HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092208
District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin
Interim County Administrator: Dennis Richards
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of September 22,2008
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David
Sullivan and Commissioner John Austin.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: a citizen
who requested that the speed limit in Port Ludlow be reduced to 30 mph stated that he didn't realize the
costly process that was required and asked that his name be removed from the request; several citizens stated
that they think supporting and encouraging local farming is crucial to offset the declining economy, a citizen
stated that he thinks that training security officers, law enforcement officers, parks and recreation officers
and the military is vital to the security of the nation, the county, and citizens; and a person stated his opinion
that each department handles public records requests in a different manner and that some employees could
use a class in customer service.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chairman Johnson stated
that he wants Item #6 deleted from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Commissioner Austin moved to
delete Item #6 and approve the balanc~ of the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 63-08 re: Adopting the Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009
2. RESOLUTION NO. 64-08 re: Updating and Reauthorizing the Policy for Issuance and Use of
Business Credit Cards by Employees of Jefferson County (Repeals and Replaces Resolution No. 25-01)
3. HEARING NOTICE re: 2009 Jefferson County Budget; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, October
6, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers
4. AGREEMENT re: Concerned Citizens for Community Access; Jefferson County Public Health;
Concerned Citizens of Forks
5. AGREEMENT NO. 0663-06498-01, Amendment No.1 re: Based Family Planning; Jefferson
County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
6. DELETE: Agreement re: Housing and Care of Tribal Inmates; Jefferson County Sheriff; Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
(See later in minutes)
7. AGREEMENT re: Proper Documentation and Disposal of Collected Wastes, Recycling Services;
Jefferson County Public Works; Thermo Fluids, Inc.
8. AGREEMENT, Collective Bargaining; January 2008 through December 2011; Jefferson County
Central Services (Information Services and Facilities Management); Teamsters Local Union #589
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22,2008
9. AGREEMENT re: Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust Subscription Agreement for Health and
Welfare Benefits Provided in the Teamsters' Collective Bargaining Agreement for Jefferson County
Central Services Employees; Teamsters Local No. 589
10. Final Short Plat Approval, #SUB06-00027/MLA06-0506; To Divide 22.08 Acres into Four (4)
Residential Lots Located off of Beaver Valley Road, Port Ludlow; Jim Thompson, Applicant
11. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated September 15,2008 Totaling $1,027,879.03
12. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated September 17, 2008 Totaling $104,218.70
Agreement re: Housing and Care of Tribal Inmates; Jefferson County Sheriff; Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe: (See #6 on the Consent Agenda.) Chairman Johnson explained that he wants to
be sure that the County will not be responsible for the medical care costs of Tribal inmates. The Board
reviewed the agreement which states that if medical bills are incurred, the County will bill the Tribe for
reimbursement.
Commissioner Austin moved to approve the agreement regarding the housing of Tribal inmates.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming October 5 -11,2008 as Mental Illness Awareness
Week: Chairman Johnson read the proclamation designating October 5-11, 2008 as Mental Illness
Awareness Week. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the proclamation. Commissioner Sullivan
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board acknowledged the organizations in the
County that address mental illness.
.
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed.
Commissioner Sullivan said that he attended two regional transportation meetings last week where
local government representatives were asked about suggestions on stable funding for the ferry and
transportation systems.
Commissioner Sullivan reported that the request for bids for the construction of the Port
Townsend/Keystone ferry boats has been advertised. Six companies received packets and they are
expecting several bids to be submitted by the November 6 deadline.
Commissioner Sullivan mentioned that the State is now seriously considering the request for a late
night commercial ferry run from Port Townsend to Edmonds while the Hood Canal Bridge is closed
for replacement.
Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Peninsula Development Association (PDA) has made
organizational changes and is no longer a pass-through organization. The Economic Development
Administration (EDA) has provided funding for a PDA coordinator to oversee the Community
Economic Development Strategy that includes input from the ports, PUDs and the Tribes, as well as,
counties and cities.
Commissioner Sullivan was recently appointed to a Puget Sound Partnership Task Force that will
make recommendations to the State to support local implementation of the actions needed for
protection and restoration of Puget Sound. There are 15 members on the task force including 3
County Commissioners.
.
.
.
.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 2008
· Commissioner Austin explained that at the Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN) meeting
they discussed the shortage of facilities for senior citizens with Alzheimers. A new facility is being
built in Kitsap County but there is a 15 bed maximum for that type of treatment facility.
