HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance November 4 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
November 4, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 11:30 a. m. by Committee Chair Robert Imhof in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Tom Brown
Absent:
None
BUDGET REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED 1997 BUDGET: PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES; COOPERATIVE EXTENSION; AND PUBLIC
DEFENDER (AB96 -367)
Staff Also Present:
Brad Bennett, Administration, Finance
Dave Wareing, Executive's Office
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
Bill Florea, Planning, Land Use Services
Barbara Lutz, Planning and Development Services
Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension
Ray Fann, Noxious Weed Control Board
Laurel Baldwin, Noxious Weed Control Coordinator
Jon Ostlund, Public Defender's Office
N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Administrator /Clerk
Kathy Sutter, Council member
Planning and Development Services. Dave Wareing, Executive's Office, explained that
much work was done conferring with Planning to enhance its services. The Department
requested $337,895, which included various recommended items to provide a much better service
in a much shorter timeframe to the citizens with money well spent. Additional funding is
requested; however, some fees have been increased that would provide a direct, better service in
return.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services, distributed a handout (on file)
regarding expense and revenue in the land use and building divisions. He explained that operating
costs are approximately $1.5 million; revenue is approximately $1.3 million, with an approximate
deficit of $285,000. In an attempt to increase efficiency, a faster turnaround time and identify
bottlenecks, a permit coordinator position is proposed. This type of position is recommended by
the Growth Management Act (GMA). Knapp stated the building industry responded positively to
this recommendation.
Finance Minutes, 11/4/96, Page 1
I In answer to a question regarding building fees, Bill Florea, Land Use Services, replied
2 that a new fee - -Site Plan Review Fee -is being proposed, which is based on project valuation. One
3 . fee will be for commercial projects; the other for private projects (residential). The commercial
4 fee will be 3/10 of 1% of the project valuation; the private will be a 0.125% increase. Also being
5 recommended is an increase in the Conditional Use Fee from $250 to $400. The Building Permit
6 Fee will be increased by 5 %, which was last increased in 1991.
7
8 Barbara Lutz, Planning and Development Services, spoke to recommended computer
9 upgrades, which are software only. She stated other software packages were examined, but most
10 of them were DOS. The packages that were comparable with Planning's were more expensive
11 than the one proposed. It was decided to recommend an upgrade of the current system because
12 of the cost effectiveness. In addition, staff will be able to create applications rather than using
13 outside consultants. The objective is for customers to be able to access at the counter, as well as
14 allow the department to interface with the GIS system. Knapp noted it is conceivable that the
15 building industry will be able to access through the Internet and check out its own permits.
16
17 Topics discussed included: step increase for the land use division manager (Wareing
18 noted there are no external parody questions being put forth to Council); Sue Blake (Water
19 Resource Planner) being budgeted within the Planning Department; planning permit conversion
20 funds; Water Wise funds in Public Works; growth management grant monies; Nooksack grant
21 budget; and GIS expenditures (software upgrades and staff wages, etc.). Knapp stated the
22 building industry is not as concerned about the price tag for the cost of a permit as it is about the
23 length of time it takes to process permits. The more that can be computerized and the more the
24 permit process can be shortened translates into savings through the financing process. Knapp
25 further noted that his department will be tracking its speed for the next year regarding timing of
26 the permit process.
27
28 Cooperative Extension. Wareing explained the requests were small, which included
29 increasing the hourly rate for two positions and increasing the Food Safety Advisor Program
30 Coordinator's hours (by four per month). He noted work is being done on the process to roll the
31 Weed Board into the Public Works weed control operation, which has a good cost benefit ratio
32 and will enhance the service of the Weed Board and the operation of the Public Works Weed
33 Eradication Program to the community.
34
35 Craig MacConnell distributed handouts (on file). He answered questions from Council
36 members. Topics discussed included: the relationship between Cooperative Extension and the
37 Weed Board (under the County Council); WSU satellite program (learning centers); Lifelong
38 Learning and its importance (all education from WSU brought to the communities); community-
39 wide needs assessment; the School Challenge Program (4 -I1); funds for Master
40 Composter/Recycler. MacConnell stated the Current Expense Fund contributes a little over 19%
41 of the Cooperative Extension Program, the remaining coming from state and federal monies and
42 grants.
43
Finance Minutes, 11/4/96, Page 2
I Laurel Baldwin, Noxious Weed Board Coordinator, and Ray Fann, Noxious Weed
2 Control Board, answered questions from Council members. Topics discussed included: merging
3 with Public Works Department; the proposed new program itself, the requested budget; which is
4 $58,111; enforcement rates, both funding and staffing; and fee increases through the motor pool.
5
6 Imhof noted any budget change would be brought back later as a supplemental early next
7 year, to which Wareing replied that it would be rolled into the process of dealing with Public
8 Works, which would be a shared funding. Wareing reported his office requested Jeff Monsen,
9 Public Works, and Dick Prieve, Public Works, Maintenance & Operations, work with the
10 understanding that the same amount of monies provided in the past would be supplied this year.
11 By combining Public Works and the Noxious Weed Control Board, the Executive's Office is
12 looking for an enhancement that would allow these two departments to basically make up the
13 difference in the needed funds to make this proposal work.
14
15 Fann noted that basically the department was most effective when there were sufficient
16 funds to hire a person for six months. The compliance by landowners was really good, but as the
17 funds were cut, compliance decreased. Merging with Public Works should make the program
18 work more efficiently.
19
20 Wareing complimented Baldwin for her work in her position.
21
22 Public Defender. Wareing reported staffing levels are a concern of the department's
23 director. This year, 1996, has been looked at as an anomaly, which was in accordance with
24 Council direction. The public defender did, however, indicate the workload is continuing to
25 increase. The requested budget totaled approximately $208,000. A number of those requests
26 were recommended by the Executive's Office. Absent, however, are an investigator, two
27 deputies and a clerk due to the personnel cap. It may be necessary to request a supplemental if
28 the workload continues as it has been.
29
30 Jon Ostlund, Director, Public Defender's Office, answered questions from Council
31 members. Topics included: full time employees (FTEs) in 1996 and 1997; caseloads; the process
32 of competent representation; the ramifications of loss of one attorney and one investigator;
33 contracting with private counsel; and conflict.
34
35 Wareing stated much thought has gone into the possibility of setting up another office
36 with the conflict monies already set aside, contracting out the work only at a set rate to one firm
37 having the ability to handle various cases. He complimented Ostlund for his ability in keeping
38 costs down.
39
40 Further discussion followed on ramifications of one less attorney; and public defender vs.
41 private attorney costs.
42
43
Finance Minutes, 11/4/96, Page 3
I N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Administrator /Clerk, commented about the need for a
2 possible "conflict contract', which has occurred twice in the last ten years (last in 1990), and the
3 conflict attorney rates.
4
5 Imhof requested Council members present their written questions to Administration.
6
7 ADJOURN
8
9 The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
10
11
12 '' v✓�
13
14 El' abeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
15
16 ATTEST:
17
18 --
19
20
21
22 n rk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Finance Minutes, 11/4/96, Page 4