Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021814_cbs01ON CIO IN District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin DRAFT l County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of November 4, 2013 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan. Commissioner 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 announced upcoming Quilcene events: 1) The Ninth Night Potluck will be held Saturday, November 9, 2013 and there will be a showing of the movie "Red"; 2) The Fire Department will be holding a CPR class on Thursday, November 7, 2013 and a Basic First Aid class on Saturday, November 9, 2013; and 3) The Presbyterian Church will be holding a pulled pork fundraiser dinner this week. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENTA GENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 02- 1104 -13 re: 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; MLA12 -00274 McLuen; and MLA13 -00045 Boulton 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Setting 2014 Ad Valorem Tax Levies; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, November 18, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 3. RESOLUTION NO. 53-13 re: Temporary Road Closure on Snow Creek Road, M.P. 3.74 to 3.82; County Road No. 352909 4. AGREEMENT NO. G1400326 re: Northwest Straits Project, Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee Operations and Projects; In the Amount of $74,920; Jefferson County WSU Extension; Washington State Department of Ecology 5. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 1 re: Conservation Futures Project for Carleson Chimacum Creek Acquisition; No Change in Dollar Amount (Budget Re- allocation); Jefferson County Public Health; Jefferson Land Trust 6. AGREEMENT NO. G1400100 re: Coordinated Prevention Grant — Solid Waste Enforcement; In the Amount of $206,320 ($51,580 Match); Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 7. AGREEMENT re: GIS Needs Assessment and Strategic Planning; In the Amount of $11,719.68; Jefferson County Central Services; King County GIS Center 8. Advisory Board Appointment re: Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG); Lisa Crosby, District No. 1, Citizen Member; Two (2) Year Term Expires November 4, 2015 Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2013 1 9. Advisory Board Reappointment re: Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC); Terry Khile, Port of Port Townsend Alternate, Two (2) Year Term Expires November 4, 2015 10. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated October 22, 2013 Totaling $597,309.49 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. • The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Visited the West End of Jefferson County and is impressed with the work that is being done to the Sheriff s substation building. - Attended a presentation on land acquisition last week. There is progress being made on the trust land transfer. - Will be attending a Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) conference this month. Commissioner Sullivan - Attended a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting where Environmental Specialist Tami Pokorny was presented with an award for her efforts. - Will be attending a WSAC conference this month. The meeting was recessed at 9:16 a.m. and reconvened at 1:34 p.m. with Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan present. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morlev reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination • Chairman Austin will be attending a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) meeting on November 7, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will be out of the office October 29 through November 9, 2013 and will be back in the office on November 12, 2013. • The Substance Abuse Advisory Board (SAAB) will be meeting on November 12, 2013 in the Commissioner's Chambers • Chairman Austin will be attending a Knotweed Conference in Port Townsend on December 11, 2013 • The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) will be meeting on November 15, 2013 • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) meeting in Shelton on November 15, 2013 • Chairman Austin will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on November 19, 2013 • All three Commissioners will be attending the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Conference in Vancouver, Washington Page 2 DA T Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2013 AF I � R �' • Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Northwest Straits Commission Conference in Bellingham on November 22 and 23, 2013 • The HCCC will be meeting on December 11, 2013 Miscellaneous Issues: • Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) election • HCCC, Kitsap, street sweeping and road runoff. Are roads adjacent to bodes of water? • Barking Dog Ordinance status • Coyle Cell Tower status • Port Townsend School District (PTSD) and David Engle Chamber Presentation • Parks and Hospital meeting • Parks and City meeting • Jefferson County Transit • City and Howard Street plans • City and I" Western Properties development adjacent to upper round about • City and possible grocery store in lot(s) next to Hill Top Tavern • JeffCom and IS Request for Proposals (RFP) • JeffCom space license and tower • Scout Cabin • Port meeting area • Fundraising by PTSD for Maritime focus • ER &R Manager interview this week • Conservation District presentation on November 6, 2013 • Budget: Public Health; Parks; Veterans; Groups; Public Safety meeting November 5, 2013 • Solid Waste • Assessor • GIS Needs Assessment • Employment Security space request • Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) • Bob Braun services agreement • JeffCom Board Powerpoint • Fire Code Official Interlocal Agreement (ILA) • HCCC project funding • Discussion of future exploration of options similar to a mini - initiative Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2013 