Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032513_cbs01o~ CQ~ Q~'4~4e_50N COQ F~ ti 1` ~C ~~ i ~~SNI NG~O~ ~/ District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson DistricT No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin unty Administrator: Philip Morley Jerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren ~~ MINUTES DAFT Week of February 11, 2013 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan. Commissioner Phil Johnson was absent. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: • A citizen requested the Board send a letter to the Utilities Commission regazding broadband in Brinnon; • A citizen asked why the County has a contract with the now non-existent Fred Hill Materials company? • A citizen spoke in regard to global warming and pollution from coal plants; • A citizen expressed concern for Jefferson Transit's financial situation and the cut of Sunday bus service; • A citizen stated there is a theme in local government that promises are not kept to the voters; • A citizen spoke regarding high velocity magazine clips for weapons; and • A citizen spoke about Sheriff Deputies discharging firearms inside buildings and not being properly reprimanded. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OFCONSENTAGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 0909=13: Declare Certain Personal Property as Surplus and Authorize Disposal 2. RESOLUTION NO. 10_13: Amending Article 4.03 of the Flexible Benefits Plan 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1111=13: Termination of Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN) and Potential Transition to a Shelter Providers Network Model 4. AGREEMENT: Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort; In the Amount of $92,950 (Applicant Pass-thru); Jefferson County Community Development; E.A. Blumen 5. AGREEMENT: Reimbursement for Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Pleasant Hazbor Master Planned Resort; In the Amount of $92,950; Jefferson County Community Development; Garth Mann, Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP 6. AGREEMENT: 2013 Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products for Bituminous Surface Treatment Program; In the Amount of $418,000 Plus Sales Tax; Jefferson County Public Works; Albina Asphalt ® _a_.~ .Page 1~__..~~__a______..~~~___.~~r Commissioners Meeting Minutes: February 11, 2013 ~~ ~ ~~ 7. AGREEMENT: Solid Waste Disposal Facility Leachate Transportation; In the Amount of $13,000 over five(5) years; Jefferson County Public Works; Good Man, Inc. 8. BID AWARD: Alder Creek Tributary Culvert Replacement, Upper Hoh Road MP 2.15, Federal Aid Project No. ER-0801 (025), County Project No. X01781; In the Amount of $498,801.60; Jefferson County Public Works; Seton Construction 9. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Vouchers/Warrants: Dated February 5, 2013 Totaling $843,372.95 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated February 5, 2013 Totaling $712,948.84 Approval of Minutes: Chairman Austin noted a correction to the minutes of December 17, 2012, page 7, County Administrator's Briefing, Calendar Coordination, ninth bullet, "National Association of County Officers" needs to be changed to "National Association of Counties". He also clarified that the December 24, 2012 draft minutes, page 3, second bullet, "Tarboo Lake" needs to be changed to "Tazboo Bay"; and noted a correction to the spelling of Dean Yoshina under Future Agenda Items, first bullet. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the minutes of December 17 and 24, 2012 as corrected. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion tamed. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin stated Washington State Secretazy of Health Mary Selecky will be retiring. He will be attending a Washington State Board of Health meeting this week. Commissioner Sullivan stated he may need to sit in for Commissioner Johnson for various meetings in Olympia this week. The meeting was recessed at 9:52 a.m. and reconvened at 10:02 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 3`d and 4`"Quarter County Income Reports: State Lands Assistant Regional Manager Drew Rosanbalm presented a yeaz-end calendar report for 2012. The total year-end income totaled $740,000. In 2013, $753,000 is projected to be received by the County. At the next quarterly meeting, a 2014 fiscal year (starting July 1, 2013) selling plan will be presented. A five year fiscal projection is being worked on and is projected to be completed in 2015. Discussion ensued in regard to the different pieces of property that DNR owns in Jefferson County. County Administrator Morley asked how a past coding error occurred and what DNR is doing to prevent that from happening again? Mr. Rosanbalm answered a forester read the map incorrectly because that particular piece of property was traded with the City of Port Townsend and the map code was not up to date. A procedure is in place to prevent a miscoding error from occurring again. Treasurer Judi Morris stated DNR's recommendation is to not distribute money from future sales to compensate for the coding errors in districts is not appropriate because budgets are based on predictions of past revenue. If revenue is not received by some of the districts, it would have a dramatic impact. DNR should step up and be held accountable for the mistake they had made. Ms. Morris stated she will talk to DNR staff that has the authority to make decisions. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: February 11, 2013 The meeting was recessed at 10:55 a.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Proposed Reduction in Department of Community Development's (DCD) role with the Climate Action Committee (CAC): Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith stated Associate Planner Zoe Ann Lamp is the staff contact for the Climate Action Committee (CAC). Mr. Smith stated Ms. Lamp spent 100 hours in 2012 and 140 hours in 2011 working on CAC. He would like to reduce the number of hours DCD is actively involved with CAC because of the reduction of DCD staff hours. Commissioner Sullivan stated the Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act will still need to be followed by this committee. What has DCD done to prepare for those types of issues? Should this committee be chartered so it is a free standing citizen committee, like an advisory board? Ms. Lamp stated at the last CAC meeting, Port Townsend City Council Member Deb Stinson indicated that it is vital for the committee to continue as a joint City /County committee. Mr. Smith stated Public Health and Public Works are involved with CAC and there would still be County representation. He does not want to obligate his staff to participate in every CAC meeting. Ms. Lamp stated CAC meets quarterly but special meetings have taken place and the committee members have stated there is a need to meet more often and participate in public outreach. The Board concurred that discussion with other departments, City staff and committee members should take place regarding additional responsibilities before a decision is made regarding DCD's leadership role in CAC. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. - Miscellaneous: • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Revenue Coding Error - Calendar Coordination: • A joint meeting with the Port Townsend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners to discuss a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) and Amend the Interlocal Agreement is tentatively scheduled for Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Jefferson County Courthouse in the Superior Court Courtroom • A Public Hearing regarding Net Pen Legislation will take place in Olympia February 15, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson may attend a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting and Olympic Regional Clean Air Agency meeting February 13, 2013 • Chairman Austin will attend a Washington State Health Board meeting and legislative meetings February 13, 2013 • The Board will be meeting Tuesday, February 19, 2013 due to the Presidents' Day holiday on Monday, February 18, 2013. There will not be a County Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: February 11, 2013 DRAFT ~: Administrator's Briefing Session that afternoon'Teca`use there is a scheduled Transit meeting • Commissioner Sullivan is scheduled to attend a Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN) Committee meeting February 19, 2013 • A Jefferson County Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for February 20, 2013 • Chairman Austin and County Administrator Morley will attend a Jeffcom Board meeting February 21, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson may attend an Interrorem Guazd Station Meeting February 21, 2013 • Commissioner Sullivan will attend a Team Jefferson meeting February 21, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will attend a Fort Worden Advisory Committee meeting February 21, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson may attend a Jefferson County Shelter Providers Network meeting February 21, 2013 • Chairman Austin will attend a Pleasant Harbor briefing February 25, 20 Li • A Climate Action Committee (CAC) meeting is scheduled February 27, 2013 • Commissioner Sullivan will attend a Peninsula Development District (PDD) meeting Februazy 28, 2013 • Chairman Austin will attend the National Association of Counties (NACo) Conference in Washington D.C. Mazch 2 through 4, 2014 Legislative Session: • Transportation • Budget • Net Pens Miscellaneous Items: • Court Administrator's Office • Brinnon Park & Recreation District (Jefferson County Park District No. 2) • CenturyLink Internet Services • Metropolitan Park District (MPD) - Future Agenda Items (Not Discussed) NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:13 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: John Austin, Chair (Excused Absence) ATTEST: Phil Johnson, Member Raina Randall David Sullivan. Member Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 4 CALL TO OKllEK Mayor King and Chairman Austin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Superior Court Courtroom at the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, Washington. MEMBERS PRESENT City Council Members present: Mayor David King, Michelle Sandoval, Catharine Robinson, Mark Welch, Kris Nelson, Deborah Stinson and Robert Gray. County Commissioners