Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM031504 11~~' S?1:~~ 00¿~ Ii $' \" ~\Jj ,...... ~~ ~I \~ O~/ ·~liINO~ }/' ----==-~ District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of March 15,2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of March 1, 2004 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers abstained from the vote. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. Commissioner Rodgers noted a correction to the minutes of March 8, 2004. In the last sentence under "Commissioners' Briefing" the word "which" should be changed to "where he" so it reads as follows: "Commissioner Rodgers reported on the NACO conference he attended in Washington DC last week where he focused on economic and worliforce development." Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of March 8, 2004 as corrected. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. County Facilities Projects Update: Loring Bemis, Facilities Assistant Foreman, Central Services, reported on the following County projects: · The Brinnon Motel/Senior Center mold removal project was completed last week. Total cost for this project was approximately $60,000 which is under the initial estimate of $80,000. About $40,000 will be paid by insurance and the County will pay the remaining $20,000. Commissioner Rodgers encouraged everyone to attend the Senior Center re-opening celebration scheduled for Wednesday, March 17, 2004. · A meeting with a consultant is scheduled for later this week to review project costs for the replacement of the Courthouse entrance doors. The project is expected to begin in August and will be completed as timely as possible to minimize the inconvenience to employees and the public. · The proposal and scope of work for engineering and design services for the Courthouse Master Plan project was received last week. This is a 3 year project with civil engineering and construction work beginning in June. Improvements to the rear parking lot and the grounds along Walker Street may also be done in 2004. Jefferson County is a member of the Public Operations Support Consortium in Olympia which provides outsourcing of various skills to help public agencies reduce facility construction and improvement costs. A representative from that group will be coming next week to review the Castle Hill project. Facilities is planning to move forward on this project with budgeted funding. · On March 5, 2004 a piece of flashing blew off of the Courthouse clock tower due to high winds. A physical inspection of the tower was conducted and there does not appear to be any significant damage or problem with exposure to the elements. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 "~é -~~ ~!f/l·,:,üi~' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING: County Administrator David Goldsmith reported on the following: · Completion of the Sheriffs new administration building was delayed by two weeks. April 1, 2004 is the anticipated "move in" date. · The EDC will be coordinating the prioritization of grant projects which fall under W A-CERT, a single point of access for grant funding. This year the maritime center project is receiving funding and would like to be included on the W A-CERT prioritization project list. A list of four or five projects will be presented to the Board of Commissioners in the near future for review and prioritization. Courthouse Access: Central Services Director Allen Sartin reported that effective today the doors to the Courthouse will be opened at 7:50 a.m. and closed at 5:10 p.m. each business day. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: It is good to know that Congressman Norm Dicks and the Port Gamble S 'Klallam Tribe are opposed to the Fred Hill Materials Pit-to-Pier project; and an editorial from the North Kitsap Herald regarding Fred Hill Materials Pit-to-Pier proj ect was read into the record. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 09-04 re: Re-establishing Jefferson County Cash Drawer, Petty Cash Account and Revolving Fund Amounts in Various County Departments 2. RESOLUTION NO. 10-04 re: Standard Vacation of an Alley in Block 132 in the Plat of Irondale No.5; Gilbert Kellmer, Petitioner 3. RESOLUTION NO. 11-04 re: Changing a County Road Name from Sam Land Lane to Whitetail Lane; Robert and Judith Whitehead, Leroy and Shirley Teterud, John and Janette Womack, and Calvin and Saundra Blackmore, Petitioners 4. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services Agreement for Oral Health; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Cynthia Newman 5. AGREEMENT Interlocal re: Big Brothers/Big Sisters Mentoring Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Island County 6. AGREEMENT NO. 0363-39475 re: First Steps for Childbirth Education; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 7. AGREEMENT NO. G0400243 re: Solid Waste Enforcement (SWE); Jefferson County Environmental Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 8. AGREEMENT re: 2004 Community Services Grant Funding; Economic Development Council 9. Annual Certification for Calendar Year 2003; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State County Road Administration Board (CRAB) 10. Advisory Board Resignation; Randy Kline from the Jefferson County Parks Advisory Board Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 'fJ"'·'·"'" ;, ... ~ ~tSJf':<"'~'- 2003 Property Tax Assessments Payable in 2004: Assessor Jack Westerman presented a spreadsheet that included data on the calculations, levy rates and levy amounts for 2003 property tax assessments payable in 2004 for all the taxing districts in