IF("] NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:35 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Sullivan, Member Page 4 District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. utin DRAFT District No. 3 Commissioner: John Auustin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of November 12, 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 suggested that Jefferson Transit move their courthouse bus stop location to Cass Street to allow for safer bus entry and exit; • A citizen stated that since the County now has high speed internet access, past audio recordings of Commissioner meetings and live - stream recording of the meetings should be made available online; • A citizen stated: 1) There will a presentation this week re: How to be happy and healthy into your 90's; 2) The raising of the solid waste fee would be a hardship to poor families; and 3) Certain topics of the proposed Bill of Rights is the main reason that the County Charter did not pass; • A citizen stated that several Charter counties have a process where citizens can draft an ordinance and the Commissioners evaluate the proposed ordinance publicly. Citizens want to be heard; • A citizen commented that now that the election is over, there needs to be more opportunities for dialogues to continue. Support was expressed for the idea of initiative and looking into what is possible. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENTAGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products for Bituminous Surface Treatment (BST) Program for Calendar Year 2014; Bids will be Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 9, 2013 and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter in the Commissioner's Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse 2. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Aggregate for the 2014 and 2015 Roadway Bituminous Surface Treatment (BST) Program; Bids will be Accepted Until 930 a.m. on Monday, December 9, 2013 and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter in the Commissioner's Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse 3. AGREEMENT NO. 12 -1250C re: Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALFA) Grant: Construction of a Segment of the Olympic Discovery Trail, South Discovery Bay; In the Amount of $500,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 DW 4. AGREEMENT NO. 12 -1735P re: Non - Highway and Off -Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) Grant: Planning Project for Olympic Discovery Trail, South Discovery Bay; In the Amount of $111,250; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) 5. AGREEMENT re: Broadband Service; In the Amount of $1,000 per month; Jefferson County Central Services; Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Economic Development Authority (DBA Jamestown Networks, JNET) 6. AGREEMENT NO. IAA14122, Interagency re: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program - Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Program; In the Amount of $29,362; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts 7. AGREEMENT NO. C130725GSC, Interagency re: Provide Non - Criminal Related Fingerprint Checks on all Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers; Fee for Service; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Patrol 8. AGREEMENT NO. 1363 -78868 re: Evidence Based Expansion Programs; In the Amount of $38,604; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) /Juvenile Justice & Rehabilitation Administration (JJ &RA) 9. Advisory Board Resignation re: Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN) Advisory Board; Timothy Craig; Unexpired Term ending September 17, 2015 10. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 5, 2013 Totaling $815,659.69 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 5, 2013 Totaling $709,511.21 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Attended a Veteran ceremony at the American Legion on Veteran's Day. - Attended a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) meeting and a Port Ludlow Village Council (PLVC) meeting last week. - Attended a Red Cross dinner last weekend. Commissioner Sullivan - Attended a Veteran ceremony at the American Legion on Veteran's Day. - Will be attending an Olympic Community Action Programs (OLXCAP) Board meeting, and a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) meeting this week. - Attended a Peninsula Development Authority (PDA) ceremony last week. Commissioner Johnson - Will be attending an Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority meeting a Coastal Caucus meeting, Integrated Watershed Plan (IWP) meeting and a Parks Advisory Board meeting this week. - Will be attending a Maritime Center dinner this week. The meeting was recessed at 9:49 a.m. and reconvened at 10:03 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. _ _ Page 2 _ _ Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 Discussion and Approval re: Uni(ted Development Code (UDC) TextAmendment: Per Jefferson County Code 18.40.090, certain types of land use applications require a "pre- application conference" to assist the applicant in understanding submittal requirements. Department of Community Development (DCD) Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins discussed with the Board the proposal of adding certain additional types of applications to those requiring pre - application conferences due to their complexity and to help compensate DCD for staff time spent in assisting applicants with the application process. DCD staff finds that the proposed additional types of applications are also complex and by requiring the pre - application conference, the applicant will benefit by having the information needed to submit more complete applications and proceed through the permitting process in the most efficient way possible. Planning Manager Hoskins stated that currently, pre - application conferences are required for "Type II ", Type III: and some "Type 1" applications. Examples of these types are as follows: Type 1: Applications with more than 10,000 s.f. of impervious surface or more than 5,000 s.f. of non - single family development. Type II: Binding site plans, short subdivisions, shoreline substantial development permits. Type III: Long subdivisions, conditional use permits, major variances, plat alterations. Commissioner Johnson asked how staff determines what a "major variance" with regard to Type III permits? Planning Manager Hoskins replied that it depends. It can vary from the bulk dimensional standards of the code. There are standards in 18.40.090 that differentiate between a minor and major variance. A minor variance has a certain threshold of typically less than a 10% change or additional encroachment. Major variance would be for something that was typically new, something that is not existing, or a non - conforming structure that would be non - conforming to the portions of the Jefferson County code. Planning Manager Hoskins stated that DCD proposes adding several more types of applications that require a pre- application conference as follows: Type IV: Final Plats and Final Planned Rural Residential Developments Type V: Special Use Permits, amendments to the comprehensive plan, development regulations, or master plans Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs) The estimated number and annual fees that could result from these new pre - application conference for CASPs and Type IV and V applications are estimated at 10 /year x $380 = $3,800. DCD would like to avoid citizens going through the effort of applying for something that would possibly not get approved. Planning Manager Hoskins commented that a lot of time is spent on applicants before they buy and people like to get a feel before they spend a lot of money, to see if it's feasible to make a Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 change. DCD would like to provide better customer service wht"'�e paying for DCD staff time. Planning Manager Hoskins stated that when people have a pre- application, their applications are more complete and they tend to go through the permit process more seamlessly. A public notice was published on September 4, 2013 and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on August 18, 2013. No public comments were received during this time. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment and voted to approve the amendment and `recommendation with findings and conclusions." Commissioner Johnson noted that this would be something that would take more staff time up front, but should balance out with less staff time later. Planning Manager Hoskins stated that being able to talk to citizens earlier in the process more comprehensively instead of piece meal, would save DCD staff time later. Commissioner Sullivan stated that it is happening more and more that we are looking at fees for different things that aren't being paid for by general taxes. The choice out there is to raise taxes, raise fees, or drop service? He does not want to see service dropped. People want more service from DCD. They want things to happen faster and they want things more complete. It is a tough choice sometimes to discern where those lines are drawn. He asked how staff draws the line between asking questions of the DCD staff and when a pre- application conference is required? Planning Manager Hoskins replied that a lot of coaching is already provided free of charge to the public thanks to the Watershed Stewardship Grant. Coaching is more general in nature. Staff can explain what the code is, but when a customer starts asking how that specific code is applied to their application, which may have a lot of different variables, certainty cannot be provided without discussing those variables. The pre - application conference includes planning staff and other relevant departments, such as the Building Plans Examiner, staff from Public Works, Environmental Health Department and other departments that will be reviewing the application. Commissioner Johnson mentioned that a pre- application conference would help resolve some of the issues he has heard about regarding people not getting enough information in the past. Commissioner Sullivan stated that people want flexibility, and the result of that is complexity. There are different circumstances from property to property in this County, and it is a challenge to write that kind of complex code in a simplified language. Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the Planning Commission's public recommendation with findings and conclusions, and approve the proposed amendments by adopting ORDINANCE NO. 03- 1112 -13 Amending the Unified Development Code, JCC 18.40.090 to add certain additional types of applications that require a pre- application conference, provided as Attachment D. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened at 10:31 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Jefferson County Code (JCQ Fee Appendix: The Department of Community Development (DCD) staff provides thousands of hours of customer service to the public without charge. In 2012 they provided approximately 5,000 hours of free service. Present at the meeting was Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins. Planning Manager Hoskins explained that they are required to update and review their fees and that their last update of their fees. The fee ordinance was last updated in 2009. DCD is struggling to obtain sufficient revenue to support its own operations. To help support the staff resources needed to provide customer service, DCD proposed to begin charging fees for certain services where no fees are charged at present. The new fees sought can help DCD cover staff time necessary to provide customer service. Planning Manager Hoskins reviewed with the Board the proposed fees, their purpose and an estimate of