present: Chairman John Austin and David Sullivan. Phil Johnson was absent. Staff present: City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, City Public Services Director Rick Sepler, County Administrator Philip Morley, County Public Works Director Frank Gifford and County Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler. Invited Citizen Presenters: Kathleen Kler, Rich Stapf and Bob Wheeler. PURPOSE OF MEETING & INTRODUCTIONS After introductions, Chairman Austin reviewed the format for the meeting. Mayor King explained that the purpose of the meeting is not to finalize a decision on a Metropolitan Park District (MPD), but to work together to decide whether, as a community, we should further explore the use of this method to address pazk issues. This is a follow-up to the process that was started by the Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Committee (ERPRC). The ERPRC spent about a yeaz considering the issues facing parks and recreation for all of East Jefferson County and submitted a recommendation to the City and County. Members of the ERPRC are present tonight and we will be hearing from some of them later in the meeting. The ERPRC recommended that the City and County form a MPD and consolidate their respective park operations. A citizen-led group is being proposed to more fully evaluate this recommendation. The process will be to develop a recommendation on the configuration of a MPD with respect to size, funding, facilities and programs that will go to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for consideration and approval which would then lead to a possible ballot measure. We will be discussing whether this is worth doing. If we want to move forward we will decide if now is the time to create a public process to take on the responsibility of helping to define it. Then we will discuss what that process will be. Page 1 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson Count REVIEW OF EXPLORATORY REGIONAL PARKS & RECREATION (ERPRC) HISTORY, WORK, FINDINGS AND County Administrator Morley introduced ERPRC members Kathleen Kler and Rich tapf, and ERPRC process facilitator Bob Wheeler. Ms. Kler stated that she is one of 18 citizens that s rved on the ERPRC and met every month for over a year. The ERPRC was formed as a result of the pas ing of Proposition 1 which enabled the County to provide funding for public safety, Memorial Field and e Port Townsend Recreation Center. Our present approach to funding parks and recreation in both the City and the County is unsustainable. We have cut programs and services nearly to the bone. Wi h the help of amazing volunteers from various communities we have maintained what we treasur in the County, but this too is unsustainable. The ERPRC conducted an extensive survey of all City and County pazks and recreation programs, and programs offered by other agencies. A needs assessment as conducted on whether or not current needs are being met and what services are desired with rega seniors, accessibility for individuals with special needs, etc. The ERPRC also eval values in Jefferson County. The public survey had an amazing response and provi~ ERPRC. One of the values made clear is that parks and recreation are vital to the c County. The ERPRC worked very hard in looking at various program options and An analysis was done to look at equal access, facilities, capital improvements, dup and coordination. In the end, options were formed. Mr. Stapf stated he and Ms. Kler are also members of the Jefferson County Parks an Advisory Board. He served on the ERPRC which included representatives of the sd County, YMCA, etc. Initially, he felt there were too many people on the Committee doomed from the start. However, the committee kept up with the time line which re recommendations. Overall, it was felt that the City and County should form a MPD Jefferson County. Also included in the recommendation is that the City and County possible MPD, work together to find efficiencies to sustain current programs and fac that the formation of a MPD is delayed or rejected by the voters, the recommendatio the County merge their pazks and recreation services and that either the City or Cow services. Specific recommendations related to this approach include: - Governance -the MPD Board should be elected by the people - Geographical balance by region and population - Include representatives of both the City Council and Board of County C - Formation of the MPD would be authorized by a joint City and County to park facilities, led community core i direction to the ~racter of Jefferson nding structures. ations, efficiencies, l Recreation ,ool district, City, and that it was ,ulted in some final For all of East in leading up to a ilities. In the event i is that the City and tvtakeoverthose There is no recommendation on a tax rate. The formation of a MPD has a timeline. The ERPRC recommended that there needs to be a smaller focus group and some ERPRC memb rs are available to be part of that group. It is also recommended by the ERPRC that the City and Coun ~ continue to work together, as they have been, to inform a smaller focus group to carry out these reco mendations. Mr. Wheeler added that when the ERPRC was formed the members had not made a y predetermination on how they should proceed. They were open to suggestions, ideas and approaches n how to work on making parks and recreation sustainable. They looked at several different options a d did a great deal of work behind the scenes. Through consensus they arrived at this recommendation fo the City and Page 2 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 County to seriously look at the formation of a MPD. The recommendations aze base information that was put together in the process that will be helpful to the smaller f considering this further and reviewing some of the specifics. Ms. Kler stated the ERPRC also looked at the "status-quo" because often times people ask why change, if it's working? In the end, the ERPRC found that it's not working, it's not sustainable. All of the options that were considered would be affected by the lack of revenue in both the Ciry and County due to the current economic situation. Some people do not understand that parks and recreation funding is a discretionary item in the City and County budgets. A MPD would mean that the public dollars that were voted for parks and recreation would go to a parks and recreation budget and could not be used for anything else. COOPERATION BY CITY AND COUNTY TO SUPPORT ERPRC'S WORK Mayor King stated representatives of the City and County have been meeting together in a small working group once a week since October 2012 to design a process that would fairly allow the benefits and challenges associated with a MPD to be brought forward and vetted by the community. The working group consisted of Mayor David King, Commissioner Phil Johnson, Commissioner John Austin, County Administrator Philip Morley, City Manager David Timmons, County Public Works Director Frank Gifford, County Pazks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler, and City Public Services Director Rick Sepler. Three variables that need to be considered were identified: 1) Size; a MPD is a physical entity and a taxing district that has a geographical boundary; 2) Funding; a MPD would have its own taxing authority, but there are funds already being contributed by the City and County. Would funding be entirely supplanted?; and 3) Facilities and programs; How would they be managed? Throughout the process it was important not to arrive at a predetermined result. We grappled with getting an idea of what the legal ramifications were, what the structures were, and how things interacted in hopes of designing a community-led process that we could bring forward. At the same time, it is important that we provide some "bookends" for things that have to be accommodated in order for this to go forward. The size of the district cannot be any larger than East Jefferson County and cannot include existing Park Districts like the one in Brinnon. There are limits to what all taxing districts combined can levy. Beyond a certain level, junior taxing districts have to prorate, which means reduce their maximum level of levy by a formula provided by the State. We do not want the taxing levy level to trigger proration, so it puts a limitation on how much can be levied by a MPD. It also has to be fair with respect to facilities and programs to all members of the City and County. It must address short and long term needs, be sustainable and must be an improvement over what we have now. As Ms. Kler stated, it is an improvement by definition of what we have now because parks and recreation would be the mission of this new organization. It would not be the first thing to be considered to be cut by City and County budgets. That has to be kept in mind as we go forward. County Administrator Morley stated as the City and County began to meet to talk about how to support, but not direct, the work of the ERPRC continuing, the financial realities of both the County and City came into sharper light within the last few months. At the same time that we have been working together to honor the work of the ERPRC, we were also faced with some exigencies in the present tense Page 3 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2,13 of how to keep parks and recreation going. Most notably, the Mountain View Pool. ne of the results of the work being done in the weekly meetings was the convening of the Public Infr structure Fund (PIF) Board and their recommendation to fund two projects with funding from PIF t at is supported by the State which funds public infrastructure that promotes economic development. I December, the Board of County Commissioners approved the PIF Board's recommendation to fun the Esplanade project on the waterfront at Quincy Street which provided necessary economic deve opment downtown Port Townsend, but at the same time eased some of the 2013 financial conditions fo the City and made it possible for the City to help support continued pool operations in 2013. Another roject was approved to take place in 2014 and 2015 for $150,000 for Building 202 at Fort Worden. This put State and County funding into that important economic development project and in so doing, reed up $150,000 of funds that the City had set aside from a prior bond issue, that now can be put into e ergent repairs for the pool. This is an example of a creative partnership between the City and County i working together to figure out how to maintain important parks and recreation assets in our communi while still trying to create a long term solution. One of the benefits of this entire process that was starte by the ERPRC, is sitting down together and finding common ground. These are not just City and Co ty facilities, they are "community" facilities. We have been working as a team to find a way to sustai them now and into the future. Tonight we are trying to find a way, collectively, to recognize and respect the reco endation of the ERPRC and to provide the resources to citizens to define the answers to the questio s that they help develop so that a meaningful ballot measure could potentially be posed to the publi . We are not controlling this process. We are trying to support it. ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXT AND FRAMING THE City Manager Timmons explained that this is not the first time that this process has een looked at or undertaken. The process has evolved over a number of years but came together in 1' ght of the situation that both the City and County face. Currently, we have competing interests at stake between our core responsibilities that are defined by statute and our essential responsibilities which a not defined as core responsibilities, but are essential to the community's quality of life. Libraries and p ks and recreation aze examples of essential services, but by law are not described as statutory core res onsibilities. They are discretionary. Since they exist in a combined budget scenario, they compete for the resources that are available. Many times that puts them in a very unfair competition and practice hen weighed against policy objectives in terms of meeting core statutory obligations and trying t look at what is essential to the quality of life for the community. In 2009, the City began to address its situation because of the loss of the ferries. W went to the voters and said that certain essential responsibilities were going to be put at risk. Through a series of town meetings we looked at our options and chose to fund library services as an essential function but through a dedicated levy. The monies that were originally allocated for the library were the reallocated back into community services and programs. The problem we faced was a continuing er sion over time. When we entered into an agreement with the County for the Proposition 1 funding, he financial situation at the County was dropping much more rapidly. The City, by establishing a lifeline through the Proposition I agreement, basically helped maintain services at a minimum, but ove time the City's financial situation is also beginning to erode because of other issues and challenges hat we are all Page 4 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, facing. The ERPRC recommendation includes a targeted level of service in a combined City and County system through a MPD. The problem that we discovered is through the apportionment and tax limitation initiatives that we have with the combined maximum statutory levy rate of $5.90 for all the districts. This limits what the MPD could establish in the initial phase. However, it does not mean that all is foregone. Over time, with the infrastructure in place to begin to fund a combined system, it has the opportunity to grow and expand and eventually get to the point where it can meet the target objective. This will take time and will not happen right away. It will be based on how we address the Real Estate mazket, growth and economic development in communities. As we grow and expand it will give capacity to the MPD to grow and expand. The key thing to remember is that while it will take time to reach the tazget objective, the erosion which will occur over time will be stopped. As demands grow and mandated services escalate through actions at both the state and federal level, it will put even more continued pressure on those services and we will see more erosion over time because we do not have enough resources to keep up with all the demands. The benefit of a MPD is similar to the City's Library and the County's Library District. It is established and framed with having its own source of dedicated funds so it does not need to compete for resources. As we go forward in this discussion we must remember that we are faced with certain funding limitations and restrictions. Councilmember Gray asked how the target level of service was determined? City Manager Timmons replied that the target level was determined by the ERPRC and is included in its report. The ERPRC established what a combined level of service should be for all East Jefferson County (City and County) in terms of maintaining existing parks and establishing other parks that we need. The target level represents the funding gap that currently exists. Mayor King asked if the target level includes capital investment? City Manager Timmons replied yes. One of the main azeas where we lack in terms of our current deficit is in deferred maintenance and reinvestment in capital. Councilmember Stinson asked if it also includes recreational programs? City Manager Timmons replied yes. County Administrator Morley explained that since 2009, no additional funding has been added to the County's parks and recreation program. Essentially, the County does not have any capital funding to do any major maintenance on facilities, such as replacing the roof on Memorial Field or making repairs to the Port Townsend Recreation Center. When the picnic structure at East Beach on Marrowstone Island needed to be rebuilt, it was done through volunteers. It was not done with County funding because the County had no funding to provide. In 2009, the County significantly cut its parks and recreation budget, laid off staff and began closing programs including the Port Townsend Recreation Center which is now only open because of the funding received through the Proposition 1 funding agreement with the City. Currently, most of the County's park facilities are operated and maintained with volunteers, not with paid County staff. The only reason they are open is because of citizen volunteers. The County does not have the staffing to maintain them and keep them open. This has worked amazingly well for the last three years, but it is not a sustainable model in the long term, especially, when there is no capital funding to make any significant repairs. The gymnasium at the Port Townsend Recreation Center has an Page 5 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2~k~3 engineering report that indicates the roof needs to be replaced or the entire buildin lace If~ tl~s price tag of over a Million dollazs for that one facility and we currently do not h enny. Commissioner Sullivan stated another way the County generates funding is through olunteers, donations and fees. Increasing fees would prevent a lot of people from being able t participate in parks and recreation programs unless there were scholarships; which would mean more d ations. Grants are a possibility, but are hazder to come by these days. He noted that costs also increase over time. County Administrator Morley stated the degree to which we ultimately fund, and th~ amount we set as a target level of service, will be determined by the citizens in this process. ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING OUR CITIZENS City Public Services Director Sepler reviewed and discussed the "Draft MPD Proce s Map and Schedule" (Exhibit A to Joint Resolution No. 13-005 (City) and No. 011-13 (Coun )) noting that the process and dates for the process are not "cast-in-stone". It is a reasonable and sequ ntial process to address and assess the challenges in a fair manner that involves the public and all ci izens who participate throughout the County, in a discussion about how best to address the fut e. To that end, this process includes two groups. One is a steering committee consisting of 12 people ho are charged with representing the broad interests of our County and assessing the different points of iew, approaches and strategies that could be applied to address a MPD. In order to truly capture the broa range of opinions in Jefferson County, the establishment of a second larger stakeholder group is neces ary. The stakeholders would be invited to participate and be appointed by the steering Comm' tee, not by the Board of County Commissioners or the City Council. There would be no limit on t at participation. The purpose of that is to bring together the broadest coalition of points of view sot at everyone has an opportunity to state their concerns, be fairly heard by their neighbors and to address e best solutions that would be recommended to the City Council and Board of County Commissione s for consideration. Mr. Wheeler reviewed and discussed the proposed "Guidance to the Steering Com ittee for the MPD Process" outlined in (Exhibit C to Joint Resolution No. 13-005 (City) and No. 011- 3 (County)). Councilmember Nelson noted that the process map and schedule listed as "Exhibit as part of the resolution. She asked about the flexibility of the schedule and whethe Council and Board of County Commissioners would need to reconvene if the resoh this specific process schedule and then the process turns out not to be as quick and specifically outlined? City Public Services Director Sepler replied the process map anticipated schedule. The enabling resolution does not state specifically that the se] stone. It is understood and is on record that this is a suggested schedule and while f made to follow it, if the steering committee or the public feels it needs more time, t: changed. Councilmember Stinson stated "Exhibit C" references a "preferred MPD plan," ho references a "preferred alternative plan." Those are two very different things. The with a recommendation that an MPD is not what is needed and a dedicated lew ma alternative. She asked if that is being excluded at this point? City Public Services " is to be adopted or not the City on is adopted with ficient as nd schedule is an ~dule is carved in ery effort will be ;schedule may be ;ver the resolution oup may come up be a better hector Sepler Page 6 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 201 explained that it is specific to an MPD because that was the recommendation of the E)~. that there will be steps along the way that maybe necessary to achieve that end which t t i other alternatives. Staff can make consistencies in the language of the documents as directed. Councilmember