Jefferson County. He reported how property tax laws have changed over the years and how those changes affected the method of valuing property. Laws and initiatives have been passed that establish tax limiting factors for all taxing districts. Additionally, in order for taxing districts to receive a 1 % increase in their property tax funding they are required to pass a resolution requesting a 1 % property tax increase. There are three tax limiting factors: 1) 1 % increase; 2) statutory levy rate; and 3) budget ofthe taxing district. The Assessor sets the levy on the lessor of the three. He noted that 14 out of 24 taxing districts are requesting less funding than the maximum they are allowed to collect. The difference between the amount allowed (maximum total tax limit) and the amount requested is known as "banked capacity" and can only be created for a taxing district if they have passed a resolution. The tax amount requested by the County is significantly lower than the maximum allowed as indicated by its banked capacity of $700,000. In his opinion, if elected officials of taxing districts in other Counties throughout the State of Washington were following Jefferson County's example of asking for less taxes than the amount allowed, it would deflate the initiatives being brought to the voters. Commissioner Titterness asked how Jefferson County ranks with other Counties? Jack Westerman replied that he asked the same question of the Washington State Department of Revenue and was told that they do not track those statistics. He would guess that no other County in the State compares to Jefferson County. The total banked capacity of all the taxing districts in Jefferson County is $1,205,000. That is how much additional taxes the districts could collect without having to get it voter approved. While it is recommended that taxing districts get voter approval for using their banked capacity, it is not legally required. Housing Authority Loan Repayment Proposal: Treasurer Judi Morris explained that in 2000 the Board of Commissioners authorized a loan to the Jefferson County Housing Authority in the amount of $60,000 with an interest rate of7.8%. In March 2002 the loan was restructured due to financial problems the Housing Authority was experiencing, and to be more in line with the interest rates at the time. Consequently, the interest rate was lowered to 2% on principal payments from that point forward. To date the Housing Authority has paid $2,800 on the loan. That amount is dramatically lower than the amount that should have been paid had they made all scheduled payments. The previous Housing Authority Board led HUD to believe that the loan was forgiven and when HUD learned that there was a signed agreement and the loan was not forgiven, HUD was then falsely led to believe that the loan was interest free. This was all discovered when HUD conducted an audit of the Housing Authority and determined that the Housing Authority was using HUD funds to repay the loan from the County including interest. HUD does not allow their funding to be used to pay interest on loans. Since then the Housing Authority has obtained a new interim Executive Director and new members have been appointed to serve on the Board of Directors. This new Board is working hard to improve the financial situation of the Housing Authority and has been able to make some payments and return the focus to its purpose of managing housing for the citizens of our community. She recently met with the new Board and Executive Director to discuss the possibility of restructuring the loan again. Following that meeting the Housing Authority submitted a letter which included 8 proposed options for the repayment ofthe loan. Options 1 and 2 propose forgiving the interest, option 3 proposes forgiving a portion of the principal owed, option 4 proposes a minimum payment and allows any excess administrative reserves be applied to the principal owed, and options 5 through 8 propose forgiving a portion of the principal owed based on the Housing Authority meeting performance incentives. In her opinion, options 1,2 and 3 should not be Page 3 --._.- Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 12""'" "''':,' ,,>,: ~'.'.......". ..'~ +f\III'~\~é" considered. Forgiving interest on the loan should not be an option. The County has set precedent with other agencies that money is loaned with interest. If interest is not collected on loans, then the County loses money that it could be making had the funds been invested. Option 4 may be a viable option, but it should include interest payments. Options 5 and 6 may be appropriate performance incentives, however, options 7 and 8 are not appropriate performance incentives as they relate to the HUD audit findings and the satisfactory completion of the HUD Corrective Action Plan which is a standard that the Housing Authority is already responsible for meeting and maintaining as part of their charter. Chairman Huntingford feels forgiving a portion of the loan may be a good payment incentive, but, the Board doesn't want to fund new projects and this seems like a method of getting the County to fund the Housing Authority. David Goldsmith noted that the County provides funding to Olympic Community Action Programs which provides low-income and affordable housing services. Commissioner Rodgers asked why the Housing Authority exists if Olympic Community Action Programs provides the same services? Treasurer Judi Morris replied that the two agencies provide different services. At the time the Housing Authority was established, Olympic Community Action Programs was not performing at the