· Commissioner Austin noted that the Hood Canal Coordinating Council plans to postpone the final
selection of the Executive Director position until all the Council members can participate.
· Chairman Johnson stated that he has submitted his application to become a member of the Historic
Courthouse Committee.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin asked that language be added in the
September 15,2008 minutes to the first bullet under the County Administrator's Session to read, "Speed
study on Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road." Commissioner Austin moved to approve the minutes of
the special meeting on September 9,2008 as presented and the minutes of September 15,2008 as revised.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 06-0726-93 Fees for the
Solid Waste Division; Implement a Feefor Yard Debris Disposal: Chairman Johnson opened the public
hearing. Al Cairns, Solid Waste Manager, reviewed the key points of the proposal. The State requires the
Solid Waste Program to be run as a business. Currently Jefferson County is the only county in western
Washington that does not charge a fee for yard waste disposal. Solid waste tipping fees are subsidizing yard
debris disposal at approximately $55,000 per year. The proposed fee for yard waste disposal for loads of
200 lbs. or less is $5 and the fee is $48 a ton for loads in excess of200 lbs. Staffand the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SW AC) have reviewed fees charged by other jurisdictions and they think this fee is
fair and equitable. They have done quite a bit of public outreach on the proposed fee including a newspaper
article and distributing brochures at the landfill. There have only been a few concerns expressed by citizens.
The Public Works Department has received grant funding from the State and set aside 600 staff hours to be
used for an educational campaign on alternatives to disposal. The City of Port Townsend supports this fee.
If an increase in illegal dumping or burning occurs as a result of the fee, Public Health has the staff and
mechanism in place to curtail those activities. Al Cairns reported that he polled fourteen other solid waste
jurisdictions and found that when they implemented or increased their fee for yard debris disposal, none of
them reported an increase in burning or illegal dumping. During the process, a request was made to research
subsidizing smaller loads under 100 lbs., but he found that they make up the majority of the loads and it
would cost the County $12,000 to $20,000 per year. In order to continue to subsidize these smaller loads,
they would have to make service cuts or not transfer funding to Public Health for their abatement program or
the Solid Waste Education program. Another option is to increase the tipping fees for solid waste. The
preference is to charge a fair fee for a service that has been free for 15 years.
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Ken Clow, Port Townsend Public Works, endorsed Al Cairns remarks about the importance of this program
for County and City residents. Currently the sewer fees in the City are subsidizing the yard debris disposal
program which runs $200,000 to $300,000 per year. Their goal is to decrease the amount of yard waste that
comes into the facility. Currently, they have to process it and give it away, or stockpile it, which can be a
problem. The City Council has already passed a resolution that supports the implementation of this fee.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 2008
Larry Bonar, Port Townsend, stated that he endorses the concept of having the yard waste facility funded by
the people who use it. However, he would like to see a lower amount charged for smaller loads. He
suggested a minimum of $3 for 100 lbs. or less. He thinks that the 200 lb. limit would be subsidized by
people with smaller loads.
Dorothy Serafin, Port Hadlock, stated that she and her husband own a company that does landscape
maintenance and renovation. In the past the County didn't charge for yard debris disposal which benefitted
landscape maintenance companies and their clients. If the fee is put in place, they will have to charge more
for their services. It will also be difficult to calculate an equitable cost for each client, especially when
several maintenance jobs are done in one day and the yard debris is consolidated in one dump truck. She
noted that the staff presentation helped her understand why there is the need to charge a fee. However, if
compo sting isn't done properly, the rat population will increase and there are fewer days now when burning
is allowed. The danger of forest fires could increase if yard debris is dumped in the forest. If the County
intends to educate people, they need to publicize the program more. She isn't sure how to implement the fee
among their customers.
Bill Miller, Port Townsend, stated that he did the math and $48 per ton is 2.4 cents per pound. He doesn't
think this fee is unreasonable. It would cost $4.80 for 200 lbs and $2.40 cents for 100 lbs.
Richard Talbot, stated that he worked for Public Works on this project a few years ago when the idea was
first mentioned. The current tipping fees subsidize several services and these fees haven't been raised in
several years. In general, the public has supported "fee for service" in the past. It would be much more
difficult to raise the tipping fees. There are some food issues with home compo sting and people need to be
educated but it can work well for people. There are several advantages that need to be promoted about
alternative ways of doing things. He supports the concept and the proposed fees.