Robinson asked about the number of people being recommended for the steering committee and stated 12 people seems like a lot to really be effective? Mr. Wheeler replied that the ERPRC consisted of approximately 20-25 people and some people were not able to participate. It is difficult to find balance between having various interests represented at the table and making it small enough to be focused on these issues. We may use break-out groups during the process. There are some techniques that can be used to help the group be effective and efficient. It came down to 12 in order to make sure that the necessarv interests are included. County Administrator Morley added that one of the constraints is that this group is going to have to determine the geographic boundaries of a MPD and decide what communities are in and what communities are out. It is very important that there is good representation of the diverse communities throughout the County to make sure that if a community ended up being in or if they ended up being out, that they had some representation at the core group to help make those decisions. That added five or six people to group. We also want to make sure that there is representation of recreation program interests and park facility interests, as well as representation of both the City and County Pazks Advisory Boards. The working group has been identifying candidates to represent these interests. We have started to interview candidates and have shared this process and schedule to vet with them their level of commitment and availability. Mayor King added that the working group chose mainly institutions so there could be representation by an alternate if an individual could not attend. Councilmember Welch asked what mechanism will be used to select the steering committee members and will it come to the Board of County Commissioners and City Council for confirmation? County Administrator Morley replied that the working group would bring a consensus panel to both the City Council and the Boazd of County Commissioners and ask for appointment either by motion or resolution. Councilmember Nelson asked about the membership list for the steering committee and questioned why the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition is specifically listed when most of the interest groups on the list are more general? She suggested it list "pool and facilities advocate'' or "pool advocate" and "facilities advocate" since we have other facilities besides the pool. The stakeholders membership list is more specific to organizations. She noted that the list does not include membership for the Senior Center which occupies a large portion of the Port Townsend Community Center. Mr. Wheeler and County Administrator Morley noted her comment. Commissioner Sullivan said this is going to take a lot of scrutiny throughout the entire process. Many people are going to be watching this process which will ultimately end up with a recommendation that will come to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. The quality of the recommendation is going to beaz scrutiny throughout the process. There is going to be opportunity for people to comment. He has heard a lot of concern because of the uncertainty at this stage. Page 7 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County S -February 11, Mayor King agreed and stated that a recommendation will be submitted to the Boar of County Commissioners and the City Council for action. Not only does it have to be accepta le to both bodies individually, but it has to be a common proposal to both bodies. There will be a lot f refining taking place. Councilmember Nelson revisited her earlier comment about the process map and sc edule listed as "Exhibit A" and noted that the language in the proposed joint City and County resol tion under Recitals A(1) states "Metropolitan Parks District process map and schedule (Exhibit A)", wh ch is specifically the map and schedule that happens to have dates on it. She highly recommends that if we do not want to stick to those dates, we need to back off that very firm language. Councilmember Sandoval stated there are districts throughout the County that we ow are not capable of being part of a MPD, such as Brinnon which has its own Park District, and distri is which are in danger of coming up against le`ry limitation for proration of the junior taxing distric s and the stated goals for the MPD in regard to funding. She asked if those districts should be consi ered for participation despite the fact that they would not be part of the MPD? Mayor King eplied yes, and explained that Brinnon is exempt because it is seeking its own solution. Port Ludlo 's current level of taxation would be one of the more likely areas to restrict the levy capacity for the M D if it was included. At the same time, including Port Ludlow would make the MPD broader hich could potentially result in more revenue. Whether it is in or out, or whether it would have a positive or negative benefit are discussions that would ensue in this process. Those are the co plicated issues that this steering committee will have to face as it determines the geographic area. County Administrator Morley stated they will be included in this process though th~ outcome of whether they would ultimately be included in a MPD is very much an open question. Mayor King stated we would not exclude them specifically because they would lim t the amount that a MPD could levy or include them because they would expand the amount for a MP .That needs to be considered and determined by a process of the steering committee in terms of the b nefits versus the costs. Councilmember Robinson stated that the original Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for P oposition 1 funding between the City and County and the first amendment to that agreement include a list of potential capital projects for Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. She asked i any of those capital projects have been done using Proposition 1 funding? County Administrator Morl y replied no. He explained that most of the Proposition 1 funding is used to pay for operations of bo Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. A small remaining portion of the fundi g is being set aside to accumulate in order to pay for a capital project. Initially, the County used a port on of those funds as outlined in the first amendment to the as Bement to support the ERPRC proces's w ich reduced the amount of capital funding that could be accumulated. The County will again be dr wing on those funds to pay for this new process. There is a small reserve which is slowly increasing tha the County would need to commit or expend before the ILA expires, otherwise the funding gets ret ed to the City. The County has been trying to save up enough funding to be able to do one of the capit 1 projects. Councilmember Gray asked how much money has been received under Propositio I? County Page 8 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 F Administrator Morley answered that originally it was projected at $225,000 per year.. the I amount received was approximately $212,000. Councilmember Gray asked how much of the Proposition 1 funding was spent on the initial ERPRC process? County Pazks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler replied it was between $80,000 and $90,000. Councilmember Gray asked what is being budgeted for this next process? County Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler replied it is budgeted at $40,000 to $50,000. Those costs will be paid out of the County's portion of Proposition 1 funding that is received from the City. Councilmember Robinson stated she is pleased that the proposed amendment number two to the ILA, coming up for discussion and consideration, includes language that the County will be tracking the City's expenditures and submitting a quarterly report to the City on the revenue and expenses. Councilmember Nelson noted that the City and County aze sepazate entities, but when we are discussing the citizens of Jefferson County and the citizens of the City of Port Townsend please always remember that the citizens of Port Townsend are also citizens of Jefferson County. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) AMENDMENT County Administrator Morley reviewed the proposed amendment number two to the ILA (Exhibit D to Joint Resolution No. 13-005 (City) and No. 011-13 (County)) between the City and the County. He highlighted key changes as follows: - This amendment supersedes and replaces the original 2010 Agreement and Amendment Number One. - Section 6 on page 4 states that the City and County are agreeing that: the benchmarks in the original ILA have been accomplished in good faith; the City and County have reviewed the recommendations of the ERPRC and that through this ILA and through this resolution we aze agreeing on an implementation plan to move forward to convene a citizens steering committee to develop a MPD plan; the City and County will work in the interim to coordinate, consolidate, and fund park facilities and recreation programs until a MPD is formed and funded. - Sections 4 and 5 on pages 2 and 3. These sections describe City and County performance and now are more parallel with one another. Language in the original ILA regarding benchmarks and consequences for failing to meet benchmarks or agree on a plan has been removed. It allows Proposition 1 funding from the City to be spent on the process to develop a sustainable model for funding and administering regional parks and recreation. It allows the use of capital funds from Proposition 1 funding to pay for unanticipated repairs that threaten the use of the Mountain View swimming pool. The County will consult with the City on annual budgeting of Proposition I funding provided by the City and on prioritizing capital improvements that maybe made to Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. The County will track all expenditures and report quarterly. Page 9 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, Section 3 on page 1 sets the effective date, duration and termination of the a re; . The duration remains to be up to four years and expires May 31, 2015 vrith two xceptions: 1) If new funding becomes available that would replace the Proposition 1 funding, the the City's obligation to continue to contribute Proposition 1 funding to the County wo ld cease; and 2) If the sales tax for public facilities to rural counties that funds our