Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM071513District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of July 15, 2013 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Phil Johnson. 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 stated: 1) There will be a forum at the Tri -Area Community Center on July 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.; and 2) Budget cuts may affect the ability to help unwed mothers in Jefferson County; • A citizen thanked Commissioner Johnson for his recent speech regarding net pens and expressed support of Home -Rule Charter; • A citizen stated: 1) Freddy Pink will be performing at the Linger Longer stage in Quilcene this weekend; and 2) Urged the Board to give direction to the Metropolitan Park District (MPD) steering committee. • A citizen expressed concern about the Climate Action Committee minutes and stated information is being gathered to set up a website protesting smart meters. • A citizen stated homemade bags called "fire balloons" have been landing on his property and he brought one in to show the Board. He is concerned they will set properties on fire; • A citizen commented on: 1) The need to retain digital copies of minutes; and 2) Proposed adding an advisory measure relating to an MPD to be placed on the next upcoming ballot; and • A citizen expressed support of an MPD and stated districts that wish to be excluded from it should maintain the parks in their own district. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENTAGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 28-13 re: Temporary Restriction of Traffic on Egg & I Road, County Road No. 516009, Mile Post 3.1; Culvert Replacement Project 2. AGREEMENT, Supplement No. 1 re: Right of Way Surveying for Snow Creek Road MP 3.78 Culvert Replacement, Federal Aid No. DTFH70 -11 -E- 00039, County Project No. XO1899; An Additional Amount of $13,850 for a Total of $92,143; Shearer Design, LLC 3. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 2 re: Superior Court Administrator Office Project; Additional Amount of $3,500; Terrapin Architecture 4. Advisory Board Resignation: Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC); Shelby Smith, Recreation Representative 5. Advisory Board Reappointment; Jefferson County Board of Equalization; Three (3) Year Term Expires July 6, 2016; Henry Krist 6. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers /Warrants Dated July 8, 2013 Totaling $484,900.74 and Dated July 9, 2013 Totaling $1,624.26 Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 7. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated July 5, 2013 Totaling $767,101.89 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated July 5, 2013 Totaling $666,118.77 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Attended a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) retreat last week. - The new Secretary of Health John Wiesman will be here this week to dedicate Jefferson General Hospital as a baby friendly hospital. All Commissioners will be in attendance. - Will be meeting this week with the new regional director of the U.S. Forest Service, Rita LaFord. Commissioner Sullivan - Update on the Big Quil River restrooms: He spoke with the Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) and they are putting the issue on the agenda at their next meeting this week. - Attended the ribbon cutting ceremony for the installation of a back door on the Olympic Peninsula Gateway Visitor center located off of Beaver Valley Road. - Festival by the Bay is next weekend. - The PUD has teamed up with OlyCAP to provide an assistance program called Power Boost. Commissioner Johnson - Attended an Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) meeting last week. - Will be attending an Integrated Watershed Plan (IWP) meeting this week. - Will be attending a Fort Worden Advisory Board meeting this week and will suggest using goats to take care of the scotch bloom problem. Continued Deliberation and Approval re: 2013 Conservation Futures Projects: Environmental Health Specialist Tami Pokorny reported that at the hearing held on June 24, 2013 the Board of County Commissioner's deterred making a decision on the Conservation Futures projects in order to allow time for legal counsel to look into the issues brought up by members of the Conservation Futures Advisory Board. Ms. Pokorny asked the Board to make a motion to amend the County code based on the legal response from the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez explained that the Board would have to hold a hearing for an ordinance to make those changes. It was suggested that the Board give staff direction to move forward on the aforementioned ordinance. Commissioner Sullivan made a motion to request Environmental Health staff and members of the Conservation Futures Advisory Board review operating procedures in light of concerns and get back to the Board in time for next year's Conservation Futures project submission. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 The Conservation Futures Advisory Board previously submitted four proposals to the Board: 1) The Short Family Farm 2) Duckabush Floodplain 3) Tarboo Forest Conservation Phase II 4) Winona Basin - Bloedel II Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt Resolution No.'s 29 -13, 30 -13, 31 -13 and 32 -13 approving the four projects recommended by the Conservation Futures Advisory Board as referenced in the June 17 letter. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: On -Call Building Plan Review Service; CodePros: Community Development Director Carl Smith stated the CodePros contract was pulled from the Consent Agenda on July 1, 2013. He has since reviewed another firm that may have qualified, however, that company specialized in fire systems and their turn around time was double that of CodePros. On the basis of expertise, billing and turn around time, Director Smith expressed that Code Pros could provide better service to the County and asked the Board for approval of the contract. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the contract with CodePros. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed 2013 2"d Quarter Supplemental Budget Appropriation/ xtensions for Various County funds: Various County departments have requested increases to their 2013 Budget. Budget Consultant Anne Sears reviewed those requests with the Board. The proposed budget changes are intended to address unanticipated revenues and expenditures of the requesting departments. Per RCW 36.40.140, the Board of County Commissioners must hold a public hearing regarding the proposed budget changes. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Bill Roney, Port Townsend: Manager of the Visitor Information Center on Beaver Valley Road. He stated that the Visitor Information Center has asked for building renovations. The building was placed there in 2001 and to the best of his knowledge, the only upkeep on the building has been minimal. This year, they had some problems with the heating system and he believes it's a necessity, not a luxury. Most of their volunteers are over 70 years old and it would be difficult for them to work in the building without heat. Mr. Roney stated for security purposes, they had to replace the mercury vapor lights on the exterior of the building. One citizen in Jefferson County felt that the lack of security on the premises was a danger. Through donations and volunteers, the Visitor Information Center was able to install a second door. In case of an emergency, the volunteers can now have another exit from the building. The County provided video security, and moved the cameras around so the new entrance would be visible. Also, through the help of volunteers, they were able to paint the exterior of the building. He stated that most of the projects would not have been possible had it not been for volunteers and donations. The Visitor Information Center received a $500 donation from East Jefferson County Rotary to install the Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 Eo n door. He believes that was a great community effort on their part and it's been greatly appreciated. Bill Roney commented that it took about 40 hours of labor for volunteers to come in and pressure wash and paint the building. The landing on the porch for the new door was carpeted, a gravel path was installed from the American with Disabilities parking spaces to the restrooms. He stated that those projects were also done with volunteer efforts. The center is open 362 days a year through volunteer staffing. So far this year, volunteers have donated 500 hours of their time. According to a Dean Runyan survey, in 2012, visitors to Jefferson County spent an estimated $116.2 million dollars on accommodations, food service, local markets, transportation, gas, arts, entertainment, recreation and retail sales. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austing closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt Resolution 33 -13 2013 approving the 2nd Quarter Supplemental Budget Appropriations /Extensions for Various County funds as outlined. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:13 a.m. and reconvened at 10:19 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Revise Speed Limits; Ordinance No. 11- 214 -98: County Engineer Technician Rick Montgomery reviewed the recommended speed limit changes with the Board. The purpose of the public hearing is to revise Exhibit "A" Jefferson County speed limits of Ordinance 11- 1214 -98 regulating traffic on County roads, codified as Jefferson County Code, Chapter 10.05 model traffic ordinance. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Hearing no comments for or against the revision of speed limits, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt Resolution 34 -13 regulating traffic speeds on Jefferson County Roads, Codified as Jefferson County Code, Chapter 10.05. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Granting a Non - Exclusive franchise to construct, maintain and operate a Group A community public water system: Development Review Coordinator Jim Pearson stated that the Moa -Tel Water System provides water service in the Discovery Bay area. RCW 36.55 requires utilities to obtain a franchise from the County in order to provide utility service using County rights -of -way. The water system does not have a County franchise. Walter Moa, the owner of Moa -Tel Water System has applied for a franchise and Public Works scheduled a public hearing. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Walter Moa Port Townsend: The Moa -tel water system was started by his father in the late 1940's, although the source usage goes back prior to the turn of the previous century when there was a train going through the area. The water system that his father started covers the entire South end of Discovery Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 Bay. Most of the lines were placed on private property with easements. At this present time, the salmon coalition is working on a project and some of the water lines are in the way of this project. The salmon coalition is moving some of the water lines, and as a result of this action, both the County and the State franchises are required to carry out what they are doing, and that's why we are here. He believes it is probably time for bringing this to light anyways because boundaries are close to County roads and they have crossed numerous County and State roads over the years. Hearing no further testimony, the public bearing was closed. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt Resolution 35 -13 granting a non - exclusive franchise to construct, maintain and operate a Group A community water system consisting of pipes, valves, hydrants and other appurtenances upon, under, along and across a franchise area within unincorporated Jefferson County; Moa -Tel Water system. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:39 a.m. and reconvened at 11:00 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Proposed Formation of Park & Recreation district, Port Ludlow: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the Resolution and the election process for the Park and Recreation District Commissioners. He handed out copies of RCW 36.69.010 which depicts the purpose and powers of a Park and Recreation District. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez handed out a "Comparison of Recreation Districts" for review. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Brian Belmont, Port Ludlow: He is the General Manager for the Ludlow Maintenance Commission. They provide recreational facilities in the North Bay of Port Ludlow. He wants to describe some of the facilities of North Bay. He stated that the 1,090 members provide the ongoing maintenance funding for: 2 swimming pools, spa, 2 saunas, 4 tennis courts, squash court, exercise room, pickle ball court, 2 acre park, several miles of trails that are on the association property that is maintained for the benefit of the members and their guests. Mr. Belmont is a member of the South Bay Community Association where they have a swimming pool, spa, exercise room, 3 tennis courts and trails that are a part of what they are providing services for. He stated that he wanted the Commissioners to be aware of the amenities out in Port Ludlow and who is paying for those amenities. Ron Gregory, Port Ludlow: Stated that in regards to the over 400 signatures collected, they were done almost equally between the two communities. It wasn't one community moving forward, and he believes that is very important. Mr. Gregory said the signatures were collected in about a week and had they had more time, they probably could have gotten several hundred. They had a deadline to meet at the Auditor's Office. He believes that is a very large community vote. He stated that if you look at the voting records, it is exceptional for any County activity. For