Lynda James

Some of the issues facing Park County are listed below.   The items listed under "My Position" are by no means the only things that can be done, but they are a  "start" that I support.  All three commissioners must work together with input from Park County residents to put Park County back on a more positive track. 

 

County Budget and Property Taxes  

Issue: I have seen the county budget grow by millions over the past seven years, yet basic services such as road maintenance has decreased. Even more alarming is the fact that the yearly adopted budget has not been spent and money collected has been left in the fund balances. These balances have grown from $6 million in 2000 to $12 million in 2007. Basically, that means the county has $12 million in a savings account that is drawing interest, instead of spending it on services to residents.  Granted, some money does need to be in the fund balance to pay the bills during the first quarter of each year until property taxes and other revenue are received; and some should be saved for a "rainy day", but not $12 million.

The mill levy and individual property taxes are based on the yearly adopted budget, not on what is actually spent. Property taxes have risen due to larger adopted yearly budgets that then aren't spent. Taxes are crippling businesses and, worse yet, causing businesses to close.

Why have Park County commissioners been charging higher property taxes to meet the adopted budget and then not even spending the money?   The auditor last year praised the commissioners for being able to save money and increase the fund balances (savings account).  Yet the commissioners continually say there is no money to properly maintain the county roads.

My Position: 1. Adopt a realistic budget that reflects what will actually be spent.  By doing this, the county's mill levy will be reduced and individuals’ and businesses’ tax burden will be reduced.  Hopefully, by doing this, small businesses will be able to remain viable in the county.  (Remember though that county taxes are approximately only 25-30 percent of your total tax bill depending on how many local governments and special districts levy taxes on your property.)

Example: The 2007 adopted county budget was approximately $26.89 million.  Yet, only about $23.76 million was spent in 2007.  Property taxes were based on a budget that was over $3 million higher than needed.  According to the 2007 financial statement, $6.4 milllion was collected in property taxes for 2007's adopted budget.

2. Use the $6 million that has been saved over the past seven years to increase services, especially road maintenance.  At the same time, using this money over the next few years would help reduce property taxes and help our existing businesses survive.   Lower taxes could help attract new businesses to the county.

3. A thorough review of each department’s budget to identify any nonessential expenses and eliminate them.

One example is the number of employees and elected officials that have been given a county vehicle to commute to work.  Gasoline and vehicle maintenance have been provided by the County.  According the Finance Department, no accounting of this has been reported as income on individuals' W-2s for income tax purposes. This practice must cease.   I promise I will not use a county vehicle to commute to Fairplay as the current two commissioners from the Bailey area do.

Another example is that the number of county employees has risen by 35 since the year 2001. The jail expansion accounts for only 10 new positions. Are these 35 new positions really needed?  I proposed a freeze on hiring in all department except Road and Bridge until all functions and expenses of each department have been deemed necessary.

Another example of nonessential expenses was a study to determine future personnel and office space needs of each department and preliminary designs for a new county building where all departments would be housed. Some departments may need more space to function adequately, then we must find room. If so, I propose expanding existing buildings .

By creating a more realistic budget, using the fund balances, and eliminating nonessential expenses, county property taxes would go down and we'd have a more conservative, efficient government.

4. Put all major purchases out for competitive bidding. This will ensure we are getting the best services for the cheapest price.

5. Each month put the county revenue and expenditures on the county's website for all to see how much money is taken in and how it is being spent.

 

Road and Bridge Budget

Issue:  The 2007 Road and Bridge expenses have grown by only $700,000 since the year 2000 and now has a fund balance of $3.4 million. At the same time, the condition of the county roads have deteriorated.  And $776,000 of 2007 budgeted expenditures for road operations was not spent.

Also, many of the personnel employeed in 2000 have retired and have been replaced by inexperienced operators.  Currently, the department employs 45 people. That is down from almost 70 in the 1980's.

My Position:  1. With the rising costs of fuel, equipment, and salaries since 2000, the R&B budget has not grown accordingly, meaning less is actually being done. I propose diverting a share of the county-wide fund balances (now $12 million) to the road and bridge budget as well as spending more of the R&B budget fund balance on road repair, upgrades, and maintenance.  All county maintained roads in all parts of the county must receive their proportional share of this money. 

2. The county also needs to find new funding streams for R & B, but I do not support a higher sales tax in that effort. It is way past time to impose a one-time impact fee on new development that adds traffic on county roads. More traffic means more needed maintenance. Jefferson County has done this to help supplement their R & B budget.

3. I also propose more training and oversight of inexperienced operators until they gain the techniques needed to properly repair and maintain roads.

4. Buy a crusher to fully utilize the county gravel pits and eliminate the cost of buying gravel and chips.

 

Open, Responsive Government

Issue: The cornerstone of representative government is an open, transparent and responsive government.  During the past seven years, Park County government has become more and more closed, such as not posting all work session items and adding items to meeting agendas up to 24 hours before the meeting. Weekly, items are discussed under the heading of “Administrative” and not even taped. The Open Meetings law does not distinguish between work sessions, administrative sessions, and regular meetings.  It states that all meetings between two or more commissioners must be noticed and a record kept.

Town Hall meetings are a thing of the past.  The website is under-utilized as a source of information.  The Commissioners’ Corner column was discontinued in 2001 after several years of being a regular column in The Flume.

This past year, the Land Use Regulations were removed from the county’s website for months with the statement that they were being updated. Yet, there were no meetings to discuss changes and vote on updates during the time the LUR was not available.

The perception  (if not reality) of discussing county business outside the Board Room occurs when commissioners travel together on a weekly basis or spend considerable time in each other’s offices or say the LUR is being updated and hold no noticed meetings.