Public Infra tructure Fund (PIF) were in some way affected by the State legislature or if actual receipts in so e way would jeopardize the PIF grant far the Fort Worden Building 202 project in the am unt of $150,000, the City and County agree to negotiate terms where the County would fully fun the grant for the Fort Worden Building 202 project or failing that, renegotiate all terms of thi agreement in good faith. Councilmember Gray stated he believes that the pool needs to be repaired. He uestioned the pool being included in this agreement and asked if the pool was included in Propositi n 1 when it went to a vote of the people? County Administrator Morley replied no. Councilmember Gray asked County Administrator Morley if he thinks it should ave been included? County Administrator Morley replied that at the time we did not realize what sh pe the pool was in. Mayor King explained that the ERPRC report included the pool as one of the m st important assets and resources of parks and recreation for East Jefferson County. With the assist ce the County has provided for recent pool repairs, it is unlikely that we will need to use any Prop sition 1 funding for emergency repairs. The funds would be used only in the event of equipment fai ure that would imperil the operation of the pool. The working group felt that if the City did no have the resources to make repairs to the pool, the available capital funding that was received by th County from the City through the Proposition 1 funding agreement could be used to keep the poo operational. Councilmember Gray said he agrees. He is talking about keeping faith with the Mayor King said he is explaining the difference. As pointed out, the citizens of e City are citizens of the County as well and this keeps faith with the increase in taxes and its dedi ation to keeping these resources operational. Councilmember Sandoval expressed concern that while we are saying we are no predetermining the outcome, the amendment number two to the ILA is very specific in its proposal or a MPD. There are no other alternatives mentioned, in fact, we have deleted the language that st tes the funds could actually end, as stated in the previous ILA. The previous ILA says "up to four y ars" and if there is no agreement reached upon a funding strategy then we go our separate ways. T ere is no divorce here. This is a permanent marriage. It doesn't say what happens if the steering ommittee decides not to proceed with a MPD or if it is decided to go forward to the voters with th MPD and it fails. There is no "back out" and that makes her nervous. A year ago when the City shaving significant problems with the pool and the City was going to terminate the original ILA bec use we had not reached certain benchmarks, the City Council was accused of not living up to th original agreement, though it did say up to 4 years, and it did contain a divorce clause. This amend ent number two ILA does not have a divorce clause. While she is in favor a moving toward a M D, it feels like we ace giving mixed signals. We are saying we are not predetermining the outcome and yet this only Page 10 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 •': says MPD, no benchmazks. If there is no conclusion by the steering committee and/~is a failure or repeated failure to pass a ballot measure for a MPD, guess who is going to be in front of the City Council in 2015 saying that we are not living up to the Proposition 1 funding agreement. The citizens are not going to understand that the contact says there is no more money from the City. It makes her nervous because we cannot predict the outcome of either of these future events. County Administrator Morley agrees that this is a significant change to the structure of the ILA. Section 6 is saying that we are embarking on this citizen-led process. The outcome of which is indeterminate. This section also says that we the City and County aze pledging, during the term of the ILA, to coordinate, consolidate and fund park facilities and recreation programs in the interim and toward the long-term. This builds from "Plan B" of the ERPRC's recommendation which was for the City and County to look at how to consolidate and find a different way to deliver these services. With regard to direction given to the citizen group, he believes the starting point is with the recommendation of the ERPRC which was to do a MPD. We are charging the next citizen group with the mission to do a MPD. If they ultimately conclude that a MPD is not possible, then we look at alternatives. Councilmember Sandoval stated it would be much more clear to say something in section 6 other than "...until a MPD can be formed and funded..." As currently worded, it is an absolute. City Attorney Watts noted that the contract states in section 4(f) on page 3 of the agreement that in no way does City's commitment for funding go beyond May 31, 2015. Additionally, section 4(e) on page 3 states that if there is an approved dedicated and secure funding source that would fully replace the funding under this agreement before May 31, 2015, then that would terminate the City's contribution of Proposition 1 funding. Regardless of the outcome of the MPD process, the City's contribution of Proposition 1 funding will only continue until May 31, 2015. Mayor King explained that the steering committee will need to work out any MPD process and any alternatives which is why language in the ILA is not specific. The City is protected about how long the funding is committed. Even if a MPD is passed in November, funds for the MPD are not available unti12015. It is necessary for the City and County to collaborate on some level in terms of how to continue to maintain the parks and recreation programs we have now. That will be developed as part of this process. There are elements in the charge to the steering committee and the stakeholders group as to how the transition needs to be managed. That addresses this issue in the interim. As part of the MPD we will have to improve on how we work together because we are not going to be able to call on the resources of the MPD as soon as it is passed, if it is passed. Commissioner Sullivan stated there is some inherent uncertainty in this process, but there is also uncertainty with the options without a MPD. There is uncertainty about what happens to our recreation programs and our individual pazks. There is uncertainty with a MPD. That is something the entire community is going to have to grapple with as we look at electing MPD Commissioners. Due to the current financial situation we are having to give up control over things we are responsible for and we are passing that responsibility on to another group. Everyone that cares about an individual park or an individual program is going to be concerned about how they will be affected. Some questions will not have certain answers, they will have process answers. There is going to be Page I 1 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson Count 11 this board, there is going to be this funding and that is going to go forward. T - ertain point where we no longer have control as we give it up to a new way of doing things. He noted that the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) has a lot of information on MPDs Contact has also been made with other jurisdictions that have gone through this process. No ma er what course is taken there is going to be uncertainty. To address the concern discussed by Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmembe Nelson suggested adding language to section 6 that says "or until May of 2015 when this agreeme t terminates." Councilmember Sandoval said she understands the option, but whoever is servi g on the City Council in 2015 may choose otherwise. Do we want to have an alternative that f the MPD doesn't pass, we have enough leeway that says "or the City and County choose to Conti e to work together." She noted that we need to try to not presuppose the outcome since MPD Commissioners can be appointed, they don't necessarily have to be elected. When we speak we have t remember that there are alternatives. Councilmember Gray said a survey was conducted on this issue in 2010. A lot f things have changed since then and other issues have come about including the library and t ansit. He asked why not do another survey to find out citizen priorities before we get into this, to hel determine what may or may not pass? Mayor King said he feels this process is convening the public to address this iss e as a follow-up to the original ERPRC process. In terms of conducting a survey for what the voter would support, he would prefer to go along with this process to convene this group. The group co ld determine that going forward with a survey would be a good way of deciding how much they t eon and how much is supplanted. Councilmember Gray said we are talking about a ballot measure possibly in No~ember. We are also talking about a library ballot. Mayor King said this does not mean that the City could not conduct its own sur ey, but the County voters will not be facing anything to do with their library, so it would not be the same survey in terms surveying the group of people for a MPD. He feels it is important to keep faith ith the work that other groups have done up to this point and he supports this process. Councilmember Robinson asked about the change to the date of when funding ntributions from the City end? County Administrator Morley explained that in the original agreeme t the date was May 31, 2015. City staff proposed to change it to December 31, 2014, however, duri g discussions it was agreed that there would be no change to the date and it would remain May 31, 2 15. Commissioner Sullivan stated that with any survey people will want to know th y are being asked to approve or not approve. We will not have that information until we get to the p int where we are ready to go out for a MPD. If we put that up for a vote, that is the ultimate surv y. Page 12 of 22 Joint Citv of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 DISCUSSION AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS Councilmember Nelson suggested adding the words "suggested" and "estimated" to item A(1) in the proposed resolution under both sections "RECITALS" and "NOW, THEREFORE..." so it reads as follows: "Metropolitan Pazks District suggested process map and estimated schedule (Exhibit A)." Mayor King stated there is nothing explicit in the resolution about the approval of the composition of the