level it should have been. Now there has been a shift in roles. Jefferson County needs a Housing Authority said David Goldsmith. He explained the functions of both agencies and stated that while they provide different services, they work very well together. Commissioner Rodgers stated Olympic Community Action Programs is working on a permanent housing plan and he suggested combining the Housing Authority with Olympic Community Action Programs to prevent duplication of these services. David Goldsmith responded that while the County created the Housing Authority it does not have the authority to eliminate it. Only HUD can dissolve a Housing Authority, or it could become insolvent. Treasurer Judi Morris added that the Housing Authority has hired personnel which is much better equipped to run the agency than in the past. The Board discussed various options in restructuring the loan. Currently, the Housing Authority is $8,000 in arrears on the interest alone. It was agreed that some type of payment incentive should be offered. Commissioner Titterness suggested a modified payment plan which ties in a penalty ifthey fail to pay. The loan could be interest free as long as they make the $500 payment per month. Ifthe payment is late, a 1 % penalty will be charged and the interest rate will escalate by 1 % for each month the payment is late until they either make their payments or go out of business and it can be dealt with in a different manner. The loan can't continue like this. Chairman Huntingford feels some interest should be charged. A performance incentive should be offered that affects only the interest in arrears. As the Treasurer stated, it has been the County's policy to charge interest on loans to other agencies in order generate some revenue. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 !J"'" "" ;;',__s ~1\1; :l:'~""'" David Goldsmith advised that some amount of interest should be charged and it should at least be the same amount that the Washington State Investment Pool pays on investments which is 1.09%. Discussion ensued regarding what to require in the restructuring ofthe loan and the County's ability to enforce the specific requirements. Commissioner Titterness moved to change the interest rate at this point in time to 1 % on the monthly payment amount of$500, and if they become 60 days late with the payment the interest rate increases to 2%, and if they become 90 days late with the payment the interest rate increases to 3%, and so on. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Rodgers noted that they owe $8,000 in interest. It would be more beneficial to them to offer a payment incentive on that amount. He moved to forgive 10% of the Housing Authority's outstanding accrued interest per year and leave the interest rate at 2%, ifthey make their payment on time each month. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Treasurer will proceed with restructuring the loan agreement to allow for the County to forgive 10% of the outstanding interest due per year, on the condition that payment in the amount of $500 plus 2% interest, is paid on time each month. Proposed Ordinance Amending Building Fee Schedule: Al Scalf reported that on January 12,2004 the Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend the Department of Community Development's Building Fee Schedule. Various options have been discussed on how to calculate fees and information has been prepared for the Board's review. David Goldsmith explained that the Community Development's fees are broken down between the two divisions within that department: 1) Development Review Division; and 2) Building Permits. They have been determining what part of the department's budget is fee driven and what the fees pay for. Building Permit Budget $517,500 pays for: - Permit Technicians and tracking - Planning services and research - Physical inspection of property - Administrative overhead/building rent - Compliance Development Review Division Budget $231,000 pays for: - Consistency Review - Land Use Review - Planning services and research - Administrative overhead/building rent - Compliance Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 .~""!.. ,::.... .' Additionally, local funding is transferred from the Current Expense fund to pay for the following long range planning services (grant funding pays for a separate portion of long range planning which is not included here): - Planning Commission (Note: The Planning Commission has its own budget for its operations, however, it does not pay for Planner's time) - Professional services - Administrative overhead/building rent - GMA Compliance/Appeals This proposal is to generate an additional $40,000 for the Building Permit division of the department by changing the calculation of the fee which is based on value. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) outlines the method of establishing building permit fees which are made up of two components: 1) The building cost per square foot (value placed on the square footage); and 2) the size of the structure (amount of square footage). It is clear that not all square footage has the same value, however, the UBC sets the same square footage value for the same size structures regardless of their market value (ie. Houses with the same square footage are charged the same fee whether it is a house valued at $1,000,000 or a house valued at $100,000). Community Development is proposing to change the square footage rate from $65.28 (average) to $89.63 (good) for structures valued at or above $150,000. Setting the limit at $150,000 will keep the permit fee low for entry level housing units. Another proposal discussed previously was to base the permit fee on straight square footage, regardless of value. The bigger the houses; the higher the permit fee. When you look at the this proposal you will find that value does make a difference. Not in terms of interior improvements such as marble or hardwood floors, but in terms of additional plumbing units and the complexity of the layouts which take more time to review than a tract style home with one or two bathrooms. The additional funding generated will be used to pay for a half-time building official to conduct complex building inspections, code interpretation and troubleshooting. The $40,000 for this proposal could be paid from the Current Expense fund, however, they are trying to generate the funding from building permit fees. Out of 182 building permits currently being processed, 119 are for homes valued at more than $150,000. Community Development Director Al Scalf stated that the County and the City of Port Townsend are planning share this new building official who will work for both agencies. County Officials have been working with the City Manager David Timmons and City Planning Director Jeff Randall to coordinate a consolidated building department. This is an opportunity to provide a regional service where a department between the two agencies is created providing unification and consistency in permitting applications, codes, potential fee schedules, and an organized building department that performs the same services for all the citizens in the County. David Goldsmith acknowledged that the County and City are separate agencies and each charge different fees for different services. The similarity between the two agencies is with the application and enforcement of the UBC requirements. Chairman Huntingford noted that building permit fees in the City range from $12,000-$13,000 while building permit fees in the County range from $5,000-$6,000. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 æJ"'""" ............. ',' - --~ =:- .., ~f\I',-:~:~"'''' Commissioner Titterness stated that the difference is due to the impact fees charged by the City. We need to talk with the City about the concept that the growth which the County is experiencing in building permits is because of the difference in expense between building in the City versus the County. The City has suggested that the County charge impact fees, however, the County does not provide those services for which impact fees would be charged. He feels this proposal is necessary and that the County needs to come up with the $40,000 in funding. Al Scalf clarified that the comparison between the City and County references uniformity in formatting requirements, forms, and processes. Commissioner Titterness agreed that government should appear fair. He questioned ifthis proposal to increase building permit fees for homes valued at or above $150,000 will provide the necessary $40,000 in funding? David Goldsmith reported that it will be slightly under that amount. A chart showing the amount of revenue to be collected based on various effective dates of the ordinance was presented. Ifthe ordinance is approved with an effective date of April 1, 2004 fees generated would total $27,953 for 2004. The position has not been filled and no expenses have been incurred. The plan is to hire a half-time building official by July 1, 2004. Commissioner Titterness feels this strategy will meet the County's goal and protect affordable housing. Commissioner Rodgers expressed his concern that fees should be based on services provided. He's not sure that element has been researched adequately. It is interesting that the chart demonstrates a 30% correlation between size and value which is lower than he would have anticipated. He feels there needs to be more correlation to the work content and would have liked to see it demonstrated how fees relate to the effort involved in inspections and plan review. Three years ago the County adopted the policy of "fee for service". Maybe this proposal is the only short-cut that can be found or the only way to define it. David Goldsmith replied that this proposal is an easy way to determine the fee. Staff did not do an analysis of the content. The City of Port Townsend recently hired a consultant to do an internal review of their permitting process in order to identify problems and track timelines. The County may want to hire this same consultant to review its internal permitting process since some of these services may be consolidated with the City. Commissioner Rodgers applauded the idea of looking at the efficiency of the permitting process, however, his concern is with the labor content. He is all for funding the $40,000. His main concern is making sure that the policy set by the Board is exeéuted. That policy is "fee for service". If you do the work, you get paid for it. He sees there is a bit of redistribution and he is not sure how he feels about that. Chairman Huntingford asked what duties the new half-time Building Official will be performing and what is expected of the position? Al Scalf answered that the position will be responsible for administering the program, working with the City, creating a functional and high performing building department, and conducting field inspections and plan checks. Chairman Huntingford asked ifthere is currently enough staff to handle the workload because it seems that this position is more of an administrative position and may not have enough time to assist with the day to day tasks? Al Scalf replied that 1 FTE is assigned to plan check. That individual can