Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121205 District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 12, 2005 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The County is going to continue to have budget problems and the Board needs to consider cutting 15 to 20 employees; the County has the same number of road miles as it did in 1990 so why does Public Works need more employees than worked there in 1990?; the Board needs to have contingency plans for the budget and they need to put a cap on the number of employees hired; the County needs to do a study on where cutbacks can be made in supervisory staff; The County has two great managers in the County Administrator and the Central Services Director but the Board needs to provide them guidance; this building needs to be repaired; the Board has a number of tough budget decisions and tax increases are not the answer; a suggestion was made that the Board members look at cutting their salaries; there needs to be contingency funds available because unplanned things happen; now is the time to get rid of junk vehicles because the price for scrap metal is high; people need to be given the information on the process for getting rid of junk vehicles; and what is happening with PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) funding at the federal level because it will have an impact on the County budget if it isn't approved by Congress? (The County Administrator explained that the bigger worry is the re-authorization of the Secure Rural School Funding which would have a larger impact on the General Fund and it would also impact the Road Fund.) APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 10-1212-05 and NOTICE OF ADOPTION re: Approval of Six (6) Comprehensive Plan Amendments; 1) MLA 05-06 (McDiehl); 2) MLA 05-39 (Nelson/Monroe); 3) MLA 05-51 (Kirkpatrick); 4) MLA 05-59 (Olympic Property Group); 5) MLA 05-60 (Olympic Property Group); and 6) MLA 05-66 (Jefferson County) 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Amendments to Conservation Futures Ordinance No. 06- 0708-02; Hearing Scheduled for Tuesday, January 3,2006 at 10:15 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 3. AGREEMENT re: Courthouse Site and Landscape Improvement; Jefferson County Central Services; Lakeside Industries Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 12, 2005 Oo ~ ,- 4. AGREEMENT re: Educational and Therapeutic Services Birth to Three (3) Years; Jefferson County Public Health; Holly Ridge Center 5. AGREEMENT re: Birth to Three (3) Years; Jefferson County Public Health; Port Townsend School District #50 6. AGREEMENT re: Professional Engineering Services for Road Construction and Maintenance Projects; Jefferson County Public Works; Gray and Osborne, Inc. 7. Ten-Year Plan to Reduce Homelessness in Jefferson County; Olympic Community Action Programs; Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development 8. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board; Amber Faulkner HEARING re: Proposed 2006 Budget: County Administrator John Fischbach reviewed the proposed 2006 budget. He explained that this is the final public hearing prior to the 2006 budget being approved. The preliminary budget has been available since September and at this point in time it is not the Commissioner's budget it is the Administrator's budget. It will become the Commissioner's budget upon their approval next week. Three things are happening in the world right now that impact Jefferson County budgeting: 1) the economy continues to struggle which affects government and consumers alike; 2) Washington voters have aggressively approved ballot initiatives which are requiring local governments to restructure finances; and 3) Construction continues unabated bringing additional dollars, however, it continues to add demands on services for all governmental operations. The proposed 2006 budget was balanced within existing resources and expenses were assigned priority using the following guidelines: . The priorities of government as expressed by the public in the 2003 State of the County survey with the top 3 priorities being law and justice, roads, and public health. . The 2006 budget goals and objectives as adopted by the Commissioners in Resolution No. 44-05 which identified 6 specific objectives. 1) Supporting local law and justice programs. 2) Addressing locally identified and defined public health issues. 3) Protecting and enhancing natural resources. 4) Investing in community infrastructure that encourages economic opportunity. 5) Planning for long term capital facility needs. 6) Operating within a business plan based on sustainable resources, measured performance, and outstanding customer service. The basic fiscal budget objectives used throughout the entire budget process include: . The budget when adopted, will be balanced within available resources. In addition to annual fiscal objective there should also be a focus on long term analysis. . Growth in general fund property taxes shall not exceed 1 % (estimated to be $53,143.00) plus taxes collected on new construction. . Personnel costs (salaries, wages and benefits) and transfers from the General Fund to other operating funds will be adjusted from current levels based on the impact of the rates of the new labor agreements or the estimated rates for the labor agreements that are still under negotiation. . Reserves shall be maintained for each fund as authorized in Resolution 30-05. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 12, 2005 ," " · Revenues collected in excess ofthe minimum reserve shall be held for one time special needs that fulfills the strategic objective of the County. . The current policy of the Commissioners (as approved in Resolution 34-04) regarding recreations program was re-examined and the funds for the recreation program have been put back in the budget. . Non personnel operating costs will be adjust by 2% from the adopted 2005 budget. · Any proposed use of banked capacity (currently $493,332.00 or 9.6% of the General Fund) will be for one-time, non recurring expenses. He then reviewed the strategic budget objectives. 