steering committee. It is implicit that it be brought forward to both the City Council and Board of County Commissioners for approval. Councilmember Nelson suggested adding language to "Exhibit B" under steering committee and after Jefferson Aquatic Coalition to read "or pool advocate." After discussion it was agreed to add the language "or pool users representative." Councilmember Stinson suggested adding language to "Exhibit B" that the steering committee membership is appointed by the City Council and Boazd of County Commissioners. The following language was added: `'Appointed by City Council and County Commissioners, will include representatives from:". Councilmember Sandoval suggested changing the language in "Exhibit D", amendment number two to the ILA, section 5, County Performance. The last sentence reads "For 2014 and 2015, the County shall seek City input in preparing an annual budget for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of Memorial Field and the Recreation Center, and will..." She would like it to include the following language: "prior to the passage of the budget..." The language was changed to read: "For 2014 and 2015, the County shall seek City input in prepazing an annual budget for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of Memorial Field and the Recreation Center prior to passage, and will..." Mayor King noted that his name needs to be added to Recital I of the resolution as a member of the working group. Councilmember Stinson noted that the term "Preferred Alternative Plan" is used in the resolution under section C on page 3, while the term "Preferred MPD Plan" is used in "Exhibit C" to the resolution. There needs to be consistency among the terms used in the documents. It was agreed to use the term "Preferred MPD Plan." Public Comments: Tom Thiersch unincorporated Jefferson County, I am reacting to this proposed new ILA. The thing that I see here is what a project manager would call "scope creep." The voters were promised certain things when the Proposition I sales tax was floated for approval; that the money would be spent on two facilities, two facilities only. Now with the first amendment we had the funding of the committee. I was shocked to hear the amount of money that was spent on that. I am glad the question was asked. That certainly was not something that I really anticipated. But, the second amendment now, you're throwing into the mix Building 202, the pool, additional funding for the committee. Voters didn't approve a slush fund. Voters approved that money to be used for two very Page 13 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County 11, specific purposes and that's it. You are breaking a promise that you made to s wit ou any particular good reason for doing so. The situation really hasn't changed. You ew the condition of the pool. You have known the pool's condition for years. Long before Proposi 'on 1 was ever in anybody's thought. You can't use that as an excuse. I'm sorry it just doesn't w rk. Building 202 should not be part of this. That is my concern. I really don't like the idea of go ernments breaking promises that they make to the people. Mayor King responded that only in extraordinary circumstances would Proposit on 1 funds be allocated to the pool or the Building 202 project. Those are unlikely scenarios. he ILA does include a provision that if for some reason the State withholds the PIF funds, th City is protected by the Proposition 1 funding that has been committed. The City had no idea of the condition of the pool or the scope of repair that was needed until it was recently drained. Commissioner Sullivan added that PIF funding is a separate revenue stream fro Proposition 1 funding. The amount that could go towards capital is very limited given the sal s tax situation. Councilmember Sandoval stated the Proposition 1 funding was also for parks, n~t just specifically for Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. Julie Jaman, Quimper Peninsula, I am going to paraphrase some things that you ave already heard from Nancy Dorgan, but other people in this room may not have heard. It's bec use we do need some really rational thinking, and I think you have made a good effort at it, and lot of expensive legal advice to help bring the MPD idea to ground. The timeframe seems to be ealistic as is the fiscal skillset that will be required of stakeholders to do the complex inter-juris 'ctional service facility planning and budgeting in this timeframe. In fact, such a plan is more li ely to become the spin needed for campaign promises than for future parks. How can "The Plan" rovide for the directive that came, insure that the public will get what the MPD plan promises hen the City Manager reported that there did not appear to be any legal mechanisms to bind future park district to any prior County and City agreement such as "The Plan?" What legal advice have you received regarding this little hitch? How do you intend to make the plan legally binding n a future MPD if one is formed? More likely citizens would have to be vigilant and lobby MPD ommissioners regarding any particular park issues. How will a committee honor the already a opted Park and Recreation goals, policies and implementation strategies in the County and City Comprehensive Plans? Even though the GMA requires that Counties and Cities consult and col ectively adopt regional planning policies and that they have consistent Comprehensive Plans, t e State exempts MPDs from all aspects of the GMA. So, if we were to vote for an MPD, a new axing district into existence, it would be independent and not require coordinated planning with th local GMA land use plans. The MPD Commissioners of such a district would have fiduciary res onsibIlities. They would need to collect funds; taxes and fees in order to mainstay staff and servic s. They could, if needed, impose fees, rent, lease or sell the assets handed over by the City and C unty. This kind of desperation, handing off the community's assets to a new taxing district, is akin o the loose thread in the fabric, the unraveling of parks and recreation in Port Townsend and Jefferso County. Indeed, I agree, a creative response is needed for the future. That response may fall outsi e any familiar paradigms. You may recall the Kah Tai process. Over 30 years worth of volunt ers who used incredible creative response so that we now have an 80 acre park. So call onus. We are full of Page 14 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson Count 11, 2013 creative responses. a ~+" Elizabeth Van Zonaveld, Port Ludlow, it is an interesting event to participate in a party you didn't know you were attending. So I am not prepared to give you long talk, but I will tell you I'm between a rock and hard place here because I've worked in the parks and recreation field for many many yeazs, both building parks and in capital projects. But I want to remind you that Port Ludlow is neither fish nor fowl here. We are a Master Planned Resort. We have a set boundary. We all pay every year for admirable facilities, but we should not have to pay for yours as well. It is difficult for me to not support a parks effort. I want to see Jefferson County and Port Townsend achieve a MPD. I believe it is the best answer. But I do not believe it should include Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow has many fine facilities and its people pay deazly to support them. You will not have support from those people and it could doom an effort at the ballot box. So think about that. Thanks for listening. Mike McFadden, puilcene, I am on the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. One of the things I'm concerned about is are we going to have a roving program where we go place to place or is this thing going to have to be in one spot whenever you're doing your shows and having the citizens come. Right now we are required to be here at the Courthouse. We have to set up Special meetings to go anywhere else. Is thing going to be set up the same way or will you be able to go to the different parts of the County where people are concerned about what is going on with the MPD? Mayor King replied that it is anticipated that the meetings will be held in various locations. Tonight's meeting had to be held within the City limits in order for the City Council to possibly take action. Jim Todd, Port Townsend, I basically agree with what Julie Jaman said. I just want to emphasize a MPD, as Michelle said, is forever. I get a little queasy about doing something like that unless we have examined other possibilities and I'm gathering from what I'm heazing that yes that can happen, but then in the next breath I hear, well this is about a MPD. That is what bothers me a little bit, because it seems to me there might be an alternative which doesn't marry us forever. For example, something like asix-yeaz trial of something. I don't know the legalities, but maybe there is a six- year trial, and see haw that goes. If after six years we find that it works, maybe we ought to make it permanent. But I'm a little apprehensive about creating something that is forever. It's like buying a pig in a poke. David Armita:e, Port Ludlow. I have two concerns. One is the selection of the steering committee. I sense a logic problem there. The geographic areas seem to be under-represented and your selection process seems to require the need for prior knowledge to what is going to be included in the district versus what is not going to be included the district. A longer term problem I see has to do with the long-term funding with the County. I guess it goes back to the Eyman initiatives where your buying power is being eroded every year because inflation and the limitations on budget increases are different. You are throwing the library out to a public vote. You are going to throw the parks out into a district and you are going to have to throw other things out too because your buying power continues to erode. This is a solution, but it is not going to last. If you want a solution, you have to go fight the Eyman initiatives so you can get back on track of doing what you have to do. Page 15 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson Count 11 Margaret Lee, Port Townsend, other people this evening have touched on a few wanted to mention. But I sat there thinking, particulazly after Michelle's comet "All or nothing at all." That is the way I feel about the MPD. We might as weI district. That's what it is and it is a fact that it is