iow and fall short of providing adequate revenue to cover the basic costs of providing services. It is important to point out that EH service charges cover not only the salaries of technical program staff, but also cover a portion of the costs of our administrative, clerical support, accounting and information services staff as well as other related expenditures. In order to meet these costs and to eventually become 100% self-supportive, the Health District is proposing the following service charges as noted in the table below: FOOD PROGRAM, SERVICE CHARGE COMPARISON Restaurants Grocery $75-125 $84-171 $77-155 $50-205 $70 $100-320 $175-255+ Meat $131 $144 $77 $125-335 $90 $215 $145 Taverns $104 $107 $77-155 $65-200 $70 $160 $155 ~ $7--'~'~ ~ -$100 $105 $40-75 $100 $130 The Board of Health will hold a public hearing on January 8, 2002 at 10:10 a.m. at the Eagle's Nest, 1195 NW Fairgrounds Road, Bremerton. A service charge increase is proposed for Food Service Establishment permits. The Health District will also be requesting the Board of Health to approve a three-year phase in approach to increase service charges to cover our actual cost for services. The service charge increases for 2002 range from a iow of $3.00 to a high of $46.00 depending upon the category of establishment. Please call if you have any questions. ~' December 24, 2001 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 Re: Proposed County Fee Schedule Increases Dear Commissioners, As the year is coming to a close, you are once again tasked with the job of presenting, approving, and adopting a balanced budget. It is your job, as the leaders of the people of Jefferson County, to work with and direct your staff to find the most efficient, effective, and fair way in which to accomplish this. I am aware that there is currently a shortfall in accomplishing your goals for a balanced budget for 2002. I am also aware that staff, either through their own initiative, or through your direction, is proposing increased fees for services rendered in a number of departments, and in particular, the Department of Community Development. ! generally do not have a problem with this, and have come to expect that there will be fee increases in these departments on an annual or bi-annual cycle. This year, however, these increases are first, being proposed in the final hours of 2001 without opportunity for any fair public scrutiny, and second, are, in many cases, being increased at levels that are extremely difficult to justify. It was not that long ago that I, as well as many others who testified then, and who will testify now, warned you, Commissioner Wojt, then Commissioner Har/gtl/t; and Commissioner Hunting ford, that the rush to adopt the UDC without fair public participation, would result in messes like the one we now have with the 2002 County Budget Proposal. At that time, Commissioner Huntingford saw the need to extend the public deliberation on the then proposed UDC, and voted against adopting it. The two to one vote to adopt the UDC, however, was to be just another blow to public confidence in our county leadership. We are now faced with the task to balance a budget for 2002 with the legacy of that UDC vote still over our heads. We were promised in the last commissioners' election that we could get the county operations and bureaucracy in line so that we would not be faced with budget challenges like we have now. So now, in this eleventh hour, are the people of Jefferson County supposed to just accept that we are going to have to deal with higher fees in yet another sector of our personal lives and businesses, even though many of us are still making major economic sacrifices in order to survive a downturn in our local, state, and national economies? Again, the issue of fairness here is coming into play. I do believe that you, our current elected leaders, have the time to do what is fair and right in this eleventh hour, this day before Christmas. It is neither practical nor reasonable to think that these budget issues and fee increases can be deliberated on and resolved to the point where we all can walk away and be satisfied today. What can be done, however, is to table the controversial concept of solely balancing the budget with these proposed fee increases, and to find a temporary source of funding in order to get the budget shortfalls filled. Then, as a first order of business for 2002, assemble a team consisting of yourselves, applicable staff, and most importantly, members of the concerned public who then, would all work together to come up with reasonable methods to balance and improve the 2002 budget. If this is done effectively, and with the utmost spirit of cooperation, whatever source of funding that you draw on today, could be returned or redistributed to the appropriate areas without a single dollar lost. It is wise and noble leaders who will look to and ask for assistance from their constituents in times like we have now. Throughout any process that we enter into in the future to address funding and budgetary shortfalls, it must be understood that sacrifices are going to have to be made. I am very impressed with how Clallam County leadership, staff, and union employees agreed to, under the current economic conditions of the Olympic Peninsula, reduce the number of hours worked by it's fulltime employees by 2.5 hours per week. This allowed them to meet their budgeting requirements without major increases for services. If Jefferson County were to do the same, what would that potentially generate in funds to help balance the budget and still maintain its goals and objectives for 2002 and beyond? This is a concept that we could review in 2002, but you have to be willing to make the fair decision today on how we get there. I still have faith, that you, the current Board of County Commissioners, can work with the public, eliminate waste, increase efficiency, provide superior public services, weed out the bureaucratic mazes and minefields, without building up government at the expense of your constituents. Thank- you for your time!! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Mark L. Grant