1) Support an effective economic development strategy that encourages participation by the City of Port Townsend, the Port of Port Townsend, the Economic Development Council and other interested parties. Explore alternative methodologies to insure that an effective economic development program is implemented and carried forward. 2) Support and maintain Law and Justice programs. Encourage collaboration in the development of strategy that will yield the best outcomes within the resources available. 3) Support programs that identify and treat significant public health threats and gaps in programs offered. 4) Complete the remodel of the Castle Hill main building. Relocate Public Works to the stand alone building in the Castle Hill complex; complete the Courthouse site master plan project; begin the Courthouse Clock Tower proj ect; continue the development and construction of the sewer system for the Tri Area UGA; update the Gateway Visitor's Center project and prepare an improvement plan to provide on-site toilets and potable water if feasible; and develop a countywide land use inventory and infrastructure database with accompanying economic analysis for future planning decisions. 5) Conduct compensative surveys for the non-union positions to assure that the County's wage and benefit matrices adequately reflect the true cost of engaging personnel in conducting County business. 6) In the efficiency and effectiveness objectives for internal activities are being reviewed and .evaluated. The County has successfully renegotiated all of the contracts with the City except for the Information Services contract. The County will playa role in the City's information Services for a couple more months while the City transitions to their own program. The following issues have not been fully resolved in this proposed budget: 1) The Historical Society is in the budget at $43,000 and it should be in at $48,000. This amendment will need to be made sometime early next year. 2) Estimating and funding any wage costs associated with the resolution of contract labor negotiations. 3) Estimating and funding any wage costs associated with market adjustments for the exempt staff, and the Elected Officials.. 4) The program for the 1/10 of 1 % tax for mental health has not been developed yet. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 12,2005 ~,.,..""o" f~'..".........:.',,~ ~ff";;::"..'~ The Board has agreed to meet in a "retreat" session on budget on January 12, 2006 to begin addressing priorities for the 2007 budget preparation process. No structural changes have been proposed to existing organizations other than adding new fund authorized by the State Legislature which are: 1) The Courthouse Facilitator Fund was established and is managed by the County Clerk. 2) The REET Technology Fund was established and is managed by the County Treasurer. 3) The Trial Court Fund was established and is managed by the County Administrator. 4) The Mental Health Drug Abuse Fund was established with a 1I10th of 1 % sales tax which was authorized by the State Legislature. This fund is also managed by the County Administrator. Other items of note in the proposed 2006 budget: . The budget includes the increase mandated by the State in the cost of employee retirement. The employers share of retirement costs will increase from 1.18% to 2.25% effective July 1, 2005 and then to 3.5% effective July 1, 2006. That is more than a 1 % increase the State imposed upon the County and the County is limited by initiative to a 1 % increase in the growth ofthe property tax. . The budget includes the impact from the UFCW contract and the J effCom contract and an estimate of impacts from the rest of the Teamster contract settlements. . The 2006 budget does NOT include any use ofthe banked capacity available in either the General Fund or the Road Fund. . The 2006 level of diversion of Road Fund monies to the General Fund is consistent with the amount of money expended for traffic control by the Sheriff in 2004. . The total staffing for all County operations increased by 5.28 FTE. A 10 year staffing summary is appended into the budget document. In 1997 County Roads had 22 more people than they do now. The County is making every effort to reduce staffing where possible. . The proposed budget includes 10.46 staffper 1,000 population. The 1997 budget had 10.53 staff per 1,000 population. There was a 1 FTE increase in the General Fund composed of small staffing changes in various departments. The Sheriff requested an increase of 3 FTE but that was not included in this proposal because the wage increases for the Union contract were addressed instead. Superior Court requested a rearrangement of staffing with the Clerk's Office that would have resulted in a 2 FTE increase in the General Fund and that request is not in the proposed budget and remains outstanding. . Departments managing other funds requested the following staff increases: Health Department 1.5 FTE Community Development 1.28 FTE Public Works 1.54 FTE County Administrator 2.0 FTE for E911 Dispatch (JEFFCOM) Central Services for Information Services 1.0 FTE . The following decreases in staffing were also requested: Central Service for construction 1.5 FTE. Sheriff - Animal Services 1.0 FTE and an existing but unfilled position. Crime Victims .5 FTE. A requested increase of 1 FTE in Parks and Recreation was not included. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 12,2005 ;EJ.