going to be in perpetuity. I apl comments tonight Kathleen. You began by talking about the choices that were you began your process, and I thank you for serving on that committee. So my ~ anyone else that cares to answer it is what other options were considered? Othe there any consideration to form a Parks and Recreation District which could be might just specifically address the things that I think drove this process from the pool, our recreation center, etc. The City got squeezed on supporting them. I h; process evolve and now here we are with this sort of "all or nothing at all." So my questions for clarification. The other has to do with Mr. Sullivan's use of tl said you don't have control, you have to see what's going to happen. Once a M I'm afraid you will not have very much control at all. But that entity will have c land, bonding, setting taxes and imposing development fees. The final thing the about is the land use. Whether they would have to conform to the Comprehensi Growth Management Act may seem outside of the need to be debated tonight, b all vitally important things. - 6 : : f ~a ~" ~ III 13 rf things that I nts, about the song call it a taxing ~eciated your antemplated when uestion to you or than a MPD, was paled down and very beginning: our ve watched this iat would be one of word control. You D is established. mtrol over selling I'm concerned 'e Plan and the it I think those are Councilmember Sandoval responded that she served on the ERPRC which talked about a variety of different types of alternatives. There were discussions about doing something , at was short-term. We wrestled with a lot of things and all varying degrees of relationships. Ms. Kler responded that all of the documents from the ERPRC process are avail meetings of the ERPRC were open to the public. For a year they held meetings public input. This is such a complicated issue and the clock is ticking with a M; The problem with doing short-term trial and errors is it takes an immense amour personnel and we don't have enough capital and personnel to even run the daily have a different way of doing it please start giving the information to the steerin need all of the help we can get about what the public wants. I really appreciate 1 them to us please. Incidentally, I am one of the people who have been asked to committee representing Quilcene (South County). Mayor King spoke to issue of control. He noted that the City and County woul control to the public It could be an elected body representing East Jefferson C like the job they are doing, we elect other representatives. We aze not giving it corporation, we are giving it over to ourselves in a new format. I think that is f discussions. Mike McFadden, Quilcene, I also serve on the Conservation District. All of th by State regulations, such as the Public Disclosure Act, that individuals, either must follow. ale. All the id pleaded for 2015 deadline. of capital and rograms. If you committee. We ese comments. Get rve on the steering be giving up that znty. If we do not ver to a faceless auently lost in our things are bound ;ted or appointed, Page 16 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 Linda Herzog, South County, I want to follow-up on a comment about Tim Eyman avhat I~ ~~ ' done to all of us. I also want to endorse general purpose government. I think we are well served by general purpose governments. I am profoundly disappointed that we've come to the point where some of the services that are provided by those governments have to be thrown off to another governmental agency. I don't know whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. At this point we have a lot more to learn. We have a lot more personal and regional interests to be weighed before we make that judgment. But, I do think that there is a long-term negative effect in showing the citizens that it doesn't matter that they don't pay taxes. If we vote not to pay more than 1 % in addition each year when the inflation rate is 3% or 4% as it has been during many of those years, we show the citizens that they don't have to pay for what we give them. After you cut to the bone, which I think everybody has, then you throw out services. That is the point we are at right now and I think it's worthwhile to consider the effect that this has in the long-term for perhaps our generation. It is too late for us, but for folks that come behind us, they need to respect government more and they need to respect that our elected officials do what they can to give us service with the money we are willing to give them to do that. Thanks for the platform. Anita Edwazds, Port Townsend, I haven't made up my mind yet about whether a MPD is the way to go. I would simply advocate far continued support of the pool. I think it is something very important to our community and I hope whatever decision is made will be something that will support and continue the pool. I need to think more, process more about the MPD. Thank you and I appreciate your cooperation. Barbara Staz, Jefferson County, I'm sensitive to the idea that you're concerned about following-up the ERPRC recommendations and that because they recommended a MPD that is what you want to explore. But, I am concerned with the comments you are making Michelle that what you're doing with this wording might tie the hands of the committee. I understood that you were saying that the ERPRC had not had the opportunity to go into great detail about exactly how it would be funded, etc. It could be that when the steering committee goes into all that detail they will come up with a different conclusion about what should be done, or it could be that they'll agree that a MPD is the way to go and it will fail. If you have nothing in this document to deal with those possibilities, it seems to me that is a cause for concern. I wonder if you would consider wording of this type that might be general enough to deal with what you were talking about David, it could say "...until a Metropolitan Park District can be formed and funded, or absent that, an alternative funding plan is agreed upon by the City and County: ' That's real general. It doesn't have to deal with anything specific, but it makes sure that you're saying that we expect that these parks and recreation facilities will be funded in the future and we expect that the City and County will cooperate in thinking about how to do that in the best way if the MPD somehow isn't what we expect. I'd just like to throw that out for your consideration. Mayor King responded that because of the limited time, and the direction that this was a MPD process per the recommendation, it was limited to that deliberately. If the Council and Commission would like to change it and put in more general wording, that is certainly our option at this point, but it was not an oversight. There is enough to do with a MPD without going back to the original processes, as Kathleen has indicated, in trying to look, once again, at the wide array of alternatives. Page 17 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Councilmember Stinson stated as far as the steering committee and stakeh they have been tasked with the MPD. Changing the language will address will do absent a successful MPD. It adds an escape clause. 11, Commissioner Sullivan stated the ERPRC did address what to include in the bo considered whether to include Port Ludlow, Cape George, Kala Point and other their own local facilities. There is a risk that people will say I'm spending it hey there and that is one of the risks in going to the voters. The issue was fully disc Councilmember Sandoval stated the commitment to community goes beyond Associations. The commitment to infrastructure for future generations is some sorely missing. There is a desire to not pay for anything even if you use it. In in Port Ludlow. Cape George or Kala Point who pa}' those fees, I appreciate tl time, I think they sometimes go down to Chetzemoka Park. I think that they s and dart'. They eas that also fund I won't spend it red by the ERPRC. rg that we are Ness to the people But at the same nmes may even visit the pool or maybe take a walk at the Larry Scott Trail. I would hate to see ur community turn into a place where we have to "pay to play" and there is a gate on everything an that everybody has to pay to use facilities in order to make sure that people pay their fair share. Co munity is about all of us coming together to make sure that things are in place well beyond our life. Commissioner Sullivan spoke to the comments made about GMA and stated th t the level of service is dropping if we don't do anything. Where we get in trouble with GMA is setti g levels of service and not meeting those targets. Our ability to meet those targets is decreasing if e do nothing. This is one option of meeting those targets. I understand a MPD will not be subject t the GMA. Mayor King asked about Barbara Star's suggested language for possible inch amendment number two to the ILA (Exhibit D) and requested that she repeat Bazbaza Star read her suggested language "...or absent that, an alternative fun< upon by the City and County." It was agreed to add the suggested language to two to the ILA (Exhibit D) Mayor King agrees that the inclusion of the wording does not change the task committee. It broadens the basis of the revised ILA. In response to Mike McFadden's comments, Councilmember Stinson proposed document titled "Guidance to Steering Committee for MPD Process" (Exhibit about where public participation would occur, such as in "locales throughout th County Administrator Morley noted that language regarding public meetings is document "Steering Committee and Pazk & Recreation Stakeholders Compositi Responsibilities for MPD Process" (Exhibit B) and states that meetings maybe locations to reflect the regional scope of a MPD. z in section 6 of wording. plan is agreed ;ndment number the steering change to the to include language County." uded in the Role and i in a variety of Page 18 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 ` '" Erica Delma, Port Townsend, I was on the ERPRC and I agree that there was a lot ut into that. I also know that there was a process in 2004 that concluded in a recommendation of a MPD. I would like to see us move forward in a progressive way, but I want to add, I like Barbara's language that provides for an alternative if it fails or doesn't work. I can tell you that there is more to this than just facilities. There are services that directly impact the ability of