Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10242005 . I , CITY O~FORT TOWNSEND C TY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGU . R SESSION OF OCTOBER 24, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port 1lownsend met in regular session this twenty- fourth day of October 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the! Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ~OLL CALL ! Council members present at roll call iwere Frank Benskin, Kees Kolff, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval, Geoff!Masci, Laurie Medlicott, and Freida Fenn. Staff members present were City Mclnager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Michael Legarsky Finance Director, and Legal Assistant Joanna Sanders. PUI!!L1C HEARING . I 2006 BUDGET HEARING , Mayor Robinson read the rules of procedure for public hearings. She asked if any Council members have any interest~, financial or property, to disclose in association with this matter. None were disclosed. . City Manager David Timmons recog~ized efforts of Police and Fire/EMS during recent challenging situations and sai~ Staff responded professionally. Mr. Timmons and Finance Director ~ichael Legarsky gave the Staff Presentation, reminding that the budget document!has been available and to date there have been no written comments from the publici It was noted that exceptions to the status quo budget were highlighted during the qctober 12 budget workshop. One significant change was to Fire and Rescue EM$, the other significant change related to equipment rental, where the desire vilas to establish an IT program. The budget also reflects reallocating several of the in~erlocal agreements with the County and putting program revenues under the departrhent that it serves. The contract for District Court is under the City Attorney's oversight. Other areas of dispatch, jail, Liquor Excise Tax, and animal control woul go under the supervision of the Police Department. To date, there are no County estimates for these contract renewals. Staff will be getting together with the County to assess this situation and arrive at some recommendations. Revenue t rough September 30 appears to be in line with City Council Business Meeting Page 1 October 24, 2005 . , I expected norms. One area of surpris~ is that the B&O tax rate is up $121K over last year. A previous area of concern wa~ building permit fees, but these now appear to be in line with projections. There is ah inquiry with the State auditor about a possible accounting distribution error on leas~hold excise tax. Ambulance fees are lagging behind projections, which might relate to current receipts versus receivables. One of the issues to address related to the ijre district is adjusting the receivables billed in 2005, but not paid until 2006. The otrer large increase differential is on the REET excise tax, which is projected to be ~1 08K over the expected revenue. He noted that following the debate and input by Cquncil Committees a list of issues would be presented to Council. . Mr. Timmons then reviewed the cur~ent property tax revenues allocated across the general, debt service, and fire pensifln funds. The General Fund would increase by $81K, which is due to double booking the debt fund in 2005. This would not have to be done in 2006. Staff changed line! items in the lodging tax fund pursuant to recommendations by the Lodging T~x Advisory Committee. There have been no other changes to the preliminary bu~get, pending committee input. Staff is recommending approval of first rea~ing of Ordinance 2914 Adopting the 2006 Budget. He noted that approving th$ reading of the first ordinance would not constitute approval of the entire bu~get. Public Comment: . Beth Wilmart of Jefferson County Gommunity Network offered the services of their policy board for the City's substan~ abuse efforts. She brought a handout for Council describing the Network. ! Ms. Robinson solicited Council queistions of the public for purposes of clarification. Mr. Benskin asked about the amo~nt of program funding the City's dollars help leverage in terms of matching funqs. Ms. Wilmart indicated that the Cityl has not contracted with the Community Network in the past. They are primarily an Qrganization that looks at policy, systems and overall community change as oppclJsed to direct service in the form of programs. She noted that the Health Department Is their fiscal agent. ! The public testimony was left ope~. Mr. Kolff asked to know more abo~t the changes in the Lodging Tax fund. , Mr. Timmons explained Staff would be bundling all committee recommendations and presenting them to Council as a