Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance November 6 1992WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL FINANCE AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE November 6, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 1000 N. Forest St., 2nd floor, by Marge Laidlaw, Chairperson. Also present: Bob Imhof Ken Henderson Absent: Other Council Members and Staff present: Bob Woods, Budget Analyst; Dan Warner, Council Chair; Larry Harris, Council Member. ROAD FUND DIVERSION FOR JAILERS AND /OR DEPUTIES Issue: Can money be diverted from the road fund for traffic enforcement? Dan Gibson, Senior Deputy Civil Prosecutor, said the answer is yes, but. Gibson said he had limited his research to the diversion for deputies and for what purpose, but thinks he can answer questions about jailers. RCW36.33.220 says some can be diverted, but the funds must be used for road violations. The funds can be used for policing by the state for public highways. Traffic enforcement is legitimate use, but that should not be read to extend to the incarceration function. Laidlaw asked about the letter from Weiler which allowed use for prosecution, jailing, and coroner's fees. Gibson said that was based on a different reading of the statue than he was prepared to give, though he acknowledged that that law is open to interpretation. Woods presented the idea that the diversion would be a dedicated use of the revenues; would this prohibit the County from taking general funds earmarked for these purposes and using them elsewhere? Gibson said no. Brad Bennett, Public Works, brought up the bars requirement which requires a mandated account in your chart of accounts for policing. It basically means that you need to have a clear audit trail back to your funds to prove that they are used for policing, a pretty important component of protecting your use of the funds. Bennett said that one means of record keeping was use of time sheets. Another way was to actually have dedicated traffic positions and those costs are charged to the road fund. Woods asked about using statistically based samples and using those for allocating funds. Bennett said that probably wouldn't be considered adequate. The audit trail would have to be available to substantiate your percentages and the trail would have to be regularly updated. Woods asked the Sheriff if he tracked citations. Dale Brandland, Sheriff, said that they already had that mechanism in place. He said that the department felt that 25% was already substantiated, and that the 15% area was clearly justified. If funds were given to the jail, that would also be easy to track, especially in a couple of months when they are on -line with their computers. Laidlaw asked about charging off 15% of all the other attendant costs such as paper, clerks, etc. Bennett said that yes, they probably could allocate overhead costs. Dave Wareing, Undersheriff, has worked with Chief Sandell, Bellingham Police Department, as they have discussed the diversion and its use. The 15% was a guesstimate; 20% is a much better figure. He feels that they could justify over 25 %, especially considering all the time they are on the roadways. Laidlaw asked if it was going to take another person to track. Brandland said no, it would be easy to justify 15% through the computers. He felt he would contact the other counties that are diverting this money and see what methods they are using to track. Bennett said that he would' have a hard time justifying that 100% of the time on the highway, even traveling, could be charged to. traffic control. Brandland said he would concur with that. What he had meant by mentioning 100% was the work that wasn't tracked such as stopping someone for a dead taillight and for the effect of present. Gibson said that by policing he meant the active work on the road. Woods and Gibson discussed the interpretation of "active law enforcement." Gibson urged that a conservative approach be adopted. Ray Gordon, Chief Corrections Office, discussed the traffic involvement of the jail. They tracked the time spent on people booked into the jail and the length of stay specifically related to traffic offenses. They came up with a figure of 53% of the population of the jail are there for traffic offenses. Laidlaw asked if that figure wouldn't have to be broken out for the unincorporated areas so the figure wouldn't include the city's offenders. Bennett said yes. Gordon said that a lot of these would be DWI's and other license violations. Gibson asked if those were solely for traffic or if they were concurrent offenses. Gordon said they were solely for traffic; they had weeded out those with concurrent offenses. Gordon added that they would take another look at that and weed out the city cases. Laidlaw said it wasn't necessary at this time. Bennett asked that the Committee look at capital as well as operating expenses. It would be hard pressed to charge out all vehicles etc. because they will be used for both traffic and non - traffic uses. Harris asked about case law on the questions. Gibson said he hadn't found any case law on it; he had been using the annotated RCW's. Perhaps that's why he took the narrower reading. Woods asked about assurances which would allow a broader reading. Gibson said that would be fine; he didn't want to see the County doing what it shouldn't be doing and being penalized for it. Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 2 Laidlaw asked Woods to do some "number crunching" on this issue and build some scenarios for the committee to work with. Imhof said that if there are funds available, a look should be taken at double bunking and clearing up the overcrowding at the jail. Henderson said that his sense is that an alternative program from low -risk inmates would not only alleviate the crowding, but perhaps some of these funds could go to that program, particularly since so many would be traffic. related. The double bunking was discussed between Imhof and Brandland. Henderson said he preferred Woods to limit his presentation to the road deputies. Brandland said that if the Committee is going to consider double bunking, they should consider personnel for the jail as well. Brandland and the Committee discussed bed availability and options and numbers connected with that. Brandland suggested, also, using the work release facility for minimum security