families to live here. I am one of those people. I am the Director of the YMCA, but I am also a mother of two children and I have had a preschool in Jefferson County for 10 years. Every day I see the impact of living on the edge in our community. Services provided by County Parks and Recreation, the YMCA and other organizations in the community that directly support diversity and livability are so important. I really want to get to a place where we aze not on the edge and where people can live here and flourish and thrive. Deliberation: Councilmember Gray stated he is going to vote no on this. He explained that during his first year on the Council he has heard a lot about the City and County not having money. The people don't have a lot of money either. There have been increases in sales taxes and property taxes and right now we are facing the possibility of a tax for parks, a library expansion, repairs to the streets, the Fire Department annexation, a utility rate increase and issues with the Lincoln building. It seems to me that we need more of a dialogue with the people. I know we are doing that here. But we need to have it with all the people to find out exactly what their priorities are. We aze putting them in a position where they are going to have to choose. If you add up all the possible tax increases it equates to perhaps $600 per yeaz. A lot of people don't have the money to pay for it. We should choose our priorities. If this is our priority, then maybe the others should be put on hold for a while. People are coming out of the recession and things aze going to get better. But when you raise taxes it hurts people during a recession. We are piling on too much all at once. Mayor King stated we are not voting for a tax increase of any kind at this point. We are putting a process in place to determine if that is even to be recommended to us. This process furthers your priority of getting more information and getting something out to the public that is clear and understandable and that matches benefits to potential costs. We are not taking action on a tax increase. Councilmember Gray stated we sort of aze taking action on a tax increase. Next week the Council will be hearing about the library expansion and there will be a lot of people saying that we need to get the library on the ballot. Maybe that is correct. Maybe that should be the priority, but we have other issues to consider as well. This is a confusing proposition for the people. Half the families in Port Townsend have kids that are on subsidized meals at school. That means they are at or just above poverty level. When you raise taxes it hurts. We are not hearing from those people. I think a survey would be ideal in this situation. To see what are the priorities of people. It is too much too soon. Councilmember Sandoval stated that surveys were conducted. If a process takes five or more years to complete, it doesn't mean that by the time we get to the fifth year we have to start all over again. That is one of the very circular things about process. One of the surveys conducted talked about parks and recreation program usage and the priorities, particularly, for working families. We just Page 19 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11 heard from YMCA Director Erica Delma about the services that are for by DSHS and aze part of what the YMCA provides. When the City's font decreased from $118,000 to $46,000 it hurt young families. Councilmember an email today that Councilmember Gray had previously sent to a reporter taI importance of parks and recreation to young families and economic developn attract young families and individuals who create jobs is parks and recreation Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that we are amending an existing agreement process in moving forward with this issue. He discussed the loss of property va has an impact on the ability of people to pay taxes. But, at the same time, it is a economic development and the youth in our community that don't have a lot of recreation, adult support, contact with people and afterschool activities for yout] otherwise get into trouble. He encourages amending the existing ILA. We will of the process. It may be a tough choice later. mod, that are paid to the YMCA rovat came across about the One of things that to clarify the ues and agrees that it ~ investment in options. It provides who might ;ee what comes out Mayor King believes the process we are considering putting in place is the corr t process for consideration of the priorities that Councilmember Gray suggests we should be aking into account. Councilmember Robinson stated she will support this amended ILA. She is notcertain at all that we will end up with an outcome that is what we want. As we have learned over the e conversations, a MPD has limitations and has some less than desirable aspects. It may not be w at we envisioned when we started to talk about this process years ago. However, she thinks wen ed to find out more. We need to look at it much more closely and talk seriously about specifics. Th s process will involve a lot more exploration. Chairman Austin stated he will support this amendment as well. He thanked t ERPRC for the tremendous amount of work and many hours they put into this members of the Parks Advisory Board for their efforts. City Attorney Watts commented on the proposed language amendment to sectio number two to the ILA (Exhibit D) proposed by Barbara Star. He stated that the the agreement which states the City and County "...have formulated and agreed implementation plan..." refers to the upcoming process that is basically to be in set forth. The next phrase which states "...as well as coordinate, consolidate an and recreation programs until a Metropolitan Park District can be formed and fc the ERPRC recommendation. His recollection is that the ERPRC recommendal be formed, but until the funding from an MPD is secured, it is recommended tht County continue to work together to coordinate, consolidate and fund facilities. intended, he is concerned that adding the suggested phrase "...or absent that, an plan is agreed upon by the City and County." may create an obligation to fund r; obligation to review options in the event an MPD fails. Mayor King believes the intent is to review options. members of the ocess and the Z 6 of amendment existing phrase in on an plemented and be 1 fund park facilities nded." comes out of ion was that a MPD t the City and While well alternative funding Rherthan an Page 20 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013 City Attorney Watts agrees, but as we found out when we did the original agree the e I benchmarks, there was criticism that the City was breaking the agreement when it was going to terminate the funding due to the potential that the benchmazks were not being met. It is very important that this language be clear in the event the MPD fails. Perhaps a phrase could be added that states the parties will continue to work in good faith to review alternatives. Mayor King stated that upon reflection, the previously suggested language change "... or absent that, an alternative funding plan is agreed upon by the City and County." implies an obligation on the part of the City to continue contributing Proposition 1 funding or some other funding beyond May 31, 2015. That is not what is intended. After further discussion it was agreed to change section 6 of amendment number two to the ILA (Exhibit D) to read: "... or absent that, the parties will continue to work together in good faith to review service delivery and funding alternatives..." County Administrator Morley reviewed the final list of edits to the documents as follows: Changes to Resolution: - Item A(1) under both sections "RECITALS" and "NOW, THEREFORE..." is changed to read: "Metropolitan Parks District suggested process map and estimated schedule (Exhibit A)." - Item I under section "RECITALS" is changed to include "Mayor David King" - Item C under section "NOW, THEREFORE..." all references to the term "Preferred Alternative Plan" are changed to "Preferred MPD Plan" Changes to Exhibit A, Drafr MPD Process Map and Schedule: - The title is changed to read "MPD Suggested Process Map and Estimated Schedule" Changes to Exhibit B, Steering Committee and Park & Recreation Stakeholders Composition, Roles and Responsibilities for MPD Process: - Under Steering Committee Membership, language is added to read: "Appointed by City Council and County Commissioners, w711 include representatives from:" - Under Steering Committee Membership where is says "Jefferson Aquatic Coalition", language is added to read: "or pool users representative" No Changes were made to Exhibit C Changes to Exhibit D, amendment number two to the ILA: - Under Section 5, County Performance, language is added to read: "For 2014 and 2015, the County shall seek City input in preparing an annual budget for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of Memorial Field and the Recreation Center prior to passage, and will act in good faith..." - Under Section 6, Joint Performance -Sustainable Service Delivery and Funding Review and Implementation of Results of Review, the first sentence is changed to read: "...or absent that, the parties will continue to work together in good faith to review service delivery and funding alternatives..." Page 21 of 22 Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson Count -February 11, 2713 x~ ~ >~ ~ ._~ tl ~ n` i M ~ i Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve County RESOLUTION NO.Oll-1 as amended by the Board which includes approval of the items contained in Exhibit A through D. hairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. Councilmember Sandoval moved to approve City RESOLUTION NO. 13-005 Council which includes approval of the items contained in Exhibit A through D Welch seconded the motion. Mayor King called for a vote on the motion. The Councilmember Crray opposed. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned the meeting by consensus at 9:43 p.m. Commi: to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special noticed. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. PORT TOWNSEND CITY ATTEST: Pam Kolacy David King, Mayor City Clerk JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISS SEAL: John Austin. Chair ATTEST: Phil Johnson; Member Erin Lundgren David Sullivan, Member Clerk of the Board rs amended by Councilmember lotion carried 6 to I . Sullivan moved g as properly Page 22 of 22