George Yount, Port Townsend, stated that his wife has a large garden and volunteers in the church garden.
He takes the yard waste from both gardens to the facility at the landfill. He supports the fee rate and the
concept of compo sting.
Louise Frombach, Port Townsend, said she worked for the Seattle Parks Department and when they
implemented a fee, it cost the City over $275,000 per year to clean up the parks. She has volunteered at the
cemeteries in Port Townsend for 20 years and she has taken many truck loads of yard debris to the facility.
The cemeteries look great right now but she won't be able to afford to do the clean up any more if there is a
disposal fee.
Commissioner Sullivan noted several concerns that people had mentioned to him. He said that he hadn't
heard from the major haulers and how they will deal with the fees. Al Cairns replied that about 16-18
months ago he tried to contact all the yard service businesses and arborists in the County to get their opinion
on the affect a fee would have on their businesses. He spoke to a number of business owners and they said
they were interested in changing their business practices so he sent them a DVD produced by the Seattle
Parks Department describing a shift in their operations to thatching mower blades so they didn't have to
dispose of the clippings. They also began to shred leafy debris and leave it onsite as mulch.i
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 2008
Commissioner Austin stated that this program appears to be free but it is actually subsidized by taxpayers
throughout the County. If the amount of yard debris continues to escalate, the County will have to rebuild
the facility or close it down because it is currently over capacity and the State will require additional
construction. Everyone is charged a flat fee for garbage pickup whether their garbage can is full or not. It
takes staff time to weigh the amount of debris to see if it is under 100 lbs. or 200 lbs. The City supports the
fee. This could also create an economic opportunity for compo sting businesses in the south County.
Commissioner Sullivan asked about the accuracy of the scale at the landfill and whether there could be a
charge per pound instead of a flat fee? Commissioner Austin responded that any change in the proposal
would have to be approved by the City and go through the process again. He added that he doesn't think a
$5 flat fee is unreasonable for up to 200 lbs. He noted that solid waste has a minimum flat fee also. The
Commissioners discussed seeking grant funding to bring the facility up to State standards, but
Commissioner Austin mentioned that being awarded a grant may be difficult ifthe County doesn't charge a
disposal fee for the service.
Commissioner Austin moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 09-0922-08 implementing the fee for yard
debris disposal. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Al Cairns noted that the text of the ordinance requires a date when the Transfer Station will begin charging
the fees for yard debris disposal. He suggested October 20, 2008. The Board concurred with this date.
AGREEMENT Amendment No.3 re: Biosolids Composting Facility; City of Port
Townsend: Commissioner Austin moved to approve Amendment No.3 to the Interlocal Agreement
regarding the Biosolids Compo sting Facility with the City of Port Townsend. Commissioner Sullivan
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Update on Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan/Study Circles: CANCELLED
Treasurer Judi Morris re: Public Works Parcel of Property for Possible Sale: Judi Morris
explained that the Public Works Department bought 13 acres on the Quilcene River in 1990 for $35,000 and
they no longer have the funds or desire to maintain it. Therefore they are recommending that it be sold and
put back on the tax rolls. Staff at the Department of Community Development and Environmental Health
have suggested that the property could be traded for more developable property to be used for affordable
housing. There has also been a suggestion that a portion of the property could be used for conservation.
The Assessor has valued the property at approximately $150,000-$175,000, although a real estate appraiser
would need to do an appraisal as part of the process. The Public Works Department would receive the
proceeds from the sale.
County Engineer Monte Reinders stated that the property was purchased from the State Department of
Health and Human Services and they had acquired it through a lien process. The sale document said it
would be used as a potential park or for flood control purposes. Monte Reinders added that property needs
to be managed and there are costs involved if garbage or old cars are dumped there. There was a discussion
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 2008
about any harvestable timber on the property. There are setbacks from the river and some steep slopes. The
adjacent property is zoned 1 residence per 5 acres.
Commissioner Austin noted that he did a site visit of the property and a neighbor has put up a gate to help
prevent trespassing. There is also a 50 foot road that has been constructed that provides access to the
neighbor's property. There is mostly alder in that area and there is a dropofffrom Highway 101. Monte
Reinders explained that there is also a metal building and a well that may need to be abandoned on the
County property. The gate helps keep trespassers out and the County hasn't objected to it. The neighbor has
an easement across the property.