a general election, that is an exceptional number he reiterated. He emphasized the voters have spoken and they will do so again in November. The mood in the community is to move forward, and there are lots of people who are already paying a Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 �3 lot of money for maintaining the Port Ludlow facilities, and that is important. People who worked on the petition believe Port Ludlow is a unique area and are requesting the title of the proposed Park and Recreation District to include the name `Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort' as to separate their park from the rest of the districts. Mr. Gregory thanked the Board for their consideration. Steve Oakford, Port Townsend: Stated he would be disinclined to support the establishment of a specific Parks District. It appears to him that Port Ludlow is already a well managed and maintained facility that is basically for the exclusive use of members and residents of their community who are currently supporting it with their dues and membership fees and other costs they are assessed with. He does not think they should become of the public process unless they open their facilities to the general public at large, which does not seem to be the case. He stated they already have a good thing going and they should be on their own with it. If they want to become part of Park funding, then it seems to him that it would be incumbent upon them to open up their facilities to the general public. Mr. Oakford reiterated he believes they should continue with the organization as they have it. To create a whole other entity seems to him like it would be loading them down with a burden which would be a mute point if we do not establish a county -wide Parks District. George Yount, Port Townsend: Stated that approximately 3 -4 years ago there was a consensus that when we went into the recession, we had to look into the efficiencies of Government. One of those efficiencies was to understand if it was possible to consolidate services and facilities within the County and the City. He elaborated that is what precipitated the whole idea of a citizen driven concept of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). Many hours of volunteer efforts to look into that idea. When he heard talk of Port Ludlow as a public facility, to him that does not fit the concept. The public means for all and it was his interpretation that by all meant everyone was all in it together, and he is not seeing that. We have a private organization in which members are paying a lot of maintenance to make that happen, but it is not open to the public. He stated that he could not go there to swim. Mr. Yount does not believe a MPD is a valid approach for Port Ludlow. He posed the question that if Port Ludlow's Park and Recreation District passed, would they be excluded from other County Parks and City and recreation programs? The rest of Jefferson County residents would pay for such a park, would Port Ludlow citizens be paying for a County wide MPD? He wanted to reiterate that Port Ludlow is a private organization and he believes there is another reason why they are wanting to do this. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County unincorporated: Stated he is not a member of Port Ludlow or any Home Owner's Association (HOA). Regarding the previous two comments he mentioned there may be some confusion going on. He commented that the Board of County Commissioners does not have the authority to decide whether or not to create this district. That determination is solely that of the citizens in the proposed area. People of Port Townsend and Jefferson County who are not a part of that area have absolutely nothing to say on the matter and neither do the County Commissioners. Whether or not it is a general benefit to the rest of the County or the residents of Port Townsend is completely irrelevant. The only question is, will it be of benefit to the voters, to the residents in the district where that vote takes place? Mr. Thiersch reiterated that this process has nothing to do with anyone outside the district. He believes it should be left to the folks to decide. He commented that the Board's duty is to set the name and determining adjustment of the boundaries for the proposed Park and Recreation district. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 Mike Brainard, Port Ludlow: He urged the Commissioners to adopt the boundaries and the name that has been suggested by the petitioners. He would like to see Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort as part of the name. Vigo Anderson, Marrowstone Island: Has attended a few of the Park and Recreation district meetings in the past and feels the County is wasting their time on this. We have a tiny County, less than 30,000 people and we are creating another group to manage the parks? A number of times it has been commented that Coyle is an example of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). Coyle used funding for a community building and water, not a park. He stated don't use them as an example. At one of the meetings he attended, one of the City council people stated they needed to create a sense of community. Whose community are we talking about? He believes they were only intending Port Townsend. What about Coyle, Brinnon, Quilcene and Marrowstone Island? Mr. Anderson commented that Marrowstone Island has a little tiny park and they won't see a dime, not even a red penny. He mentioned that there is a resident of Marrowstone Island that goes to the swimming pool a lot and pays $400 a year for its use. He stated the County needs to live within its means and not provide another organization with more people and more expenses. Mr. Anderson predicts that if a Park and Recreation district pass, they will construct a building with those new funds and try to raise taxes. He stated he is violently opposed and will get other communities involved. Dale Moses, Kala Point, Port Townsend: Mentioned that earlier County Administrator Philip Morley mentioned that this petition has to result in a vote in November and asked the Commissioners to clarify this statement. Does this petition have to result in going to the voters on the November ballot, or could it stop as of today if the Board of Commissioners so decides? Bill Kaune, Kala Point, Port Townsend: Stated that it is assumed that all the amenities that Mr. Belmont talked about are privately owned by the various associations. If a Park and Recreation district is formed, he does not understand the connection between that and all the amenities. Do they buy it? Mr. County commented that he is unaware of how the process works, and wants it explained to him. Randall Shelley, Port Ludlow: Stated he is interested in hearing the objections from some of the residents of Port Townsend that testified and wants to know why they oppose it. They do not have a vote, they will not pay taxes for the proposed new district and they don't