HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole November 4 20101
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
November 4, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (9 :33 :41 AM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen and Kathy
Kershner.
Absent: L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2011/2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET
(AB2010 -244)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated information requested at the last
meeting was sent to the councilmembers by email. He submitted information regarding the
proposed tax levy shift (on file).
The following people answered questions:
• Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director
• Janie Pemble, Friendly Visitors Program Coordinator, explained their funding
shift away from Whatcom County.
• Mike Parker, Whatcom Council on Aging Executive Director, described his
programs.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department Finance Manager
Discussion included the budgeted and requested funding amounts for Lydia Place and
Sean Humphrey House in 2009 and 2010; creating biennial contracts to go with biennial
budgets for Lydia Place and Sean Humphrey House; the process of budgeting the 2060
Homeless and Housing Fund (2060) funds for 2011 and 2012; implementation of the
Assessor /Treasurer software system and associated technical issues continuing into 2011
(9 :49 :16 AM); the 2010 total budget lapse; impacts of adding staff, given the hiring freeze
and Union considerations; how the Administration answered the Council budget instructions
to consolidate departments, increase the use of technology for efficiencies, outsource work,
and review positions; funding $10,000 to the Friendly Visitors Program for 2011 only from
the Executive's contingency fund instead if the 2060 funds; who handles and funds the
nutrition program for the Lynden Senior Center; whether the levy shift is fair; why the
Sheriff's funding doesn't come from road funds that serve only county residents or a
separate Sheriff's fund that's paid into only by unincorporated taxpayers; the remaining
banked capacity; whether mutual aid agreements between the County and other
jurisdictions include reimbursement for Sheriff response in another jurisdiction; premium
pay for certain county officials; whether or not the budget presented is balanced or has a
deficit; (10 :50 :41 AM) funding pension funds; County employee and public parking costs;
developing and presenting a budget that's easier to understand; (11 :06 :38 AM) how
Administrative Services function costs are spread across all departments; whether money is
Special Committee of the Whole - 2011/2012 Budget, 11/4/2010, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
allocated to the reconveyance in this budget, and; the reason for the Parks Department 65
percent increase from 2006 to 2007 and 18 percent reduction in 2010.
Kershner moved to approve the
Assessor's Office that was not approved, so
installation. The Assessor's Office has had
They did not participate in big boon years I
cost cuts for the past three cycles. Get 1
generator for their property taxes. She wog
Service Department to offset this position. E
position in two years.
ASR 2011 -4744 for 2011 and 2012 for the
they can finish the Assessor /Treasurer system
a consistent level of staff positions since 2000.
iy increasing in staff. They've been sharing in
hat system up and running. It's the income
Id rather cut a position from the Administrative
he has confidence that the Assessor will cut the
Crawford stated he is against the motion. He completely respects the Assessor, but
this is money the County doesn't have. The Assessor has had administrative control over
this project. It's a tough situation, but keep the status quo. It requires a lot of extra effort
from many people, but those are the times they are in.
Brenner stated she would support the motion, but would like consideration of
consolidating the Parks Department under the Public Works and Health Departments. Other
counties have their Parks Departments as a division of the Public Works Department. Her
suggestion is not radical.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (3)
Nays: Mann and Crawford (2)
Absent: Nelson and Weimer (2)
Kershner moved to reduce Executive contingency fund from $30,000 to $20,000
for 2011, and give that $10,000 to the Friendly Visitors program in 2011 only.
Pemble stated any contribution to the Friendly Visitors Program from Whatcom
County should be given to the Visiting Nurses Home Care instead of going through the
Northwest Regional Council, which takes an administrative cut. (10:14:09 AM)
Crawford stated he is against the motion. The effect is the same. This is a great
program, but he's never supported it financially. He's glad the program is becoming more
independent.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Nays: Crawford (1)
Absent: Nelson and Weimer (2)
Brenner asked for information on the history and configuration of the senior centers
and the reason why the Lynden Senior Center is no longer in the nutritional program. It's
all very confusing. McFarland stated that information is in the paperwork he submitted
during his budget presentation.