Commissioner Sullivan asked about the idea of a trade. Assistant Planner Ryan Hunter stated that there is
1 Y:z acres of Forest Service property in the Quilcene Rural Village Center that the Fire District has "right of
first refusal" on if it is put up for sale. A few years ago, a Planner from the County who was working on the
affordable housing issue approached the Fire District about trading this property for property in another
location. The 1 Y:z acres could be used for affordable housing. Ryan Hunter noted that the County property
has flood plain and riparian issues over a portion of it, but the rest is usable. It is not mapped in the flood
plain, but does fit the criteria. He stated that there is more work to be done on the feasibility of such a
transaction.
The Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity of East Jefferson County stated that their Board of
Directors is very interested in building in Quilcene, but they would have to build on property within the
Rural Village Center that is easily developable. They would also need to do a feasability study.
Commissioner Sullivan asked about conservation easements? A member of the Jefferson Land Trust Board
stated that this property came to their attention recently. He requested that the Commissioners give all
interested parties time to develop a cooperative venture that could meet everyone's needs. He was told that
the property was removed from the flood plain because a dike had been constructed. He said that the Hood
Canal Coordinating Council, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Land Trust are all interested
in the conservation values of the habitat portion of the property.
Judi Morris explained that the County's surplus property sales occur annually in December and she needs
lead time to advertise. After further discussion and input from the Land Trust regarding grant cycles, the
Board agreed to postpone the sale of the property until 2009.
The Board met in Executive Session with the Interim County Administrator from 11 :30-
11 :45 a.m. regarding personnel, an exemption as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act RCW
42.30.110(1 )(g) regarding hiring/discipline/performance.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were
discussed.
· Direction to Staff to Schedule a Public Hearing on the Proposed Chimacum Creek No Shooting
Area and a Public Hearing on the Proposed Chimacum/Hadlock No Shooting Area:
Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to schedule a hearing for the proposed Chimacum
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22,2008
Creek No Shooting Area as soon as possible and a second hearing soon afterwards for the proposed
ChimacumlHadlock No Shooting Area. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by
a unanimous vote.
· Draft County Administrator services contract.
· Changing the date for the joint Jefferson County/City of Port Townsend Special Meeting on climate
change and affordable housing updates.
· The open Central Services Director position.
· Proposed medical insurance for inmates.
AGREEMENT re: Employment Agreement for County Administrator Services; Philip
Morley: After reviewing the suggested changes to the contract, Commissioner Austin moved to approve the
revised contract and have Chairman Johnson sign it. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at
4:42 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
; ~ I
.,.. :
\:1U0d~ -
P~i1 Jo's:n, ;:r
Dav~~.
QA1tt/Ytt:ttA~' efOlL
!66lie Matties, CMC j
Deputy Clerk of the Board
JO~~
Page 7
Page 1 of 1
'.'
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, October 07,2008 1 :32 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Comment Period on the County's Proposed Budget
Importance: High
Attachments: response to sep9adjustpdf
HEAR\NG RECORD
From: Mike Brasfield
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1 :31 :51 PM
To: Dennis Richards
Cc: David Sullivan; John Austin; Phil Johnson
Subject: Comment Period on the County's Proposed Budget
Importance: High
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dennis,
I recognize that this has been an unusual budget preparation process for the county for a number of reasons.
With Allen Sartin's departure, the "change of command" in your posilion, no Departmental Budget Hearings, and
the revenue issues all combining to alter the customary process.
I sent the attached 2 page spread sheet to Mr. Sartin on September 22nd It gives the detail on $79,000 in
routine, year in - year out, line items that the Sheriff's Office moved within the budget submittal to better refiect
actual cost centers and to assist the Auditor's Office. They were not increases to our annual budget, just
transfers to different line items within our budget to better describe the funds. Mr. Sartin indicated that his
instructions were to cut any new line items. He acknowledged after seeing the spread sheet that these were not
"new" items. They contain such things as ballistic (commonly referred to as bullet proof) vests, ammunition, etc.
However Mr. Sartin indicated that he was under instructions not to revise the overall draft budget He also
informed me that unlike the previous years, there would not be any scheduled budget meetings with elected
officials or department heads.
I need to go on record that there is a $79,000 shortfall that will have to be addressed in either the final county
budget this fall, or through supplemental appropriations next year.