live there. He believes the answer is that under RCW 35.61, they would like to include Port Ludlow in their Parks and Recreation district so that Port Ludlow residents have to pay for the parks and the swimming pool in Port Townsend. Mr. Shelley indicated that no one in Port Ludlow would be willing to do that because they already have all those amenities. So why is this proceeding under RCW 36.69 and moving forward? If Port Ludlow has its own district, it would preclude another Park and Recreation district from including them and taxing them to support Port Townsend swimming pools and parks which no one in Port Ludlow uses or will use in the future. He does not see any resident of Port Ludlow driving to use one pool, when they have three pools. With the myriad of parks and recreational facilities that Port Ludlow has, why would we drive to Port Townsend to use similar or lesser facilities? The answer is we wouldn't. Mr. Shelley reiterated he believes Port Townsend is trying to preserve a tax bracket and the only way to prevent that is to have this proceeding, get their proposed Park and Recreation district placed on the ballot. He would like to see the Board approve the name as suggested and also approve the proposed boundaries. He stated Port Ludlow wants to determine their own future in regards to taxation and recreation. Mr. Shelley addressed a previous commentator regarding how Port Ludlow should open Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 K11 up their private facilities to everyone. Our district will not purchase private property, the property already exists and is in private hands. Kathleen Kler, Ouilcene: Stated she is not a part of the Port Ludlow community, but she does serve as co -chair on the Metropolitan Park District committee. From the very beginning they encouraged the citizens of the County to engage in conversation as to what it would mean to have consolidated, non - repetition, efficient county -wide services in parks and recreation. One of the issues that came up immediately was taxation. Other than donation and grants, she does not know how County or City governments work without some taxation basis. The whole issue with parks and recreation districts for years has been that there has not been a line item in City or County budgets to fully fund parks and recreation. It was addressed with proposition one that the City and County would find a sustainable way of funding. That has been the intent. She is glad that all of this conversation is happening now, but wishes her committee would have been invited into the Port Ludlow community to discuss any fears and their intent. Ms. Kler would have liked to address what it would mean County and tax wise for this process. This process is still undefined, but has some impact on the communities. She reiterated she is glad these conversations are happening and encourages more throughout the county. This process is citizen driven and we do not know where it is going to end up, but something is going to have to happen to fund parks and recreation in the County. David Armitage, Port Ludlow: Stated the Commissioners received a letter from the Port Ludlow Village Council which questioned the restrictions that would be placed upon their community. He commented that after reading through documents dated around 1999, the interpretation is that any public district within the community would be prohibited because the services are for the residents and guests of the Master Planned Resort. He asked the Board to take into consideration that the County has imposed restrictions on the Master Planned Resort. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson made it clear that he did not indicate the public should be able to use the amenities of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Commissioner Sullivan asked if Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez had a chance to read the letter from the Port Ludlow Village Council? Mr. Alvarez replied that he had seen the letter but was not familiar enough to make a comment at this time. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that in regard to a Park and Recreation district, it is possible that an entity controlling a local area could also be part of a bigger district that provided services county -wide. Mr. Alvarez confirmed that it was possible and stated it was the Municipal Research and Services Center's (MRSC) legal opinion that they don't think there is a reason why there couldn't be an overlap of districts, in other words, a Parks and Recreation district under RCW 36.69 could be part of or within a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) under RCW 35.61. Chairman Austin stated it would be helpful to see how boundary adjustments for park and recreation districts have been done in the past to make adjustments that are for public benefit. Mr. Alvarez explained that he may not get a chance to review the aforementioned letter until the middle of next week. County Administrator Philip Morley suggested the Commissioners reach conclusion no ME Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 J d later than August 5, 2013. Chairman Austin confirmed that the proposed name of the district is Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Park and Recreation District No. 3. Commissioner Sullivan moved to extend the written public comment period until 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 22, 2013. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 12:13 p.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Briefing re: 2014 -2019 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): County Engineer Monte Reinders and Public Works Director Frank Gifford were present to discuss the 2014 -2019 Six - Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Mr. Reinders explained that TIP is supposed to be a realistic look at what the County can accomplish in 6 years. He stated staff looks into accident history, bridge inspections every two years, culvert inventory and priority replacement list, pedestrian safety priority list, gravel road priority list when prioritizing projects. Traffic volume, road condition, crash history and pedestrian leads are also factors when ranking. Mr. Reinders reviewed the 26 projects with the Board. A public hearing on the TIP will be held on August 5, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination • Budget Committee meeting on July 17, 2013 Commissioner Johnson will be attending an Integrated Watershed Plan (IWP) steering committee meeting on July 17, 2013 • All 3 Commissioners will be attending Jefferson General Hospital's Baby - Friendly Hospital celebration on July 17, 2013 • Chairman Austin will be having dinner on July 17, 2013 with the new Secretary of Health Director John Wiesman • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Phil Johnson will be attending a Jefferson County Board of Health meeting on July 18, 2013 County Administrator Philip Morley will be attending a JeffCom