I take open government seriously. A government can’t be representative or responsive if it isn’t transparent, open, all meetings fully noticed and taped, and if elected officials aren’t available to the citizens.

My Position: 1. Items will not be added to meeting and work session agendas after they are sent to The Flume for publication and all work session items will be fully noticed. Administrative sessions will be limited to such things as scheduling agendas for meetings and work sessions.  Administrative and all work sessions will be recorded.

2. Hold regular Town Hall meetings once again in all areas of the county and reinstate the Commissioner’s Corner column in the Fairplay Flume. If the other two commissioners disagree, I will do both by myself.

3. Be available to citizens by holding regular office hours in Bailey and Fairplay. I will answer phone calls both in the office and at home.  I will also attend community and organizations’ meetings and events. When citizens have questions or issues I will help to find the answer and resolve issues.

4. Include more information on the website in a timely manner from all departments, including monthly budget revenue and expenditures. Reduce costs of the county newsletter by cutting the glossy paper and full color. Make sure the newsletter provides important, relevant information from departments and contains budget revenue and expenditures by each fund.

5. Investigate the cost of teleconferencing of commissioner meetings and if affordable use this technology so more citizens can participate in meetings.

6.  Hold meetings in different areas of the county and some meetings in the evening to allow more citizens to participate when an agenda item will impact that area of the county, particularly land use hearings.

7. Avoid even the perception of discussing county business outside the Board Room with other commissioners. Stop the practice of department directors and the county attorney meeting with each commissioner individually as well as using untapped administrative sessions to give direction on issues.

If the two other commissioners disagree with the above actions, I will let citizens know and do all that I can to restore open, responsive government and that at least one commissioner will be available throughout the county.

 

Land Use Regulations and the Strategic Master Plan

Issue: The 2005 Land Use Regulations (LUR) are currently being revised with a planned adoption, according to the Planning Department, before the end of the year. You may find the revisions on the county website, www.parkco.us under Documents.  Please take a look at the revisions and send comments to the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners.

One must ask why the County Commissioners decided to start a major revision of the LUR two months before an election where at least two of them and maybe all three will be replaced and plan to adopt new a LUR before the newly elected commissioners are seated. 

This is definitely being fast-tracked and I certainly don't agree with their method that will cause issues for new commissioners who may not agree with the changes. Any land use application is governed by the adopted LUR at the time the application is submitted to the Planning Department –usually three months before it is heard by the commissioners.

Strategic Master Plan (SMP): Many citizens throughout the county spent hours filling out a mailed questionnaire and going to meetings in 1999 and 2000 to develop the citizen-based SMP, a document that outlines citizens’ desires for where and how development should occur in each specific area of the county as well as the county as a whole.  One common theme at all the meetings was if citizens spent their time doing this, they wanted it adopted as part of the Land Use Regulations (LUR) so commissioners would have to abide by it.   The majority of commissioners I served with agreed. It wasn’t adopted until two of us were out of office and then as an advisory document.  Seven years after adoption, it was finally added to the county website recently.

Language in the 2003 LUR states, “Conceptually, the Master Plan is a guide to develop, rather than an instrument to control land use. The LUR will recognize and attempt to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the SMP.”

New language in the current proposed revision adds a phrase at the end of the above statement – “where such goals, objectives, and policies are sufficiently specific to ensure that conditions based on them can be imposed in a rational and consistent manner.”

My Position: I applaud the commissioners for finally putting the SMP on the website in this election year.  It should have been there from the beginning.

I support adopting the SMP as part of the LUR, not just as an advisory document.  After all, that is what the citizens wanted. The LUR has never fully implemented the Plan and with the proposed change in language noted above, will make it easier to further ignore it.

If elected, I will work with the other two commissioners to take the SMP back to the citizens to ask if it needs amended, revise it if needed, and then adopt it as part of the LUR.   If sections are really too vague to be implemented, they will be made specific.  That way it will have the teeth and will be followed.

Land Use Regulations: The LUR is long, repetitive, user un-friendly, and full of loop holes. And even worse, the water quality and quantity standards required of new development do not protect current or future residents.

Example: It does not have a Table of Contents for the full document at the beginning.  Each Article has a Table.  One must leaf through nine Tables scattered through the document and several Appendices to find anything.  One needs a three inch binder to hold the document.  Many areas refer the reader to another area of the document to find the information.

Example:  Several zones districts were added to Article Five (Zone Districts) in the 2003 and 2005 versions. Yet there are very little differences, if any, in allowed uses in similar zone districts, such as Residential-35, Residential-20, and Agricultural-35.  Why have several zones with virtually the same uses and development standards been created?

Example: Loop holes and vagueness allow “back door” interpretations of the document and approval of land use changes. The worst is found in Article Six, Division Eight. It allows the commissioners to modify any part of the regulations for a specific application where the application may have a hardship abiding by the regulations.

Example: New proposed subdivisions and other divisions of land do not require proof of a sufficient physical water supply.  If water quality is below standard, the developer is not responsible for bringing it up to standard.

 

My Position: Yes, the LUR needs amended, but should be done to fully implement the Strategic Master Plan, streamline the document, reduce the repetitiveness, close the loopholes, and address issues that protect our property values: such as fully protecting our water quality and quantity and  enforcing erosion/sedimentation control that damages private property and roads. 

If I’m elected, I will be at the forefront to protect current and future residents of the county by adopting a LUR that contains the concepts I mentioned above.  It will be taken to the citizens in Town Hall meetings for input before any revisions are proposed and again after revisions are proposed, even if I’m the only commissioner present.