package. Changes were a correction to the general overhead policy allocation from $$,601 to $15,109. This was not a budget change per se but a change in what the cbmmittee was reviewing. It was clarified that 7- . $1 OK was for repair work to the pibliC restrooms. They also broke out the I I City Council Business Meeting Page 2 October 24, 2005 . professional services account. TherJ was a $70K request from the Chamber, $68K of which was for the Visitor Center a1d $2K for per diem and other costs associated with attendan~ at t~e Olympia Regipnal ~eeting. T~ey also requested an additional $1 OK for public relations elements fOir their work, which was not funded. The professional services marketing contract was changed to $50K. Professional Services Other was changed to $27.5K. The Hood Canal mitigation monies were dropped since there would be no mitigation monies needed until the next closure in 2009. There was also a reduction in revenue projections to $325,500 and expenses are $322,609. He noted a detailed s~eet has been created to better explain these changes. ' Mr. Benskin asked about the total cqst to the equipment rental fund for Information Technology (IT). Referring to Budget Page 65, Mr. Ti~mons said it shows the cost of the FTE only. Mr. Legarsky explained that currentlv each department has budgeted amounts for capital acquisition such as compute~ replacements, totaling about $15K. Presently, with the exception of one router at the courthouse, the City owns all of its hardware and would not need to purchase any servers for the contemplated changes. After Council approval, capital acquisition !funds would be moved from individual departments to the Equipment Repl~cement fund. This fund would then control all acquisition of computer technology qopiers, etc. . Mr. Benskin asked to clarify whethe~ this department with the new FTE would replace the County contract for service for the same amount. Mr. Timmons noted that the County !has not yet provided the 2006 projections for IT. The County's support is fairly limited. They currently house the servers and maintain server operations. ' Mr. Masci asked where the server is! currently located and what is being routed. Mr. Legarsky said the server is curr~ntly located in the finance department. The router would cost roughly $200 and when the City does e-mail or Internet connections it goes through the City! line at the courthouse. The City would have to gain another Internet connection thrpugh another provider such as Millennium. Mr. Timmons mentioned there is also a public safety connection through the County that gives police access to the law ~nforcement database, which would continue. The rough estimate for all the need~d equipment to replace what the County provides is roughly $5K. Mr. Masci asked whether this action! would create a new Equipment Replacement Department. . City Council Business Meeting Page 3 October 24, 2005 . Mr. Legarsky agreed this would crea~e a new department within the Equipment Replacement fund. Ms. Sandoval asked for a review of the proposed costs versus what is paid currently. She also asked whether this contract amount has been steadily increasing over the past few years. . , Mr. Timmons explained there would pe an initial equipment purchase (approximately $5K) and then an annual cost of app~oximatelY $2.5K, which would include the cost of a new Internet service provider. H reiterated the 2005 contract with the County was $40K. The contracts for other y ars were: 2001 - $30K, 2002 - $30K, 2003 - $40K, and 2004 - $40K. While the amounts did not increase significantly, there appeared to be a drop in level of seryice. General tech and network support declined to primarily network support. There i~ not yet a County proposal for 2006. ! Ms. Sandoval asked whether the City has received an estimated cost for an Internet service provider, which Mr. Timmon~ confirmed. i Ms. Sandoval asked if this could go to a local provider and whether there would be a bid process. Mr. Legarsky confirmed it would hav~ to be a local provider, but the City would look at reliability, cost, speed of throughp~t, and other factors. i Mr. Masci asked if Staff has investigfted a connection with the State modem or having the State provide the City wit its own modem. Mr. Legarsky indicated that while it i a possibility, if we went with a local provider we could have a faster connection. He rloted that the County has a lot of protocols in place to protect their network, whichislows the network down a bit. . Mr. Benskin asked about the cost for a record keeping upgrade in the Clerk's office. Mr. Timmons noted the MinuteMake1r software is not included