meeting on July 17, 2013 • Tentative meeting on July 19, 2013 with Commissioner Johnson, David King, Mark Welch and County Administrator Philip Morley • Chairman Austin will be meeting with United States Forest Service new regional Director Rita LaFord in Olympia on July 19, 2013 • Department Directors and Elected Officials Quarterly meeting is on July 22, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will be out of the office the afternoon of Monday, July 22, through July 24, 2013 • Chairman Austin and County Administrator Philip Morley will be attending a Finance Committee meeting on July 23, 2013 Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 County Administrator Philip Morley will be attending the Washington Counties Risk Pool (WCRP) summer conference from July 24 -25, 2013 • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a meeting with the Peninsula Development District (PDD) and Resource Conservation and Development (RC & D) on July 25, 2013 • Chairman Austin will be attending a JeffCom meeting on July 25, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will be substituting for Chairman Austin at a Jefferson -Port Townsend Response Emergency Planning (JPREP) meeting on July 26, 2013 • There will be no Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) meeting on July 29, 2013 • All 3 Commissioners will be attending a Jefferson County Library breakfast meeting on August 7, 2013 • SPECIAL MEETING: Community Input meeting at the West End on August 8, 2013 • County Administrator Philip Morley will be out of the office on August 9, 2013 • The Jefferson County Fair is August 9 -11, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will be attending an Integrated Watershed Plan meeting on August 14, 2013 • JeffCom will be having a Financial Retreat on August 15, 2013 • All 3 Commissioners will be meeting with the Board of Health meeting on August 15, 2013 • All 3 Commissioners will be attending a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) retreat on August 21, 2013 The next HCCC meeting will be on October 16, 2013. There is no September meeting scheduled • There will be a HCCC meeting on October 31, 2013 Miscellaneous Issues • Rules for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and individual elected officials to take a position on a ballot measure • RC &D grants on hold w/ US Farm Bill delay creating uncertainty for continuing RC &D • staffing • Regarding the Park & Recreation Districts (Kala Point and Port Ludlow); What is the cost of elections? Discussion followed on Charter; advisory vote — methodology for Auditor to calculate • Can initiative be done legislatively? — No — Providing Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez with email • Request for proposal for banking status — likely to get an update from Treasure at the July 23, 2013 Finance Committee meeting • Port Ludlow Village Council letter — Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez conducting review • Charter County — County Administrator Philip Morley confirmed he will follow up with the Community Rights Coalition regarding a Community Bill of Rights • Chairman Austin meeting with the United States Forest Service (USES) new Regional Director Rita LaFord regarding various USFS issues including: 1) Status of Dosewallips Road access to the Olympic National Park (Chairman Austin spoke with Congressman Derek Kilmer who is becoming active on this); 2) Water for Falls View Campground; 3) Secure Rural Schools (SRS), Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) formula; and 4) importance of Quilcene Ranger Station and visitor center • Tala Point Shooting Ordinance status — in the queue for further action • Update on senior management at Central Services and Public Works Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2013 Superior Court Administrator Office bid update — small works bid submitted by Aldergrove Construction Labor agreement update: Sheriff Administrative staff bargaining unit status Shoreline Master Program (SMP) schedule being updated by the Department of Community Development (DCD) staff following the meeting last week with the Department of Ecology (DOE) staff NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:02 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan.seoonded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ¢ids JEFFERSON COUNTY Bf COMMISSIONERS 9RAk! Jtin, Chair ATTEST....]. n� rags„ t,Pr (I t Al2�,- Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 11 ieffbocc From: Dave y,July11,2013com] HEARING RECORD Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:43 PM 1�••*'e To: jeffbocc Cc: Phil Johnson; John Austin; David Sullivan; Philip Morley, Brian Belmont, Jermey Bubnick; Rose Hablutzel; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Larry Nobles; Laury Hunt, Linda Haskins, Lois Ruggles; Sue Oemichen, Tamra McDearmid; Terry Umbreit; Tony Durham, Vicki Tallerico Subject: Misconception at July 15th Public Hearing on Port Ludlow P &R District Attachments: Word Pro - GDA response to P &R hearing.pdf July 21, 2013 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners RE: July 15, 2013 Public Hearing on Formation of Port Ludlow Park and Recreation District Gentlemen, At the July 15th public hearing on the formation of a Park and Recreation District for Port Ludlow, there appeared to be a misconception that the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort was two homeowner associations. It appears that the Administrator does not understand the concept of the Master Planned Resort nor what constitutes the Master Planned Resort. Your own enabling legislation clearly states that the resort is not the two master homeowner associations (JCC 17.05.130). In your considerations dealing with the Master Planned Resort, please remember that the Master Planned Resort covers more than 550 + /- acres, including recreation facilities owned by the developer (Port Loudlow Associates) for whom you just extended the Development Agreement by five years. Port Ludlow also includes two banks, professional businesses, restaurants, marina, golf course, medical clinic and more including two Master Home Owner Associations and a bevy of smaller Home Owner Associations. As we pointed out in the Port Ludlow Village Council letter of July 5th and again at the hearing on July 15th, the County's enabling legislation placed restrictions upon the services that can be provided within Master Planned Resort or adjacent to its boundaries. Those services are restricted to the guests of the resort and the permanent residents of the Master Planned Resort. These restrictions would preclude the inclusion of the Master Planned Resort in a public park and recreation district for the general public such as the proposed Metropolitan Park District. MS. Kier, Co -chair Metropolitan Park District Steering Committee, requested directions and guidance from the Commissioners on how the Steering Committee should proceed. We look forward to your response directing