Please consider this as the Sheriffs Office part of the Public Comment described in yesterdays "BOB", and that it
has arrived prior to the Friday, October 10th deadline.
Thanks,
Mike
Sheriff Michael D, Brasfield
Jefferson Sheriffs Office - 79 Elkins Road - Port Hadlock, WA 98339
PH: (360) 385-3831 - FAX: (360) 379-0513
mQf~sfield(ci)co.i.@.fferson.w~,us~' www.i~ffersonshe.rjftQrg
10/7/2008
~.
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENT
001180000
ITEM DESCRIPTION REQUEST ADJUSTED JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST MIN REQ.
52110.48.0032 ACCESS 9000 o Reauired Law Enforcement Service Provided 9000
Bv WSP (formerlv paid for bv Jeffcom and
shared bv SO, now SO has its own acet.)
52122.31.0000 LAW ENFORCEMENT 18,000 o Expense moved from 52110.31.0020 to 8000
OPERATING 52122 to better reflect actual cost center
YTD 2008 exoense is 29,500
52122.31.0020 AMMO 7 RANGE 12000 10000 AdiUstment accepted 10000
SUPPLIES
52122.31.0035 BULLETPROOF VESTS 6400 o formerlv charned as part of 52110.31.0020 6400
Moved to 8oorooriate cost center for
and seoarate line item for better trackina of
ex-oenses for arant reportinQ, Reimb @ 50%
52122.35.0000 SMALL TOOLS AND 4000 o budnet under 52110 reduced and new line 2000
MINOR EQUIPMENT item added under 52122 cost center to
better reflect source of exoenditures. Amount
is based on vtd 2008 ex of 3315. Need to
retain budoet of at least 960 to eoual 2008
budaet. Reauesting a minimum 2000
52122.410030 VIPS PROGRAM 1000 o 2008 budOeted praqram moved from cost 1000
center 52110 to 52122 to better reflect
source of eXnAnditures. The volunteer
nronram fundine is still reauired.
Volunteer oroaram is essential to the ooeration
of the Sheriffs office
52122.49.0015 GUN CLUB 2500 o Formerl'\lcharaed under 52110 and under~ 2500
MEMBERSHIPS funded, this item has been moved to
the more annronriate cost center and is
crucial in maintainina officer rofficiencv
since the SO does not have it's own
nun ranne
52122.93.0010 NON ER&R COSTS 18,000 o Costs for maintainin vehicles owned bv 8000
FOR SPECIAL SO and not covered under ER&R have
VEHICLES been charoed to ER&R budqet line in the
nast. This new line item allows for assignment
to aooronriate cost center and better trackino
This includes the volunteer vehicles and
installation into patrol vehicles of non ER&R
e ui ment
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENT
001180000
ITEM DESCRIPTION REQUEST ADJUSTED JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST MIN REQ
52170.93.0010 TRAFFIC SAFETY 3000 o Costs for maintainina the Traffic Safetv Van 3000
VAN owned bv the SO is not Dart of ER&R costs
This new line item allows for assKmment
to aoorooriate cost center and better
trackina. These ex.[lEmSeS were formeriV
charaed to the traffic safety vehicle lease
line
52520.93.0040 SAR FUEL 1000 o Fuel for SAR vehicle needs to be tracked 1000
52520.98.0010 SAR VEHICLE 5000 0$5,000 was moved from 52520.48.0010 to 5000
MAINTENANCE this line item Keen this $5,000 and delete
the $5,000 still shawino under 52520.48.0010
Costs for maintainina the Search and Rescue
vehicles owned bv the SO have not
been adeauate\\I funded in the oast. Much
of the eauicment was auctioned off in 2008
and remain in e uiomentneeds considerable
maintenance which must be funded
Reoeated reQuests for new eauinment have
been denied in recent budaet years increas-
ina costs to maintain old enuinment
52520,48,0010 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE should have been zeroed out when it -5000
was moved to 52520.98.0010
79900 10000 50900
CC:'BcCC? I
CA ~ IOjIOD'I)
jeffbocc
Page 1 of 1
From: jim hagen Uchagen@donobLnet]
Sent: Friday, October 10,20089:01 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Fw: 2009 Budget Comment
qt:ARI~'G Rj:i""O' .R:D
rU.. c d~:J ~'d..' I L
---- Original Message ----
From: iim haQEill
To: jeff\::>Qg:.@GojeJfersQn,w<l,Y_~
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:46 AM
Subject: 2009 Budget Comment
Commissioners,
The public hearing on the 2009 county budget held on 10/6 was sadly lacking in the kind of background presentation that
normally precedes public comment. The commissioners primary responsibility is to manage the budget, the lion's share of
which is provided by citizen contributions, This is your single most important function. Considering the budget shortfalls
the county has faced the last two years, exacerbated by the national and global financial crisis's, the attention paid to and
decisions made pertaining how this will be managed is crucial. Typically, a public hearing is opened with staff presentation
summarizing the background and intent of a given proposal, which provides members of the public with valuable
information they can use to inform their comments. This background information is especially important with
understanding a subject as complex as the budget. I commend the county auditor for all the work her office has done in
providing the preliminary budget online, but how many people know that's available and, if they do, are able to decipher
the information? The introduction to last Monday's budget hearing consisted of a roughly one minute presentation by the
county administrator stating he thought the budget met legal requirements and that he didn't recommend passing it in its
current form. I'm not faulting our interim administrator for this less than comprehensive introduction; it's the commissioners
job to make sure the proper information is made available to the people. Why wasn't the budget being recommended?