Brenner moved to receive Council authorization to prepare a resolution or
ordinance with the Clerk of the Council and administration to have an annual budget
process instead of a biennial budget process.
Mann stated he doesn't know enough about the implications to vote on something
like that right now.
Special Committee of the Whole - 2011/2012 Budget, 11/4/2010, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Brenner stated they need more opportunities to review the budget. The
administration wants a biennial budget because it is less work, but that's not why they are
here.
Knutzen stated he doesn't know if he has the energy to support an annual budget
process, given their current workload. He may be willing to consider it in a year, once they
get through some of the huge issues they are currently working on.
Crawford stated he is opposed to the motion. This year's budget process has been
the easiest and smoothest so far. Department managers have recognized the financial
situation they are in. In past years, there was vocal disagreement with the Administration's
proposals. That has used a lot of Council time to work out what they want, as opposed to
what has been proposed. This year, everyone knows they just don't have the money to
advocate for many things. The budget process has been one of the most time - consuming
aspects of the Council's work. Also, they don't have big program proposals coming from the
Administration to begin with. They haven't spent hours debating big, high - dollar projects.
Brenner stated the Council and Administration are not a team. They are a check and
a balance. It will always be a lot of work. That's the way the Charter says it is. Don't let a
budget go for two years. It's better to not have the time, and at least look at the possibility
of changes every year.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (3)
Absent: Nelson and Weimer (2)
Mann moved to not approve the levy shift from the conservation futures fund to the
general fund, because there was a voter - approved advisory vote.
Crawford asked how they would make up that $500,000 deficit in the general fund.
Mann stated they can make it up from the road fund or other ideas, to be decided
later.
Knutzen asked if the shift was partially to pay for the reconveyance. Desler stated
the proposal was to reimburse general fund money spent on the reconveyance from the
conservation futures fund. Also, Fund 175 as shown in Volume 1, pages 40 and 41 has a
projected ending fund balances of $1.6 million at the end of 2011 and $1.9 million at the
end of 2012.
Mann stated there are plenty of funds with ending fund balances.
Knutzen stated he would support the motion with the understanding they stop the
reconveyance process.
Brenner stated the purpose of the conservation futures fund is for park purchase, not
maintenance. She won't support the motion. There are many general fund costs to the
park property purchases. The shift is good, so they can maintain the properties they have.
The advisory vote never explained that continual park purchases would result in higher
general fund expenditures for park maintenance. Voters, including her, didn't understand
that the conservation futures fund wouldn't pay for park maintenance.
Special Committee of the Whole - 2011/2012 Budget, 11/4/2010, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Knutzen stated they just paid $291,000 from the general fund for the reconveyance.
Mann stated that was last year. They already shifted those funds.
McFarland stated the 2009 contract for the amount not to exceed $300,000 from the
general fund to take them to 2012 has not been reimbursed. In 2012, there will be a
$148,000 from maintenance and operations. That will not come out of the conservation
futures fund. They anticipate using grant funds and park improvement funds. The
$291,000 they've spent from the general fund, can be reimbursed from the conservation
futures fund because this is a real estate transaction for park or conservancy purposes. The
restriction on using it for park land maintenance and operations isn't a blanket restriction.
It's specifically tied to lands that have been purchased using conservation futures funds.
There is a prorated formula. It's not for capital improvements on those lands. It's for
maintenance and upkeep, which is a recent State - approved change. (11:30:35 AM)
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (3)
Absent: Nelson and Weimer (2)
Brenner asked for the exact wording of the Conservation Futures advisory ballot,
when it passed, and the conservation futures levy rate.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:38 a.m.
3 Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
3
3 official, signed copy:
'1 360- 676 -6690 or council@�.o.w hatcom .wa.us
43
44
45
46
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Committee Chair
Special Committee of the Whole - 2011/2012 Budget, 11/4/2010, Page 4