the Steering Committee to exclude the Master Planned Resort from the boundaries of the proposed Metropolitan Park District. Respectfully, G. David Armitage CC: John Austin, County Commissioner Phil Johnson, County Commissioner David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administer PLVC Brian Belmont, LMC Manager Jeremy Bubnick, SBCA Manager Jeffbocc From: Dan & Soozie Darrow [desdarrow @olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:35 PM jeffbocc Su HEARING Subject: Port Ludlow Parks and Recreation PFCORD Reference - proposed Port Ludlow Parks and Recreation District We are writing to provide input on the above. The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) already has many of the amenities that are generally provided by a parks and recreation district. These are provided by the existing South Bay Community Association (SBCA), the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) and Port Ludlow Associates(PLA). There is not a need to create a separate Parks and Recreation District(P &RD). This would only add additional expenses for governing, electing commissioners, etc. It is unlikely that the existing facilities within the MPR would be transferred to a P &RD. Thus there is no functionality to a Port Ludlow P &RD. Jefferson County is currently participating in a proposal for forming a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) for East Jefferson County. The Steering Committee is considering possible boundaries and amenities that could be included. The Port Ludlow Village Council (PLVC) has requested that the Steering Committee and County Commissioners exclude the MPR from the proposed (yet to be defined) MPD because of the unique nature (and legal definition) of the MPR. It would be premature to form a Port Ludlow P &RD without knowing the final definition of the East Jefferson County MPD. Any referendum on the Port Ludlow P &RD should be postponed until the definition of the MPD has been determined and presented to the Jefferson County Commissioners We support having viable County Parks and Recreation Dept. in East Jefferson County for the overall good of the citizens. We do not support including the City of Port Townsend amenities that have been and should continue to be administered and supported by the city of Port Townsend. Respectfully submitted July 21,2013, Daniel & Esther Darrow 110 Sea Vista Terrace Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360- 437 -9208 desdarrow@ol ypen.com jeffbocc From: Dan & Soozie Darrow [desdarrow@olypen.comj Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 6:44 PM To: jeffbocc p Subject: comment period re: Port Ludlow Park/Rec. HEARING John: I noted in the Leader that the BOCC had decided to extend the comment period for the Port Ludlow Parks and Recreation proposal. However, nowhere was there information on how to do this. I would like to comment before the closing period of July 22, 4:30. Can this be done by e -mail and, if so, to whom do I address it? Or, does it have to be done by snail mail - again, to who? Hopefully you can answer me before the time limit is up! Esther (Soozie) Darrow 1 10 Sea Vista Terrace Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360- 437 -9208 desdarrow @olyoen.com jefff occ From: Tom e July (2, 20 3 8:03lic @usregs.com] HE ARM Sent: Monday, Jul 22, 2013 8:03 AM R To: jeffbocc ftf Subject: RE: MPD Steering Committee Id http: //test co iefferson.wa.us/weblinkext/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=1 158699&dbid=l This is old news, handed out at the very first MPD SC meeting that every member of this discussion group attended. Where do you think I got the idea for PL to create its own PRD? The whole premise was, and is, that all PRD districts must be treated equally (14`h Amendment), therefore exclusion of Jefferson P &R District #1 and #2 would guarantee the exclusion of #3 (PL MPR PRD) and #4 (Kala Pt.) Or, going the other way, including #3 and #4 would mean that #1 and #2 would have to be included in the boundaries. Either way, it's designed to create a big obstacle (a lot of "NO MPD" votes) to the formation of a east- county- wide MPD, regardless of the boundaries, which is what SOCP is all about, right? Tom - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ron Gregory fmailto :builder(aDcablespeed.com] Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 2:33 PM To: Ron Gregory Subject: MPD Steering Committee http: / /test.co. iefferson.wa.us/weblinkext/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=1 158699&dbid=l Please take time to read. Note the "exlusion" of Coyle and Brinnon" from the boundaries. Ron DRAFT Guidance and Ground Rules Steering Committee for MPD Process Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend March 21, 2013 Guidance to Steering Committee for MPD Process Charge - Through its enabling legislation, a citizen Steering Committee will be given the following charge: Specific Outcomes: In June of 2012 an Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Committee concluded that our present system to provide and fund parks and recreation is not sustainable, and that a regional Metropolitan Parks District should be formed to serve the citizens of East Jefferson County including the City of Port Townsend. The City and the County are cooperating to convene citizens to develop a specific plan for creating a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) that voters could consider whether or not to approve. A citizen Steering Committee, with the help of a broad cross section of Parks & Rec Stakeholders will develop an MPD Plan. The MPD Plan should specifically address the following elements: • The boundaries of a proposed MPD, no greater than East Jefferson County excluding the two existing Parks and Recreation Districts • The (existing and any proposed future) facilities and programs that are to be included in the proposed MPD • The structure of the proposed MPD and its governance model • The preliminary maintenance and operations plan for the proposed MPD • The preliminary operational and capital budget for the proposed M PD • Budget requirements and funding availability for long -term maintenance and operations to maintain existing (and proposed future) facilities and programs (namely, sustainability). ( "Long- term" would at a minimum be in the 6 -10 year horizon.) • Capital budget requirements and funding availability for long -term maintenance of existing (and proposed future) facilities (namely, sustainability). ( "Long- term" would at a minimum be in the 6 -10 year horizon.) • The development of a proposed transitional strategy that facilitates the coordination, consolidation of City and County Park resources and proposes an interim funding strategy. Housekeeping - The following operational guidance will be established through the enabling resolution to maximize the time spent by the Steering Committee in developing a workable MPD alternative and minimizing the time spent establishing their