Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance Committee November 20 1985PHONE: 676 -6690 384 -1403 e�w C 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 Chairperson: Members: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE DATE: Wednesday, November 20, 1985 TIME: 1:30 p.m. PLACE: Conference Room, second floor of the Courthouse AGENDA Worksession on proposed 1986 budget Media CM All Departments Post /file Mary Kay Becker Donald G. Hansey Craig Cole rh ���ra ah4jlwu 4"44w Report of the Finance Committee to the Whatcom County Council November 20, 1985 The County Executive presented the Council. with a recommended budget on October 17, 1985. The Council met as a Committee of the Whole on October 21, 1985 to review the revenue and budget assumptions. A public hearing on the Executive budget was conducted October 24. The Finance Committee held additional meetings on the following dates: October 28, 30, and 31; November 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 19 and 20. As a result of our deliberations the Finance Committee recommends to you the budget which is outlined in the following pages. 1. Executive Budget. In developing this recommendation we have attempted to follow the guidelines of budget Resolution No. 85 -38, adopted by the Council on August 8, 1985. We first express appreciation for the Executive's attention to these goals in building her proposed budget. Both Executive and Council have been mindful of weaknesses in the revenues supporting Current Expense departments and the need to bring expenditures and revenues closer together. The Executive addressed this concern by recommending cuts of 11 positions in Current Expense, and adding five new ones. The Finance Committee budget accepts the need for the cuts recommended by the Executive and makes no recommendation to change them. 2. Federal Shared Revenue. The projected loss in 1987 of over $1 million which the County has been accustomed to receiv- ing from the federal government was a topic that concerned us throughout our deliberations. The difficulty that will confront the County, in our view, is greater than the estimated $300,000 of ongoing expenditures which will need to be absorbed into the Current Expense Fund a year from now. The County has become accustomed to paying out of FSR for many capital repairs and improvements as well as office equipment purchase and mainte- nance. These needs can be expected to continue even though they are not strictly viewed as "ongoing" expenditures. We endorse the Executive's beginning efforts to create a system for replacing and maintaining computer and office machines through the County Supply Fund for 1986 and plans for the Central Services Fund in 1987. We note that servicing this fund will require larger contributions from each current expense department, thus adding to the squeeze on the current expense fund in future years. We considered, but rejected, the idea of moving certain ongoing expenses such as WACO dues, Visiting Nurse contribution, Animal Control, etc., into the Current Expense Fund for this year, while moving what we considered to be more vulnerable programs in the other direction. The fact that such expenditures are provided for in 1986 out of FSR should not be taken as a sign that the Council has decided they are "softer" than expenditures made from Current Expense. That decision properly belongs to the Council and Executive in preparing the budget for 1987. Within FSR, Animal Control is decreased from the Executive request of $108,000 to $80,000. The capital outlay to the Health Department is cut by $17,000, leaving only an expenditure of $11,000 for a new van. Other Executive recommendations in FSR are approved without change. CAPITAL FUND. The only area in which the Executive deviated significantly from the budget resolution was in post- poning the establishment of a capital fund. In our view, this is too important a priority in county government to be put off to a time when funds may well be even tighter than they are now. Without FSR there will simply be nowhere for the County to go when it needs to repair and maintain the aging infrastructure of the Courthouse, the Annex, the parks and the senior centers. The voters may still be asked to approve excess levies for major new projects; but we think one of the important lessons to be learned from the 1984 park bond issue, which failed, is that voters will look more favorably upon capital bond issues if they are assured that routine maintenance and repair are routinely planned and budgeted for. Our desire to emphasize capital needs is reflected in several places. Amendments to the capital resolution and a budget proviso require that a space, facilities and capital plan be contracted for and completed as soon as possible. The most significant recommendation is that the Council adopt an ordinance establishing "The Physical Plant and Facili- ties Capital Fund." From 1987 on, this fund would be replenished automatically by receipt of 2% of the estimated current expense revenues for each year. For 1986 the fund would be initiated by an appropriation of approximately $300,000.00 from the Current Expense Fund. There are those who will criticize putting money into a capital fund at the same time that layoffs are occurring. We think such criticism is short - sighted. The County has