in the Clerk's budget, but in the equipment rental fund. Th~re is a one-time cost of $15K, which provides the interface between the video stream to the Council meeting and agenda packets. There is also a voting element. The ongoing maintenance fee would be used to maintain the video information as w,1I as indexing on a host website. Mr. Benskin asked about additional posts and pointed out that Council has not yet seen this presentation. He said it wquld be helpful to do so before Council finalizes the budget. i I Michael Legarsky mentioned Councilors could view the City of Kirkland website for a good example of the software. He nbted that the document management system is the primary function and it interface~ with the video output. City Council Business Meeting Page 4 October 24, 2005 . substance abuse prevention provide s, but treatment providers might not be familiar with the allocation of prevention mon y. Ms. Sandoval said she understands t was an awareness issue and asked if Mr. Masci provided the Substance Abus Board with information. Mr. Masci responded that while he s rved, he did make them aware. Mr. Benskin said during his nine mo~ths as representative, there was also knowledge of this City partnership. Since Ms. Robinson has taken over, there are I new members. r ! Mr. Masci noted that $28K of the City portion of the LET funds was turned over to the County, $7K of which is the portifln going to Big Brothers/Big Sisters. These funds are matched with the County ~ET funds and are used to leverage a much larger grant. There is a risk of losing roughly a $100K grant and a prevention specialist if there is a change or del y in submission. ! Ms. Robinson asked to confirm the rpatching dollars. , I Mr. Kolff asked to see a report of alllof the funding that goes into these programs and the contributing dollars. ! , . Mr. Timmons said there is also a neld for broader awareness in the City. Up to 2001, there was negotiation on the Jontribution to substance abuse. Because it was a pass through of funds, the City b~' ame complacent about how these monies were being used. To increase awareness, he felt it important to have Chief Daily looking at this and providing feedback on h these programs are working. , ! Mr. Kolff asked to know the drop-defd date on the grant. I Mr. Masci noted the concerns and srid he would try to find the information. I Ms. Sandoval noted two members of the Middle School PTA were concerned DARE funds would be cut. Mr. Timmons explained that the SChlOI resource officer grant was a multi-year grant gradually phasing out in 2005. In 20 6, the City would need to pick up 100% of this cost. He noted that there were previ us discussions between Chief Anderson and the school superintendent about the school contributing to this program. While it is in the 2006 budget to retain this progr~m, the canine would be retired in 2006 to help soften the costs of keeping the reso rce officer. He and Chief Daily also believe this program needs to be reviewed on a regional basis because the lack of an officer presence in surrounding communitYischools is beginning to show up in Port Townsend undermining local efforts! . City Council Business Meeting Page 6 October 24, 2005 . Ms. Sandoval asked about the cost if the program. Mr. Timmons noted the cost is roughlly $70-80K - the cost of one officer. He also talked about the desire to rotate offigers through this program and acknowledged that training would be needed for ot~er officers. Ms. Medlicott clarified that there is n~t a proposal to change how funds would be used, but that they would run throug~ the Police budget. I , Mr. Benskin asked for more informa~ion about a $100K grant opportunity. Mr. Masci responded thaI roughly $$ million is available and requires a joint organizational effort. He said Ken H4rvath would need to be directed now to begin structuring a grant proposal for 2007i funding. , , Mr. Timmons noted that Mr. Horvathl has already begun investigating this and other grant opportunities. ' , Ms. Fenn asked to better understan~ the specific problems associated with this influx of youth. Mr. Timmons noted they are mostly pehavioral issues, rising to but not reaching a criminal level. . . Ms. Sandoval inquired about chang1s to animal control services. , Mr. Timmons noted that up until the ~ime the County Sheriff took over, there were no records on how the money was earrf,arked. The City pays one third of the budget. The Police Chief would discuss with Ithe Sheriff the demand for services and whether changes are needed. . Mr. Masci stated that the City portio~ was based on population. He also mentioned that there are now