Why is there a $1.5 million shortfall? Which departments are on target and which are problematic? What about a concise
summary of revenues, expenditures, future trends, and alternative courses of action? I have witnessed comprehensive,
ten minute staff presentations that opened public hearings related to land-use decisions. Why can't the same be done for
something as important as the budget?
I urge the commissioners to resolve the budget in a timely manner that avoids additional hearings held late in the year
when people are in a holiday mode and decisions are made ten days before Christmas. You have consistently said in the
past how public participation noticeably drops around the holidays. You have known since the passage of last year's
budget there would be increased challenges this year and there was a need to start early, but this hasn't been done.
There is a strong likelihood the most important decision you make this year will be overshadowed by the December
timeframe. Having to attend a budget meeting nine days before Christmas is the public participation equivalent of getting
a chunk of coal in your stocking.
One area I urge the commissioners to really focus on is not simply a spending freeze but consideration of additional cuts.
At the state level, the governor has announced 1 % cuts in certain departments in both spending and staffing. Similar
proposais are recommended in King County and other states faced with budget shortfalls. Commissioner Sullivan has
commented on how hard it is to attract good county workers, and that we need to maintain the county workforce in
anticipation of future economic recovery, but we really need to deal with present realities that many other municipal
corporations are recognizing as necessary. (Interesting, this attention to maintaining the county workforce, when I rarely
hear a corresponding concern for our private workforce, who may very well be asked to pay increased fees to
help sustain county services). Also, there have been several news stories that are reporting on the reduced ability of
municipalities to obtain funding for captial projects. Rather than planning for sunny days in the distance, the realities of
today's financial crisis should take precedent in adopting the 2009 budget.
Jim Hagen
150 Maple Dr.
Port Townsend, WA
10/10/2008
jeffbocc
CC'. ~CJollolc8
Page 1 of 1
"
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Georgette Semick [gsemick@yahoo.com]
Friday, October 10, 200811:25AM
jessbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffbocc
Karen Bednarski
UtA' Df~J~ Dr::r
r'~..; .". ~~ " ,.,> 1 ....,,, ~,
-' . ~ ,~: '''!r.o, ~ .J'l.iii" "".~-,;,"
Subject: comments on the 2009 Budget
Attachments: BOCC 2009 budget Itr to Comm_Co Admin (10-10-2008).doc
Please accept the attached document as commentary on the 2009 draft budget. My compliments to the Auditor's
Office and especially the Chief Accountant for making the detailed documents available on the web site,
I remain available to discuss the matter with anyone.
Georgette Semick
Cape George
344-4283
Georgette <gsemick@yahao.com>
10/1 0/2008
'..