a substantial investment in its physical plant which must be conserved with discipline and determination. Moreover, the County must have the flexibility to resppnd to the inevitable changes in service and operations which require changes in physical plant. Urgent repairs to senior centers which have already been put off need to be addressed immediately and are the object of one of the first designated appropriations from this fund. 2 JUVENILE _DETENTION FACILITY RESERVE FUND. Of all the capital needs that we are aware of, we give special priority to a new juvenile detention facility by creating a second new fund in which money can be saved for the sole purpose of expenditures related to development of such a facility. The $200,000 provided initially in this fund has been diverted from Ending Fund Balance. Provision of this fund is not intended to imply any ultimate decision by the Council about the size or cost of the facility. It is to be hoped that its planners will learn the lesson of the jail and will keep long -term staffing costs firmly in mind when making decisions about capacity. EXPO .FUND. Following our decision a year ago to remove $140,000 from this fund and to subsidize Current Expense, there is a balance of $160,000 for 1986. The Executive budgeted the entire amount, including $62,200 to continue three positions in the offices of Prosecutor and Public Defender which are presently funded by the DWI grant. Other amounts were provided for overtime anticipated by the Sheriff and District Court, as well as an allocation to Mental Health. In our view it would budgeting this fund until so we have left the entir requirements for overtime priate. Use of the funds leaves the County without the unknown. be more prudent to refrain from the impact of Expo is easier to assess, e amount unbudgeted. The estimated and mental health may well be appro- to maintain full -time staff positions the needed flexibility to respond to CURRENT EXPENSE. The Executive's budget still shows expenditures exceeding revenue by some $700,000. In view of the need to make additional reductions in current expense depart- ments, the Finance Committee identified departments where a relatively high rate of growth has occurred in recent years. Where this involves the criminal justice system, it requires that we pay particular attention to interrelated caseloads. We also continue to be concerned by the high cost the jail imposes on the Current Expense Fund, reflected in the Executive's budget which adds three new positions in the jail. Alternatives to the Executive's proposed expenditures from the Current Expense Fund are as follows: INCREASES (From Executive's_ budget) 1. Capital Fund. $300,000 is appropriated to this newly - created fund. 3 2. Juvenile Detention Facility Reserve Fund. $200,000 is appropriated to this newly- created fund. 3. Disaster Contingency Fund. This fund, which now stands at $239,000, is increased to $300,000 by expenditure from Current Expense in accordance with the Council's long -range goal of seeing this fund increase. 4. Personnel. Funds are added to replenish the line item in personnel for employee training back to $12,500, with special emphasis on professional skill development and productivity. A mid -year report is called for. 5. Mental Health._ An additional $8,000 is provided to maintain the allocation in this area at the same dollar level as was provided in 1985. 6. Alcohol. An additional $30,000 is provided to the Department of Alcohol Services for a contract with Olympic Treatment Center. This restores a cut made inadvertently in the Executive budget. Decreases (from Executive Budget) 1. Sheriff. The Finance Committee recommends against the proposal to add two new road deputies with monies generated by fines and receipts from the Road Fund. It is important to protect the Road Fund's priority emphasis on oiling and mainten- ance. Moreover we think it unwise to tie positions so closely to the collection of fines. We recommend a cut of two road deputies from the current level of operation. This would return the number of personnel in this department to the level it held in 1981. We note that the State Patrol is adding five new troopers to be based in Whatcom County from 1986, and thus even with this cut and an anticipated cut in the Bellingham Police Department, law enforcement officers in Whatcom County will still show a net increase over 1985. We do not at this time draw a conclusion about specifics of the Sheriff's proposal to provide law enforcement to Everson by contract. In concept we think the plan promotes efficiency, which is to be desired. The chief concern is ensuring that all the County's true costs are identified and paid for. Another advantage is that contracting with Everson would ease the transition involved in eliminating two positions in the Sheriff's Department and would permit the County to gain back some of the service level lost in the cut. 4 2. Jail. We recommend funding for two of the three new correctional officers proposed for the jail, acknowledging the importance of meeting standards and avoiding officer burn- out. This funding is provided on condition that 20 of the Jail's beds be set aside for a long -term contract to house federal prisoners. In this way the jail can become more of a revenue producer and less costly to the General Fund. The trade -off is that fewer beds will be available for locally sentenced prisoners. Still, there are considerably more beds now than in the old jail. The new jail was supposed to be designed for capacity needed in the year 2000. In the intervening 15 years opportunities to use some of the space to produce revenue must be utilized. 3. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY /PUBLIC DEFENDER. The Prosecutor's office has for two years funded an extra prosecutor and secretary through a state DWI grant which the state apparently will not renew in 1986. The Executive's budget uses EXPO funds to continue these positions and one public defender. As earlier discussed, we do not recommend this use of EXPO funds, therefore these positions will terminate as expected. Because the Executive's budget recommends a cut of one criminal deputy in the Public Defender's office, which we adopt, we are matching it with a cut of an additional criminal deputy prosecutor in an effort to achieve caseload parity between these two offices. On the civil side, the Finance Committee recommends elimina- tion of the position of Chief Civil Deputy. The $58,000 combined salary and benefits allocated to this position is in our estima- tion too high for the work assigned to this position. A thorough re- examination of the most appropriate way to structure the various functions of risk management, claims adjustment, and legal advice has been needed for several years and should be conducted in 1986 by the Council, Executive, Prosecutor, and other appropriate department heads. Our proposal returns the number of personnel in the Prosecutor's Office to the same level it held in 1981. 4. District Court. We recommend elimination of one probation counselor in District Court. In 1981, this office had 15 personnel. Under our proposal it will have 18. 5. Planning_ This department anticipates completion of basic planning documents in 1986; the job from that point on will be primarily one of updating. The Finance Committee recommendat- ion achieves an additional cut of one -half FTE. The Planner I position will be reduced by 25 %. The administrative assistant's hours are reduced by 25 %. 5 6. Executive_ Extra help is cut back by $5,000. 7. WHAT -COMM. A revised budget submitted by the WHAT - COMM board eliminates the proposal for a new computer -aided dispatch program. This and other savings result in a net decrease of $16,667 from the Executive's budget of funds paid by the County. PROVISOS. Attached is the budget ordinance with provisos as recommended by the Finance Committee. NOTES These recommendations are endorsed by all three members of the Council Finance Committee. This does not mean that all members are equally pleased with all parts of the budget. For example, Council member Cole would not have cut personnel in the Sheriff's budget. Council members Becker and Hansey would have preferred to have even more reserve funds to meet anticipated shortfalls in 1987 and beyond to ensure stable and sound fiscal management. Nevertheless, we have agreed to submerge our individual differences in order to be able to recommend unanimously a budget which achieves important goals that we all share. This is a far - sighted budget, aimed at ensuring the long -term fiscal integrity of the County. With the reductions County's basic operations will ensure that physical prompt structural reform; tive ample flexibility to are unforeseeable today. de propose, the budget will see the safely into life after revenue sharing; plant needs are not overlooked; will and will allow the Council and Execu- respond to those events in 1986 which PROCEDURE. We recommend that the Council, in deliberating on the 1986 budget, adopt the same rule as was applied last year, namely, that no amendment making an increase which is other than technical or housekeeping in nature may be considered unless accompanied by a corresponding decrease in another appropriation. R Mary K Becker, Chairperson Finance Committee DEPARTMENT Sheriff Prosecuting Attorney District Court Jail WHAT -COMM Alcohol Services Executive Planning Personnel Training Extra Help (Prosecutor, District Court, Public Defender) Council (from Tort Fund) TOTAL EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS - 145,326 - 86,854 - 14,400 (correction of error) - 31,285 - 25,000 - 16,667 + 30,000 5,000 10,850 + 5,000 + 15,000 + 2,000 - 283,382 OTHER ADJUSTMENTS CURRENT EXPENSE Capital Fund +300,000 Juvenile Detention Facility Reserve Fund +200,000 Disaster Fund + 61,000 FEDERAL SHARED REVENUE Animal Control - 28,000 Health Department - 17,000 Sheriff (2 vehicles) - 31,000 TOTAL - 76,000 EXPO FUND Sheriff (overtime) District Court (overtime) Prosecutor (deputy & Clerk) Public Defender (deputy) Mental Health TOTAL ADJUSTMENT - 75,000 - 4,800 - 37,300 - 22,900 - 20,000 - 160,000 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS - 130,000 - 3,000 (Tort Fund contribution) + 30,000 (Probation fees) +150,000 + 47,000 Net savings of $330,382 CURRENT EXPENSE SUMMARY Executive 1986 Ending Fund Balance 701,442 Finance Committee Expendi- ture Adjustments +283,382 Finance Committee Revenue Adjustments + 47,000 Finance Committee Additions - 5_61,000 Finance Committee Ending Fund Bal. $470,824 TORT CLAIMS FUNp Professional Services, reduce to 15,000 Transfer to Council for Professional Services, $2,000