facility as well. Laidlaw asked about the number of new jailers needed for the additional 64 beds. Brandland said between 6 and 21, depending on the number of beds. With 64 beds, the jail would need 21 jailers to get to a 4:1 ratio. Six jailers at the current ratio, but the 4:1 would be better. Harris brought up the subject of the courts and their being a bottleneck and questioned the effect on the court system if deputies were added. Brandland said if that materialized, the money would go to the court system. Deputies don't drive the system; crime drives the system. Imhof asked Woods to explore the double bunking and the increased staffing needed in terms of the budget. Warner suggested that another good place to put money was in the probation department; this would help keep people from reoffending as much. Laidlaw pointed out that road diversion money probably wouldn't be available for that department. Imhof said that probably, in terms of the legal input, jailers would not qualify for diversion funds, but that should be considered in terms of the budget. Harris said definitely the Sheriff should have more money for traffic. Laidlaw asked for more information on using road funds for jailers, etc., and for percentages. She also asked for information on the impact on the road fund, especially in light of Wheeler's letter. Woods suggested taking a conservative approach. UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE Laidlaw pointed out that this is not integral to the budget, but it is something the Committee asked for last year. Woods asked Randy Watts if it were permissible to write an ordinance specifying that the fees would be for next year, which would save a lot of time. Watts said that the ordinance would have to be specific as to the fee and the amount involved. Woods asked if someone could challenge paying a fee because the code had not yet been changed. Watts said that the fee schedule should identify the sections of the code that would be changed. The indication would then be that those sections of the code would be Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 3 superseded. Woods asked if a separate ordinance was needed, or could -it be an amendment to the budget ordinance. Watts said that if it were an amendment to the budget ordinance, it would have to be looked at every year. Laidlaw asked if one or the other were dictated. Watts suggested that it be put into a separate ordinance because the budget ordinance identifies specific funds and how those will be spent. The fees are identifying fees that will be charged. Imhof said that perhaps having it as part of the budget, the fees could be updated yearly as needed. The departments could, and do, look at these fees as revenue sources. Watts said that an ordinance cannot be amended unless you show all deletions and additions. That will be a pretty substantial ordinance just to create the unified fee schedule. Either way it becomes a pretty substantial document. Laidlaw suggested that it be put into Finance Committee and dealt with before the first of the year. Linda Irvin, Program Analyst, said that the Health Department needs to have a separate ordinance for this year. Woods said that he felt there was time to deal with the Health Department this year. Warner suggested starting with the Health Department fees ordinance first. Shirley Van Zanten, Executive, pointed out that the Health Department has an ordinance that comes for all their fees every year. They like to have this by the first of December; there is an ordinance from last year that can be updated. Laidlaw said she would work the details out, but she foresees a scheduling problem. Laidlaw asked Irvin to ask the Health Department to send over a copy of the ordinance with their suggested amendments. Laidlaw complimented Irvin for the quality of her work on the fee schedule. Laidlaw asked about the options. Irvin said there were four options and one option needed to be chosen in each of the four areas. Irvin reviewed the options. In section 1, Irvin said it made a lot of sense to her to reference the RCW, option B. Woods asked if State changes immediately went into effect when. the State changed it. Watts said if the RCW was referenced, Council needs to specify whether they mean at the date of the ordinance or when the state changes. Imhof suggested referencing the RCW, noting that changes will be implemented on January 1 for the coming year. This would permit the departments and the public to know for the .year what fees to expect. Some discussion followed about what revenue would be lost, about how much time the State gave before implementing fee changes. Laidlaw also favored setting a date for changes. Irvin said that Option B would not set the dollar amount, only reference the RCW. Option A would put in the dollar rate which would last for the year. HENDERSON MOVED TO PUT IN THE DOLLAR RATES AND BEGIN RATE CHARGES ON JANUARY 1 EACH YEAR. The motion carried unanimously. Irvin explained Section II. Option A is, in essence, what the Committee discussed as wanting in Section I. Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 4 IMHOF MOVED TO ACCEPT SECTION II, OPTION A. The motion carried unanimously. Irvin explained the options under Section III. For option A, Watts said that in the unified fee schedule, the code could be referenced. Option B would require going through the Code once, taking out all the fees, and putting them into one section. Then once a year that one section would be reviewed and updated. The initial ordinance would be quite intricate, but every year thereafter it would be quite simple. Irvin said that the implications of doing that would be pretty far - reaching in terms of public perception. Option A would reference where the fees could be found in the code. Henderson asked if there was a middle ground, allowing the Committee to do it as the need arises and referencing the major areas, leaving them where they are. For now. LAIDLAW MOVED TO ACCEPT SECTION III, OPTION A. Woods said that his assumption is that this is something that would be adopted this time next year. Imhof said that Option A wasn't quite correct. The reference to major sections would be made, rather than deleting it and rewriting a totally new fee schedule. Imhof suggested amending Laidlaw's motion with "but eliminate the word eliminate." from Option A. Discussion followed. HENDERSON MOVED TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO READ "A UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE WILL SET OR REFERENCE ALL FEES THAT ALREADY HAVE DOLLAR RATES SET AND AUTHORIZED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE." Laidlaw accepted that as a friendly amendment and clarification. The motion carried unanimously. _ Irvin explained the three options for Section IV. The need for "upset" fees was discussed, for instance, a document that might come out during the year that the public expresses an interest in it. Woods suggested saying something like "charging the public what it costs the County to produce the required material." LAIDLAW MOVED TO ACCEPT THE "GENERAL AUTHORIZATION' PARAGRAPH AND ADD THE WORDS "NOT LISTED ON THE FEE SCHEDULE" AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE. The motion carried unanimously. Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 5 IMHOF MOVED TO ACCEPT OPTION C IN SECTION IV. WITH THE SUGGESTED PARAGRAPH ADOPTED ABOVE. The motion carried unanimously. Irvin suggested that the Committee set up a standard formula for setting and working out the fees. Laidlaw pointed out that these fees will be set outside the budget schedule. Irvin said that three areas had brand new fees; she suggested looking at some of them now. One is the Sheriff's booking fee on page 83. The other is on page 75, an Environmental Fund status letter. The third area is the Superior Court which had several new fees. One is on page 84 for a parking fee and several others. Woods asked if these had been factored into the expected income. Irvin said no. Irvin said the Criminal Justice Committee would be interested in discussing these fees. Henderson said these were included in the documentation. Irvin said she had more documentation on file she could provide. The implications of putting these fees into affect were discussed; for instance, the cost of collecting the fees needs to be considered. Imhof said perhaps N.F. Jackson could be asked about some of the ramifications of collecting these fees. Laidlaw assigned Imhof to ask the questions and report back to the Committee by the next meeting, 11/7/92. Laidlaw again complimented Irvin on her work. HUMANE SOCIETY Warner asked that the request from the Humane Society be discussed. They have requested that they be allowed to keep the first $41,000 of the fees collected rather than the first $24,000 before beginning the split with the County. Warner wanted to request that the Committee give the Humane Society this amount. Laidlaw pointed out that it would reduce income to Current Expense. Warner had no suggestion how to replace the revenues lost. Henderson said that the dollar amount increase would not match the service increase. Laidlaw said her reluctance to discuss this was not pro or con attitude or any predisposition, but because they did not have the information needed. Henderson said he would put the figures together tonight. Laidlaw agreed to put it in for discussion tomorrow. CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL AND FUND BALANCES FROM SPECIAL FUNDS RETURNED TO CURRENT EXPENSE Wood explained the issue. The consensus was to put this into Finance for further exploration, but not to deal with it this budget session. APPRAISER(S) TO GET NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE BOOKS Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 6 Laidlaw explained Willnauer's request. Woods said the work could be restricted through the restriction of funds. There certainly are implications for cash flow for the county. Imhof said that with the budgetary cautions that have been expressed, he is not in favor of adding new positions at this time. Henderson said he would call Willnauer and clarify some of the confusion over the use of the additional position and ask about potential income to the county that would justify the salary. Laidlaw said this will be deferred to tomorrow. PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND Imhof asked if the Committee could limit the dollar amount, allowing Parks to do as much of anything up to a certain dollar amount. Woods explained their funds. He suggested that a proviso be added that under no circumstances should funds be spent beyond projects already approved. Van Zanten explained that under the law they cannot expend any more money than was appropriated under the budget. Woods pointed out that the requested appropriation was more than the fund balance. Van Zanten claims not to understand; she does not have the figures in front of her. Parks has always stayed within the funds available. IMHOF MOVED TO ADD A PROVISO THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD FUNDS BE SPENT BEYOND THE PROJECTS ALREADY APPROVED. The motion carried unanimously. ADDITION OF THREE PEOPLE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER Laidlaw explained the situation. The Committee asked Van Zanten to clarify the issue. She said that there is not a correct answer to the question whether or not that was base; Terry Heinz had made the judgement call that it was not, so didn't include it. Van Zanten expressed that she felt they needed the help. Laidlaw asked Woods if there was a potential savings creating one new position rather than hiring temporaries. He said hiring a person would mean more services for the dollar spent. __ IMHOF MOVED TO GIVE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER THE REQUIRED POSITION. The motion carried unanimously. Henderson said he had some further material and would be presenting this afternoon. He has a proposed new position, some material on funding, some material on the GIS, a concern on the expansion of the budget with Medic One, no mailing budget in the Council, revenue source. Henderson said he would make some phone calls to get his answers. Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 7 Laidlaw outlined the plan for tomorrow morning's meeting. Woods pointed out that if additional meetings were required, a 24 -hour notice must be given to the public. Henderson suggested that perhaps the meeting would extend beyond noon tomorrow. Laidlaw adjourned the meeting until tomorrow morning. ATTEST: 7 C� r Nancy 4Xohn, Assistant Clerk FINANCE & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE ILU Marge LaMlaw, Chairperson Finance Budget Hearings, 1116192, Page 8