GEORGEITE SEMICI(
31 N. Rhadoelendw(l Dr.. q PORT TawlNiSENlJ, WA .98368. H,QM,UHf.W.E:: 36€l344A283
October 10, 2008
Delivered via email
Jefferson County Commissioners
County Administrator
Subject:
Comments on the 2009 Draft Budget
Dear Sirs:
The PDN reported that the new County Administrator said he would welcome help and
that the Commissioners welcomed comments on the budget I can see how wading through 320
pages of inflated numbers would be a daunting task for anyone, yet alone someone just coming
onto the job. The only way to approach this is from the standpoint of reviewing and cutting
expenses. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of wading through a quagmire of details to even see
where those might be inflated. I base my comments on the Budget Narrative and the 2009
Budget Report detail dated September 23, 2008 found on the Auditor's portion of the web site
and on almost 30 years of developing and overseeing large budgets for private corporations and
government projects.
As a note, I applaud the Auditor's office and Chief Accountant for making these records
available for public review; although the lack of subtotals may mean I have quoted some
erroneous numbers below, My concentration is on expenses, not income balances since we all
admit the County and taxpayers will be in for hard times and should not take for granted normal
revenue projections,
May I suggest a few basic principles which would get the department heads and budget
analysts back to basics and a semblance of reality in these very tight and likely to get tighter
times, namely, deal with the escalating requests for expenses:
. Recognizing that there are contracts outstanding with certain labor unions or perhaps
even individual contracts guaranteeing increases and benefits, no one beyond those
covered by contracts deserves or should receive any increased compensation unless or
until we can show that they have taken on more responsibility.
. Any departure of a department head or supervisor should be reviewed as an opportunity
to rethink or reorganize a department to cut back on staff, facilities and perhaps
consolidate at least administrative jobs.
. Any open positions should be frozen and replacements should be justified to the County
Administrator.
. Travel, training, information systems, and expansions should all be frozen at 2008 levels
if not cut
. No new programs and certain programs and community facilities might be closed for the
year to reduce maintenance and utility costs.
. Lead by example in the Administrators/BOCC/Miscellaneous budget, as I will detail
below.
. Require that the departments, especially those with larger staffs, like Health, Parks and
2009 Budget Comments
October 9, 2008
Page 2
Recreation and Community Development start from a zero base to justify their staffing
levels based on the current demands for service, rather than just the plusses and
minuses from 2008 levels. Pay particular attention to the vast number of financial
analysts, clerks, administrative assistants, information specialists and similar
administrative positions that seem to be scattered across these departments.
"Administration" including managers and supervisors should use the business rule of
thumb of no more than 10% FTE on top of the service positions.
To be more specific, I have reviewed these 320 detail pages plus the "narrative" that was on
the web site. Here are some examples of where requests for increases appear worth of more
scrutiny and the unfortunate but necessary tool of management - "N-O". In these times of 7%+
unemployment and no medical benefits, it is time for the county government employees to share
the need for serious belt tightening.
The General Fund appears to request a 5.0% increase but that masks a myriad of places
where additional cuts can be made. Benefits appear to project a 17.3% increase across the
board; that would say to me that it is time to reconsider insurance carriers and plans to get a
more competitive rate. Some more detailed examples include:
Countv Administrator/BOCC/Miscellaneous:
. The departure of the County Central Services Director should be seen as a place to
cut back by reorganizing or at least postponing the filling of this position.
. The request for a 7 month overlap for a new person to be "trained" is ridiculous. A
month is normal and two months at most would be more than any competent new
hire should need.
. Commissioners for Districts 1 and 2 have given themselves a 13.5% increase. If they
would bring their salaries in line with the Commissioner from District #3, they would
receive a 3.7% increase and could lead by example for the rest of the increases
throughout the workforce.
. The number of administrative staff in this office seems excessive: 2 Exec.
Secretaries II plus a request for a New Clerk? A Clerk of the Board plus a Deputy
Clerk of the Board? I would question whether that hire to replace the leaving position
is needed at all under these circumstances.
. Professional Services in this budget has increased.
Other General Fund Increases - a sample:
. The Appraisers office includes increases for staff of as much as 9.1 % for the Sr.
Appraiser and 13.3% of the Property Tech III; other staff positions include 5.2%. Again,
unless some of these are covered by contractual obligations, that appears to be too
much. Office supplies, travel and school/seminars request increases of 38%, 5 times,
and 71.1 %, respectively. Guidelines of what each department can/should budget needs
to come from the top.
. Public Health has been lauded in the papers for their willingness to cut back their staff
hours to 36 per week. That is a noble and positive step. What I do see, however, are
several areas bearing the need for more scrutiny. The number of financial positions
scattered throughout their budget to handle the billing and grant monies of this
department seems excessive: a Financial Operations Coordinator, a Finance and
Administration Manager, and 3 Finance Support Specialists. Even at 36 hours, this is still
"
2009 Budget Comments
October 9, 2008
Page 3
.