two sworn enforc~ment officers, so the County has increased the cost of service without consulting th~ City. Mr. Timmons agreed the County alsp lowered the level of service. There are not yet estimates for 2006 services so actu~l figures through September 2005 were carried forward. Ms. Sandoval then asked how the j~il dispatch would be dealt with in the interim until the figures are known. I I Mr. Timmons noted that originally di~patch was included under Sheriff. While additional dispatchers were bUdget~d they were never hired. There was then a shift to create an advisory board and a c II for service formula was created. The implementation of this formula esca ated the City's cost and every follow up call or City Council Business Meeting Page 7 October 24, 2005 i . action became a new call for serviC~ Since 1999, costs have risen from $120K to $170K through September 2005. A ifferent call for service formula needs to be set with two contributions: fixed costs a d actual usage because it is not working. I Another issue is that the Brinnon Fir~ District is not contributing to the fixed costs, so a change would come at the expenslfl of the smaller districts. He noted we are currently budgeting $191.5K for poliqe. Fire/EMS dispatch is roughly $130K and is rolled into the Fire/EMS intergovernnl1ental services of $529K. Dispatch is not listed as a separate line item in this budget. Mr. Kolff asked when the General G~vernment negotiation would occur and what the Council's role might be if this matter ~oes to the County Commissioners. Mr. Timmons noted there would hop~fully be a November meeting with the County Administrator, but it might not get re~onciled until after the first of the year. He would recommend setting it as a Council p~iority to get it done soon after the first of year. He agreed to notify Council if discus~ions with the County Commissioners were necessary. Ms. Medlicott asked to clarify the City's General Fund contribution to fire dispatch. Mr. Timmons responded that the fir~ dispatch for the City is included in the $529K and $303K amounts that would be trlansferred to the district. The breakout is available but it is not shown in the City budget as a line item. Fire dispatch would be in the district's budget and the Distrift would be billed directly. District 1, District 6, and the City are all bundled as a lin~ item in the Fire District budget, so it is no longer possible to draw an apple-to-llPple comparison between 2005 and 2006 coo~. ' . Mr. Masci clarified that it could not appear because there is no formula yet from which to make that determination. i Mr. Timmons concurred. He noted t~at there might or might not be a need for a supplemental, but he believes small~r districts would be asked to contribute a larger proportion. ' Ms. Sandoval said Chief Mingee mdntioned that this past summer the auditor's office stopped doing fire departmen. payroll. Mr. Timmons clarified that he under~tands they started charging for fire department payroll. . Mr. Timmons then reviewed the yealrly budget comparisons for jail services. He noted that a new system has been ~eveloped but there is still not a formula seen in other jurisdictions - the jurisdiction with the highest charge pays. Inmate health care costs are also included. A new bill was passed that allows the City to request the . Court to assess $50 a day for jail tinjle if it is determined that the person could pay. City Council Business Meeting Page 8 October 24, 2005 . He believes there is a need to clarify City versus County responsibility in the formula. In the last four or five years the jail c sts have hit the City the hardest and dramatically impacted the General F nd. Councilmembers requested from St a copy of the Historical Budget Analysis dated October 24, 2005, to which Mr. Timnjlons was referring. ! I Mr. Masci noted that in the past Chisf Anderson did an enormous amount of paperwork to monitor what was bein~ charged. If a new formula were calculated, it would again be complicated to monitpr. He agrees the City should only be responsible for its charges. ! , , Mr. Timmons said he believes the Ci~y Prosecutor could fill out the disposition on each case. There should also be a d~tailed court record so there is an audit trail. If it were charged by the County Prosec~tor and it is pleaded down to a misdemeanor then the City no longer has control o~er or responsibility for it. The only other way is that the City would have a role in th~ plea agreement, but this might get too complicated. The goal is to have a clear audit trail and find a simplified formula. ! RECESS , I Mayor Robinson declared a recess 4t 7:23 p.m. for the