internal rules and procedures. None of the following pre- determine the outcome of the Steering Committee's work, only the manner in which they will conduct the planning process: Co- chairs -Two Steering Committee Co- chairs will be appointed jointly by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. The two Chairs appointed are Cammy Brown and Kathleen Kier. MPD Stakeholders - MPD Stakeholders members are invited by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee can expand membership at its discretion. The Steering Committee will address the possible role of having alternates for certain MPD Stakeholders members who represent organizations. Facilitator -A facilitator will be provided that can help the Steering Committee set ground rules for other process issues (attendance, voting, sub - committees, etc.). Bob Wheeler, Triangle Associates has been chosen as the facilitator. Public Participation — In addition to vetting work with MPD Stakeholders, the process shall encourage and provide meaningful opportunities for the general public to participate in the process. This may include holding a half -day charrette; scheduling open houses and workshops and providing for public comment at all MPD Stakeholders meetings. All meetings of the Steering Committee will be open to the public, although due to scheduling constraints public comment might not be taken at all meetings. MPD Plan Recommendation -The Steering Committee shall prepare a preferred MPD Plan including the specific elements listed above that, if approved by a vote of the people, would result in the implementation of an MPD. The MPD Plan shall represent the majority view of the Steering Committee. The majority recommended MPD Plan shall be the sole document submitted by the Steering Committee for consideration by the County and City for proposing a potential ballot proposition. Provide Guidance on Transition in the Interim -The Steering Committee shall include a recommended approach and schedule that would allow for maintaining parks and recreation in the interim until a MPD can support them. The recommended Plan for an MPD must successfully address and achieve the following key objectives: • Ensure park properties and facilities and recreation programs will be cared and managed for the long term for the public's well -being and for the benefit of the community; • Ensure parks and recreation are delivered in an equitable manner and that resources are allocated fairly; • Ensure the parks and recreation system is sustainable; • Improves parks and recreation and future capacity compared to conditions without an MPD • Sets a levy rate that protects junior taxing districts from pro- rationing; • Ensure that the public will get what the MPD Plan promises Groundrules Roles and Responsibilities of STEERING COMMITTEE Members • STEERING COMMITTEE members are expected to place a high priority on preparing for, attending and actively participating in STEERING COMMITTEE meetings. • Members are asked to represent the points of view of their interest area(s), while being mindful of the overall goals of the STEERING COMMITTEE. • Members agree to work cooperatively to accomplish the purposes of this process and acknowledge that all participants bring with them legitimate purposes, goals, concerns and interests, whether or not they are in agreement with them. • Members agree to listen to all points of view and perspectives on issues and alternatives and seek to identify areas of agreement, as well as reasons for differing points of view. • Members will act in "good faith." • Members will focus on the subject at hand, share discussion time, avoid interrupting, respect time constraints, keep reactions and responses from being personal, and avoid side conversations. STEERING COMMITTEE Organization The STEERING COMMITTEE is organized as follows: • The STEERING COMMITTEE is composed of 11 members (See Attachment A for members) and 2 Ex- Officio members, one from the County and one from the City. • STEERING COMMITTEE members, Ex- Officio members, support staff and consultants will sit at the table and participate in discussions. • All meetings of the STEERING COMMITTEE will be open to the public and will be advertised by the County at least once in The Leader. • A public comment period will be provided at each STEERING COMMITTEE meeting. • An agenda and a past draft meeting summary will sent to STEERING COMMITTEE members in advance of the meeting. Other meeting materials will be sent, when possible, in advance of each meeting. Meeting summaries will describe topic of discussion, decisions, and action items. • Meeting Summaries will be reviewed and accepted at each meeting with appropriate changes. • Because this is a public process, communications among STEERING COMMITTEE members need to comply with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act. • Staff for the STEERING COMMITTEE is composed primarily of the County and City staff, and supported by consultants. STEERING COMMITTEE can ask for assistance and information from these resources. • Assignments may be made for STEERING COMMITTEE members to perform between meetings. • STEERING COMMITTEE will sponsor Stakeholder and public meetings • A webpage for the committee can be found on the official Jefferson County Website. All of the documents of the committee will be publicized on the website. • An email list will be used to inform and invite parties interested in the committee and Roles and Responsibilities of the Co- Chairs • The Co- Chairs will call meetings to order and close meetings, will lead the STEERING COMMITTEE through decisions, and make decisions at meetings for the benefit of the STEERING COMMITTEE. • The Co- Chairs will be the primary spokespersons for the STEERING COMMITTEE with the press and media, for reporting back to the City /County, and with the public. • They will work with the County /City and the facilitator to establish meeting times and places, agendas, and topics for STEERING COMMITTEE, Stakeholder, and public meetings. • Before substantive decisions, at the discretion of the Co- Chairs, call for a short public comment. Roles and Responsibilities of the Facilitator The facilitator is an impartial individual who guides and facilitates the process. The responsibility of the facilitator is to keep the STEERING COMMITTEE focused on agreed -upon tasks, suggest ideas, strategies, approaches, alternative methods and procedures, keep discussions moving forward, encourage participation by all STEERING COMMITTEE members, and enforce the ground rules. Specific facilitator tasks include: • Work with the Co- Chairs, County and City staff, and STEERING COMMITTEE members to prepare meeting agendas, so that meetings are productive and meet the goals of the group. • Communicate with STEERING COMMITTEE members between meetings to discuss issues. • Meet with the Co- Chairs and County /City to address STEERING COMMITTEE efforts. • Help draft or review STEERING COMMITTEE products. • Assist in