~""~"\ ,"--j'F-..;. fl":----~.., Ii) ,,~, . Revenues: This proposed budget includes: The allowable 1 % property tax increase for the General Fund, the Road Fund and the Conservation Futures Fund. The base sales tax of 1 % in the General Fund The 1/1 0 of 1 % sales tax for criminal justice in the General Fund The 1/10 of 1 % sales tax for E911 in the General Fund. · The proposed budget does NOT include estimates for the 1/10th of 1 % sales tax for the mental health drug abuse fund. A multi-year budget is currently being prepared for that sales tax. . Operating Costs: The General Fund shows a 5.12% growth in operating costs. Most of that growth is the result of labor contract. Excluding certain jail costs, non-personnel costs are essentially flat. Special revenue funds show a .25% growth in operating costs, despite having an aggregate increase of 2.8 FTE. Labor cost increases were largely offset by reductions in non-personnel costs. Enterprise Funds show a 2.7% growth in operating costs in spite of a 1.24 FTE increase. Reductions in non-personnel costs offset those increases. Internal Service Funds show a 6.98% increase in operating costs. Labor costs were up due to the .8 FTE increase, and non-personnel costs were up slightly due to the rise in the cost of petroleum products. The budget includes 3 categories of capital requests: 1) the replacement schedule for vehicles and equipment; 2) the major facilities projects; and 3) additional equipment. The County does not plan to issue any short or long term debt. The County will end the 2006 year with $7,341,126.00 in outstanding debt which is made up of general obligation bonds of $4.8 million and contractual borrowing of $2.5 million. A debt schedule is also included with the budget. Inter-fund transfers are used to move cash from one fund to another. In 2006 $70,000 of cash in the Public Infrastructure Fund is being moved to the Tri Area Sewer Fund as an inter-fund transfer. Cash balances are estimated and appear to be adequate. The County Administrator then thanked Auditor Donna Eldridge, Accountant Karen Bednarski and Central Services Director Allen Sartin for all of their help and assistance in producing the budget. He also thanked all of the administrative support staff for their help. The proposed budget with all funds included has $41,107,632.00 in revenues against expenses of $43,830,456.00 which is a use of $2,722,764.00 of cash reserves which will leave an ending cash and investment position for all funds of $12,036,731.00. The working capital reserve required is $6,133,234.00 meaning that there will be an unreserved cash and investment of$5,903,137.00. The Chair then opened the public hearing. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the sales tax chart which shows a 12.8% increase over 2005? Allen Sartin explained that the 2005 budget figures have not been updated to actual receipts for this year. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed 2006 budget, the Chair closed the public hearing. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 12,2005 ", ~"I ,- Commissioner Sullivan thanked the County Administrator for all his work on the budget. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he is looking forward to working on the issues that have been carried over as well as how to partner with other agencies. Chairman Johnson stated that he appreciates the narrative that was included with the proposed budget. HEARING re: A Proposed Resolution Setting the 2006 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for Levy in 2005 and Collection in 2006: Assessor Jack Westerman reviewed the levies as follows: General Fund - 1 % increase over actual for previous year at $5,476,065.00 County Roads - 1 % increase over actual for previous year at $3,099,690.00 Conservation Futures - 1 % increase over actual for previous year at $170,747.02. He added that none ofthese funds used any banked capacity which is important because the Commissioners could use banked capacity without a vote of the people which would add another $725,000 in taxes. The previous Board had adopted a resolution requiring a vote ofthe people for the County to use banked capacity, but that resolution could be changed. Commissioner Sullivan advised that the Board had a hearing on that resolution and tabled any action to change it. Limiting these funds to a 1 % tax increase, Jack Westerman continued, does not mean that an individual taxpayer is not limited to a 1 % tax increase. An individual taxpayer's amount may change dramatically from one year to the next due to re-evaluation of their property's assessed value. Property owners in the City of Port Townsend will see dramatic increases due to re-eva1uations that increased their property values from between 33% and 150%. He thanked the Board and the County Administrator for their efforts to keep the property taxes down on an overall basis. The Chair opened the public hearing. Alan Frank. Port Townsend, stated that his concern is that any more than a 1 % increase in property taxes should go to a vote of the people whether its by the use of banked capacity or not. The people need to be asked if they feel comfortable with the services that the County provides. We have to watch out for new taxing districts this next year. There will be new Fire Districts and Park and Recreation Districts which are tax increases and not revenue enhancements. Jack Westerman clarified that it is not the merger of the Fire Districts that is of concern because it is a blending ofthe levy amounts of Fire Districts 1 and 6. The issue is that now the merger is done, the annexation of the merged district with the City of Port Townsend it would mean a new tax for the residents of the City. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ad valorem tax levies, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the long range plan with the sewer in the Tri Area is to harvest the Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 12,2005 f~"U",,\ ot: ,. ~ '1,\' ',\.., 1I!~l' taxes that are already here, but spent in other places. There are also ways to raise revenues which don't raise the taxes of our citizens. These things will be reviewed in January and the rest ofthe year. MEETINGAD~ // . 1\. 4t.,;', . ,:> . t ' SEAL: I. " :. . .:, · J () \ / ") :.&.,. ,- - '~... . ~.' \ ... . v. ~''t. 1:::1" ... . . ~ !\ ,:- 1'_' <~ t \ ~ .,., < -, \ .. ',~, ATTEST~. .v....... 4r. ... , \1'",. . ...- ~ _./ ~ . ') <, ~~~~~ Clerk ofthe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BO OF COMMISSIONERS /' /') DaJ~f&~t?- ~er Page 7