purpose of a break. , . i I ~ECONVENE i The meeting was reconvened at 7:3~ p.m. i Mr. Timmons and Mr. Legarsky expl~ined the Historical Budget and Revenue Analyses dated October 24, which ~taff distributed at the break. , , ! Ms. Sandoval noted that the Washi~gton State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) completed traffic studies s part of the proposed ferry terminal upgrades and asked if WSDOT might provide unding for street improvements on upper Sims Way as well as lower Sims Way ass ciated with that project. She wonders if there is a reason to focus on the Howard St eet extension given that WSDOT might need to provide mitigation funding. WSDOT as also willing to share with the City their traffic data. . I Mr. Timmons agreed WSDOT WOU!haVe to mitigate traffic impacts. Although we are just beginning to look at upper ims Way alternatives, working with WSDOT on impacts of the ferry terminal upgrad and looking at alternate corridors is something to revisit. ! I ! i ! I i City Council Business Meeting Page 9 October 24, 2005 . Ms. Robinson said since there have een some discussions and controversy lately about City Hall and the City Hall Ann x project, she asked Mr. Timmons to review those pages in the budget, which sh believes start on page 44. Mr. Timmons noted that part of Courycil's direction in 2001 was to establish the City Hall project as a separate fund. He pointed out the sizable fund balance after income from the Historical Society and proje t expenses. Staff is trying to reconcile what expenses would occur in 2005 beca se this is a cash budget for the year under which we are operating. He referred 0 a document submitted to Council with a reconciliation of the entire project bu get not just the annual fund budget. Councilors asked Mr. Timmons to re istribute this one-page project summary as well as the revised budget page. I , I : Mr. Kolff referring to Ordinance 291~ asked if there are any category differences in the listed appropriations versus wha, is presented in the preliminary budget. Mr. Legarsky said he believes it folloj,vs the budget summary sheet. ! Mr. Timmons concurred it reflects a ~otal appropriation. He reminded a first reading does not bind Council to the number~, nor does it infer acceptance or approval of the budget. I I I . Mr. Legarsky reviewed minor chang~s to the ordinance based on changes as made in the Lodging Tax Fund. ! i I Ms. Medlicott asked why Council wo~ld approve a first reading without corrected figures and all requested reports. I ! Mr. Timmons noted that because an 10rdinance requires two readings, Staff recommends the first reading of the ~rdinance be done primarily as housekeeping measure, expediting the approval pr1cess, rather than having back-to-back meetings to meet the timeline. i Ms. Robinson asked Staff to summa~ize drastic budget changes. , I Mr. Legarsky said the City Hall Capitfllmprovement Fund might change as Staff prepares a better reconciliation of thE( expenditures to date, which would impact 2006 figures. I I Mr. Timmons clarified Council is not ~ound by these numbers and could approve first reading and then do a second repding with revised the numbers. , I Ms. Robinson closed public testimony on the hearing. i I ! . City Council Business Meeting I ! , I ~age 10 I I I October 24, 2005 . Mr. Kolff said Council could delay th second reading if they felt more time was needed. Motion: Mr. Kolff moved for first rea 'ng of Ordinance 2914, Adopting the Budget for the City of Port Townsend, Washingt n, for the Fiscal Year Ending Oecember 31, 2006. Motion seconded by Ms. Fenn.! , , I Ms. Medlicott stated that she is uncorrfortable with this approach given that tonight she has been presented with several\more budget revisions. She has very little concern about the budget in general, ishe believes it is clear and easy to understand, but because she does not have accu~ate numbers she would not support approval of the first reading. ! Ms. Sandoval said she finds this yea~'s budget user-friendly. She expressed her appreciation of Staff's efforts. She is lmcomfortable with two readings of the Ordinance in general and noted that ~ouncil frequently changes ordinances between the first and second reading! . i Mr. Masci said while he understands ~he desire to and success at accelerating the budget process, everything has been!so rigidly scheduled, that there has not been an opportunity to thoroughly discuss pr thrash out the budget issues, such as the street fund. He would let his vote regi~ter his protest to the accelerated process. ! Ms. Robinson noted there is still timeifor discussion. There was also discussion and ample