4.5 FTEs for a $4.6 million budget (or is it $9+million as on page 167?) - way too much.
Also, the number of medical records staff found throughout the different departments is
excessive. This is an area that has reasonably been handled by hourly and contract
employees who are paid by the record to handle fluctuations in claims not as fully
benefited staff. Similarly, information services staff are especially prevalent in the Public
Health budget despite the already large department found elsewhere in the budget; some
rationalization of overlap is needed here. I also question the number of department
heads within Public Health and wonder why the administration of several of these
departments cannot be shared to reduce administrative costs.
Community Development has reduced their staff from 25.9 to 23.3 FTEs, but again, it
does not appear that this budget balances, so one would question staffing based on
reduced service levels caused by building slow-downs. Based on page 204 of the
budget detail, they are still requesting a 11.1 % increase in their expenses despite staff
cutbacks.
Auditor's O&M (po 89 of the detailed budoet) If I am reading this correctly, this is a
request for an unprecedented 147% increase over the amended 2008 budget, which was
already a big jump from any prior year. I suspect that this is funding some new project,
but in an election off-year, I doubt that this is the time for such an expenditure.
Information Services is requesting a $911,000 increase or 37.1 % according to page 320
of the budget detail. That should obviously be scrutinized. This is compounded by REET
Technolooy Fund, whatever that may be, that is more than doubling their budget request
Facilities Manaoement is requesting an almost $400,000 increase (page 263) or 21.5%.
While much of this could be the result of increased costs of materials and utilities, I
believe it is time to look seriously at cutting back on the number of facilities and
consolidating programs into fewer facilities so these costs can be contained.
Parks Improvement: One word: "don't" especially with an increase of over $100,000.
Hold the line at the 2008 amended budget level.
Solid Waste: A doubling of the budget? Unheard of.
Parks and Recreation: The Commissioners have been big supporters of this department
but a 22.9% increase is way too much support.
Cooperative Extension Proorams' increase of 15.1 %; let's ramp back.
Affordable Housino: $280,000 to $737,722? An example of another expanding program
that the county cannot sustain at these levels, regardless the expected sources of the
funds. We all know that new programs whether funded by grants or taxpayers tend to
have a life of their own; down the road it will be the property taxpayers who will be asked
to sustain these "well intentioned ideas."
Water Quality: And speaking of new programs with a life of their own. When the Clean
Water District was discussed, the budget for that was expected to be $500,000. Is the
$804,000 (62.1 %) increase in the Water Quality budget request the result of that inflated
new program pushed and adopted by the Commissioners? If so, it exceeds stated levels
and given the latest news on the improvements in water quality in Discovery Bay, the
whole program should be reconsidered.
Mental Health and Chemical Dependency is a problem that the County has stepped up to
help address, but I am certain that the citizens who supported the concept were unaware
that that would cost an additional $446,000, or 54.5% increase, in 2009.
E-911 Telephone is requesting a $2.6 million or 92% increase over 2008 budget
Unprecedented and unwarranted, even if there is a big upgrade project in there.
And let's not let the smaller departments get away with 75% and more increases just
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, .
'"
2009 Budget Comments
October g, 2008
Page 4
because the absolute requested amount is smaller, e.g., Public Defense Funding., the
Law Library, Sheriff's Drug Investigation, Jefferson County Drug Fund, Courthouse
Facilitator, Boating Safety, 4H Afterschool
The good news is there are many areas to look into that would significantly cut expenses and
get this budget back on track. The bottom line is that it is time for the Commissioners and
County Administrator to take out the red pencil. Those of you who are running for reelection are
touting budget prudence - this is the time to show it and to do it now would provide voters with
some reassurance that you do mean it this time. It is easy to blame budget deficits on declining
tax revenues and cutbacks in grants, but this year the name of the game is the hard work of
holding the line on expenses, cutting back or freezing program expansions and a few judicious
reductions. After all, "that's why they pay you the big bucks."
I would be happy to speak with or meet with any of you to discuss this further. Hopefully,
some true reductions can be made in the budget before the next public meeting on the topic.
Very truly yours,
~r~'~
Georgette Semick
Cc: Karen Bednarski, Chief Accountant