conduct Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 é5i"\s ~ f\"I,"\'~ approximately 4 plan checks per day depending on the complexity of the plans. Commercial plans are more complex so either 1 commercial plan or six residential plans can be checked per day. The Building Inspector is another FTE and also serves as the back-up plan checker. The department also employs two part-time individuals that conduct plan checks. Commissioner Rodgers says its interesting that the department knows that it takes 1/4 of a day to do one residential plan check. So if there are 200 structures, it will take 50 days to do the plan checks. If that data holds up, then it is known exactly how many plan checkers are needed. He questioned whether the number of inspections change or the intensity of the inspections change? Al Scalf replied that the intensity of the inspections change. Commissioner Rodgers questioned if the inspectors know how long an inspection will take? Al Scalf replied yes, on average. Commissioner Rodgers said the department knows then exactly what the labor content is, but, hasn't tried to analyze it. Al Scalf replied that they have not analyzed it quite to the degree that it is being questioned. David Goldsmith clarified that the need for this position is not due to work overload, it is an additional half- time position that can do the day to day tasks, but is primarily assigned to conduct code interpretation, staff organization and assist with completing tasks faster and more effectively such as reviewing plans "in house" rather than sending them to independent plan checkers for review. Commissioner Rodgers stated he understands the need, but, he prefers that the data support the fee for service policy and it wasn't presented that way. He has a fundamental problem with this not being fee for service. It's a matter of principal and it doesn't fit the criteria. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 02-0315-04 adopting the proposal to increase the square footage calculation from "average" to "good" for all permits for residences with a valuation at or above $150,000 (This Ordinance amends specific fee schedules contained in Ordinances 12- 1209-96, 11-1115-99, 10-1108-99, 03-0312-02, Department of Community Development). Chairman Huntingford noted that the Board may want to look at other funding options if the members feel there is a need for this position. Commissioner Rodgers believes it is fair and proper if the fees for the service pay for the position. He supports funding the position, but he doesn't support this funding proposal. Chairman Huntingford stated that determining the fee for service as it relates to this position is difficult since this individual will be doing many tasks. David Goldsmith understood the previous direction from the Board was to make sure the Building Department pays for itself. That is different than fee for service. The Board wanted the building function and the development review division to each be fee driven and there would be a subsidy from the General Fund for community development/long range planning and a portion of the overhead. It was never said that a fee for a specific task had to be equitable with the amount of effort. That was never the philosophy. Commissioner Rodgers disagreed. Two years ago a group was appointed to specifically determine the fees for service. It has been the focus since that time to change the department from being subsidized to being fee driven. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 15,2004 I)'....'".''''' '¡',." S ~ '.'... 1.IJ¡¡....5'-' David Goldsmith stated they each have a different understanding of fee for service. Commissioner Titterness said one concept is fee for specific service and the other concept is fee to operate the department as a whole. Direction from the Board was that the Department was to operate through fees. There were public discussions about how the individuals who receive the services should pay for them, and that could easily have been taken literally that each fee would pay for each specific service. However, that is not the direction that was given by the Board and he believes that staff has done what was directed. The County could probably work to determine specific fees for specific services, but, it may cost more than what it is worth which is why he believes this proposal is the appropriate solution. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he doesn't believe that at all. A method can be determined. There are indicators which will generally describe reality and the codes imply that there is a relationship between effort and value. He strongly believes fee for service is the appropriate policy direction. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion and stated he feels this proposal is a good move, however, he has some concerns with an individual working for both the City and the County. He realizes that both agencies are governed by the same codes, but, there are separate functions and rules may be applied differently in each jurisdiction. Discussion ensued regarding methods of tracking services to determine fees. Commissioner Rodgers stated if you can't count it, you can't manage it. Chairman Huntingford called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion carried. The Board met in Executive Session from 2:50 to 3:00 p.m. with the County Administrator and Deputy Prosecutor regarding labor management matters. '....., ~,"'..' . r 1 v 1..1 "....... MEET~f 4q~EE~J o~\\ SEAL={ ~ .~\. ·~r{J \:..j '?J.~:) ~ '-...,. )'1' .:.,/ I rS~: ~,. - J'. . £intU~d~rt/'" vi L((í" 'e (.l C/ Deputy Clerk of the oard ,j Page 9