opportunity to discuss this in t~e past. I I Ms. Fenn stated that she had a different committee experience. Staff has made their I presentations and she did not feel prEilssured to make decisions. She is counting on the other committees to have more in~'-dePth discussions, listen to reports, and bring forward their recommendations to Co ncil. Discussions would continue and she is comfortable with the budget to date a d is not feeling rushed. Mr. Kolff noted that Councilors receiv~d a worksheet form on which to ask specific questions. Councilors are responsible to use the tools provided. At a Chamber I luncheon today, he was pleased to bi able to show the budget document. He complimented Staff on the presentati n. He is a little disappointed that there is no public in attendance. It is possibly a r flection that they have had an opportunity to . ' comment In other ways. : , I I Ms. Fenn encouraged Councilors to ~ring forward budget proposals in advance through this forum so that it is not at tre final reading. I Mr. Benskin said rather than simply fi~ling out the form and asking the budget questions, the recommendations wou'd come forward through another process, after negotiation with City Manager, Police!Chief, and other players. He recognized more I ! I I Jage 11 ! j City Council Business Meeting October 24, 2005 . . information and thought is needed w en thinking of where the money comes from and whether we should appropriate ore. . Ms. Robinson clarified these questio s should come to Council rather than in an independent meeting with one Coun ilor and Staff members. Mr. Timmons pointed out that the pUt,pose of the scheduled forum was to help Staff prepare and present options. He beli ves Mr. Benskin was referring to a discussion earlier this year about a $5K appropr ation. I Mr. Benskin said the allocation of $5K in funds toward education and enforcement was discussed last year and is still a ~opic of discussion. , , Ms. Robinson stated that specific redommendations need to be presented to the entire Council so that it could be confidered. ! Mr. Benskin said he would be happy ~o request this information from Mr. Timmons. , Mr. Kolff questioned whether Councill should direct Staff on finding alternatives rather than an individual CouncilmerTjber. ! Mr. Timmons noted that he had recot' mended meeting with Chief Daily to clarify the issues and figure out how to respond. He recognized this would have to come before full Council for direction, but currentl just an initial discussion was requested. He agreed there are two issues: one where a Councilor requested information and direction and a desire to see something in the 2006 budget that hasn't been presented and what is the process for bringing that forward. Mr. Robinson reviewed that a form w~s included in the budget package. She said this was presented as an alternative to provide answers to specific Councilor questions. ! I , Mr. Masci said while this might be a ~evice that was proposed as a helpful tool, the Council should first agree on the proqess. Mr. Timmons said the form was inten~ed to help to facilitate the budget process. I Vote: Motion carried, 4-3, by voice v~te, Masci, Benskin and Medlicott opposed. Mr. Robinson concluded the public htjlaring on the 2006 Budget. Motion: Mr. Masci moved to accept ~ouncilor 2006 Budget Awareness Form as a proposal feature up through the final ~pprova/ of the 2006 budget. Ms. Fenn seconded. i ! . City Council Business Meeting ~age 12 , I , i I October 24, 2005 . . . Mr. Kolff asked whether it was approl riate to make this motion given that the only action listed on the agenda is the 20f6 Budget. Mr. Watts agreed it is best not to de~iate from the published agenda. I Motion: Mr. Masci moved to cancel f(1e October 31 Special Council Business meeting until after the November 10 f3eneral Government Committee presentations on the Storm water Plan and Water System Plan Update is availab/e and then bring the matters forward at the November! 14 Co unci/ Work Session. Mr. Benskin seconded. Vote: Motion carried unanimously, 6~O, by voice vote. I Ms. Medlicott noted that when she rdquested absence at the Council meeting last Thursday, she was tasked by Ms. Rqbinson to obtain a video from PTTV. She has done this and would now offer the vi~eo to the other Councilors who were absent for the Shoreline Master Program Hearing. , ! FUTYRE AGENDAS I jlI.DJOURN , There being no further business, the 'meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Prepared by Joanna Sanders Legal Assistant Attest: ~ I. Van, ~t'~~o Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Business Meeting rage 13 I ! October 24, 2005