keeping communications open among the Co- Chairs, STEERING COMMITTEE and the County /City. • Assure that relevant information is provided to the STEERING COMMITTEE in a timely and effective manner relative to the advice the STEERING COMMITTEE is asked to provide. • Work with County and City staff to produce meeting summaries. Roles and Responsibilities of the County /City • The County /City will provide administrative, communications, and technical assistance to the STEERING COMMITTEE. This will include meeting logistics and making STEERING COMMITTEE meeting notices, agendas, summaries and products available from the website in a timely fashion. • The County /City will prepare background materials and arrange presentations on relevant subject matter and develop information on specific issues to inform STEERING COMMITTEE deliberations. • The County and City will work with the Facilitator to prepare meeting summaries and action item lists. Meetings • It is expected there will be a total of 10 STEERING COMMITTEE meetings. It is anticipated there will be 3 Stakeholder meetings and several public outreach meetings, including a Saturday Design Charrette. Additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. Public Involvement /Communication /Media • STEERING COMMITTEE meetings are open to the public. Observers are welcome at all STEERING COMMITTEE meetings. • A short public comment period will be provided at each STEERING COMMITTEE meeting. • Before substantive decisions, at the discretion of the Co- Chairs, a short public comment period might be allowed in order for the public to provide their perspectives on the decision at -hand. • It is encouraged that the Co- Chairs will be the primary spokespersons with the media. Discussions with the media will refrain from characterizing the views expressed by other participants and should fairly reflect the STEERING COMMITTEE's tone and discussions. • Members agree they will work out differences at the table, instead of in the media. Decision Making Process To the extent possible, decisions of STEERING COMMITTEE will be based on consensus. Consensus is defined as general agreement of the proposal among all members. Members of STEERING COMMITTEE will develop recommendations and advice on the following consensus - based process continuum: Consensus Decision "Can live with it" "Abstain' If consensus is not immediately reached, STEERING COMMITTEE will work to see if a consensus agreement is possible. However, after a reasonable amount of time, considering the overall workload of the group, the group will move to providing perspectives. If consensus is not reached, STEERING COMMITTEE members will provide recommendations and advice with majority recommendations and minority recommendations either in writing or captured through the meeting notes. Attachment A Committee Members MPD Steering Committee Roster - 03 04 13 Seat # Appointee 5 Cammy Brown 4 Herb Cook 1 Mike Evans 6 Doug Huber 7 Kathleen Kier 2 Susie Learned 10 Garth McHattie 8 Jeff Randall 11 Rosemary Sikes 3 Rich Stapf 9 Mike Zimmerman • *Co- Chairs Julie Shannon From: John Austin �j /1 ppp Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:43 PM FARING iR To: Julie Shannon et \ \itt�4 Subject: FW: Misconception at July 15th Public Hearing on Port Ludlow P &R District Attachments: Word Pro - GDA response to P &R hearing.pdf From: DavefSMTP:GDA141(a)GMAIL.COM] Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:42:38 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Phil Johnson, John Austin, David Sullivan; Philip Morley; Brian Belmont; Jermey Bubnick; Rose Hablutzel' Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Larry Nobles; Laury Hunt, Linda Haskins, Lois Ruggles, Sue Oemichen, Tamra McDearmid; Terry Umbreit; Tony Durham; Vicki Tallerico Subject: Misconception at July 15th Public Hearing on Port Ludlow P &R District Auto forwarded by a Rule i� July 21, 2013 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners RE: July 15, 2013 Public Hearing on Formation of Port Ludlow Park and Recreation District Gentlemen, At the July 15th public hearing on the formation of a Park and Recreation District for Port Ludlow, there appeared to be a misconception that the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort was two homeowner associations. It appears that the Administrator does not understand the concept of the Master Planned Resort nor what constitutes the Master Planned Resort. Your own enabling legislation clearly states that the resort is not the two master homeowner associations (JCC 17.05.130). In your considerations dealing with the Master Planned Resort, please remember that the Master Planned Resort covers more than 550 + /- acres, including recreation facilities owned by the developer (Port Loudlow Associates) for whom you just extended the Development Agreement by five years. Port Ludlow also includes two banks, professional businesses, restaurants, marina, golf course, medical clinic and more including two Master Home Owner Associations and a bevy of smaller Home Owner Associations. As we pointed out in the Port Ludlow Village Council letter of July 5th and again at the hearing on July 15th, the County's enabling legislation placed restrictions upon the services that can be provided within Master Planned Resort or adjacent to its boundaries. Those services are restricted to the guests of the resort and the permanent residents of the Master Planned Resort. These restrictions would preclude the inclusion of the Master Planned Resort in a public park and recreation district for the general public such as the proposed Metropolitan Park District. MS. Kier, Co -chair Metropolitan Park District Steering Committee, requested directions and guidance from the Commissioners on how the Steering Committee should proceed. We look forward to your response directing the Steering Committee to exclude the Master Planned Resort from the boundaries of the proposed Metropolitan Park District. Respectfully, G. David Armitage Ke; John Austin, County Commissioner Phil Johnson, County Commissioner David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administer PLVC Brian Belmont, LMC Manager Jeremy Bubnick, SBCA Manager jeffbocc HEARING ' ` From: Philip Morley Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Ballot name for Park District Please share Mr. Gregory's email with Commissioners and place this on the correspondence log. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley@co,iefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that ail email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Ron Gregory fmailto:builder@cablespeed . com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:10 PM To: Philip Morley Subject: Ballot name for Park District It is my understanding the BoCC has the authority to name our proposed parks district for the ballot, several community members would appreciate the following for consideration. Port Ludlow MPR Parks & Recreation District Ron Gregory 1