the revenue they could generate. Below is a list of the proposed fees: • Road Vacation Request (Estimated 4 /year x $228 = $912) • Pre - Application site visit (when needed) (Estimated 7 /year x $152 = $1,064) • Customer Assistance Meeting (Estimated 1,000 hours /year x $76 = $76,000) • Re- submittal of Consistency Review (Estimated 100 /year x $152 = $15,200) • Scanning Fee (Estimated 400 /year x $19 = $7,600) Total estimated annual additional revenue: $100,776. The new proposed fees would go into effect on January 2, 2013. Planning Manager Hoskins stated there are no plans to eliminate their free service. They would provide the first 15 minutes free of charge. Commissioner Sullivan asked how DCD arrived at the new permit fees and if this was a good average? Planning Manager Hoskins stated that DCD looked at how long each request takes their staff to handle. They found that DCD has been doing review and other types of work on certain applications, without compensation. For example, they provide review and comment to Public Works on Road Vacation Requests and a site visit can take on average two hours. Chairman Austin asked if there was a Public Works fee charged to the customer for their time spent on a Road Vacation Request? Planning Manager Hoskins stated they do charge a fee. Office Coordinator Jodi Adams mentioned that the department receiving the application takes in the fees and disperses them to other departments on the list as needed. This saves the customer from having to go to each department to pay their fees. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: The $76 an hour rate that is quoted for services equates to more than $150,000 for a 2,000 hour year. Who is getting paid $150,000 at DCD? A fully burdened rate at the hourly rate, that he knows DCD is not getting paid, is not $150,000 a year. In keeping with the opinion that was cited by the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, requiring all applicants to pay for services they might not use. If the justification for this hourly rate is the spreading of administrative costs, then isn't that the same sort of illegal thing, of spreading an overhead cost into an hourly rate? Things that you're paying for that you're not really using. He believes there is an inconsistency here and that the hourly fee is too high. That just cannot be justified as far as he can see. Mr. Thiersch had a suggestion regarding the proposed scanning fee. He mentioned there are periodically grants issued from Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 c the Secretary of State's Office to assist agencies with the canning of existing documents for archival purposes. He strongly recommends keeping an eye out for those grants and taking advantage of them when they become available. As for charging people extra for the scanning of documents, it seems unnecessary because in the end, DCD will be operating more efficiently therefore costs should be reduced. He sees no purpose in charging an extra fee to improve the efficiency of DCD's operations. It costs less to manipulate and store documents electronically than it does on paper. Why DCD is charging more to do something that is actually going to cost less seems illogical to him. It costs more to handle, store, archive and copy paper documents than it does to do the same thing electronically. Certainly when it comes time to do research, electronic documents is the superior approach. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Hoskins addressed the concerns brought up during the public comment period. She stated that DCD is not a paperless department yet, and there are a lot of requirements that it takes at the state level to become paperless. They are required to archive, handle and store their paper documents. DCD has used the State's Archival Office in the past for archival needs, but you have to round up the files and send them to Olympia for scanning. The intent behind the scanning fee is to make it a part of their work process, and handle and scan documents as they come in. Regarding the hourly rate, she stated that no one is making over $200,000 a year at DCD. There are certain things that are the cost of doing business that do make sense to charge an applicant for. When staff does certain things like obtaining training or holding meetings, those are not administrative costs, it is for keeping staff and resources up to speed, efficient and moving forward. There is a lot of streamlining efforts and progress that DCD has made, but there is an endless list of things that move in to take up that time. The demand for DCD exceeds staff time so they are juggling and prioritizing things. DCD has been improving their time tracking to accurately track their fees and revenue sources. Office Coordinator Jodi Adams explained that the hourly rate used to be $55 and was adjusted to $76 by the CPI. She used several different methods to determine the figure and spoke with Environmental Health and the State Auditor's Office who agreed with her method on coming up with that hourly rate. County Administrator Philip Morley stated that in a more perfect world, some of the technical consultation that is provided before an application is filed, is a public service that we would dearly love to provide for free and have it subsidized and paid for out of the general fund. With the reduction in development activity and the value of activity and the constraints to the general fund, DCD does not have the capacity to continue providing services without these proposed fees. The Watershed Stewardship Grant is cutting back and the proposed new fees will help to retain a full time employee. The general fund would not be able to step in and subsidize for this service. Planning Manager Hoskins added that DCD has checked with legal counsel who determined that the fees they are proposing are defensible. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the amendments through adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 03- 1112 -13 Amending the Unified Development Code, JCC 18.40.090 to add certain additional types of applications that require a pre - application conference. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. __. Page.. _ _. Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Solid Waste Fee Schedule: Public Works proposed revising the Solid Waste Disposal Fee Schedules for 2014 through 2019. At a Workshop on October 21, 2013, the Commissioners reviewed the proposed ordinance which revises the following sections of the Jefferson County Code: Appendix, ANNUAL FEE INDEXING Appendix, FEE SCHEDULES: III. Public Works Department — Solid Waste Division III — 010 Purpose -Scope III — 011 Effective Date III — 012 Fee indexing III — 020 Solid Waste Disposal — Transfer Station Commercial and Non - Commercial Rates III — 030 Solid Waste Disposal Drop Box Site (Quilcene) III — 040 Hours of Operation III — 050 Moderate Risk Waste Disposal Facility The current municipal solid waste disposal fees in effect were enacted in 1993; the current moderate risk waste fees in effect were enacted in 2004. Solid Waste Manager Richard Talbot handed out a document titled "Summary Presentation" and read from it. Below is an excerpt from that document: 1. "The Solid Waste Division is managed as an Enterprise Fund — all operating and capital costs are paid from disposal fee revenues. Since 2008, current Operations and Capital fund balances have been drawn down to minimum reserve levels. 2. The proposed Fee Ordinance sets new fees for: • Transfer station — base per ton fee, minimum fee, special fees • Quilcene drop box — unit fees per item • MRW facility (small quantity business hazardous waste) — unit fees per item 3. It also provides for a 2.5% annual fee increase, for five years; benchmarks for waste tonnage and fund minimum reserves (12% of capital value and 15% of annual operations cost) are used to monitor Enterprise Fund performance. 4. Fund minimum reserves are important: • The ability to pay costs during major service disruptions or disaster events • To undertake short term capital replacement work on aging facilities without requiring bonding 5. The fees proposed are sufficient to pay for: A projected annual operations budget of $2.49 million with no increase in staffing and NO REDUCTION IN SERVICE (represents $133 per ton) Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12 2013 � UCn. v. _w_,_.. _*Tef�;b • Annual contribution toward replacing essen to equipmen, ishrng and improving existing facilities where they stand (represents $11 per ton) • This is a lean budget 6. The proposed fees have been reviewed by City and Port management and by the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC); the SWAC, which includes City and Port representatives, has sent a letter of support to the Commissioners. Eight written public comments have been received to date; all are concerned with the fee increase (from $4.95 to $10) and the weight limit increase (from 80 to 140 lbs). The comments, delivered to the Board of Commissioners on November 12, 2013 can be summarized as follows: • The minimum fee increase is too high and will unfairly affect seniors, the poor, and those who recycle and /or generate small quantities of waste • The increased weight allowance is significantly more than these customers typically are able to collect and haul in a reasonable time frame 8. Why do we charge a minimum fee? • To pay for costs not related to the amount of waste dumped, such as transaction costs and other related services including recycling and household hazardous waste • To encourage fewer vehicle trips, reducing congestion, and opening avenues for cost reduction in the longer term" Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated that currently they generate around 9.2% in revenue from the current minimum fee. The proposed fee would generate around 12% revenue. He noted that it is an increase, but not an excessive one. He handed out a document titled `Balance between minimum fee and per ton tip fee ". An excerpt from that document is below: Estimated cost shifting to maintain required total revenue (subject to review and detailed analysis) Current minimum weight transactions — 16,000 per year Current full fee tons disposed = 17,000 CASE MINIMUM FEE WEIGHT LIMIT - lbs , PER TON TIP FEE A —Proposed $10 140 $144 B $8 110 $146 C — Current $5 80 $149 Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Steve Oakford. Port Townsend_ He was looking through the different categories and materials and the fees charged for disposal thereof. He saw fees for refrigerators and appliances, but did not see a category for electronics. People are getting rid of old television sets as they transition to newer televisions and electronics. Is this something that you are simply not going to deal with and you're leaving it for someone else to deal with? Or is there a provision for this? Chairman Austin stated Mr. Oakford's questions will be addressed after the Public Comment Period. _ _ _ Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 Sylvia Bowman, Port Townsend: She stated she is representing elderly people who bring trash to the Solid Waste facility. Currently, she and others load their garbage into their car trunks, less than 80 pounds approximately, every two weeks and pay $5 per load. The proposed rates would be doubled, which is a problem as they don't have trucks. She timed her last trip to the Solid Waste facility and it took her a total of six minutes. Ms. Bowman does not believe that is a great burden to the facility. She suggested if the fee was a straight eight cents per pound, it would mean that the one ton rate would be $160, which is higher than the proposed rate. It is not ruinous and could be passed on to the customers. It would mean that the customers who currently pay $5, their new fee would increase to $6.40, which she believes is a fair and affordable increase. She mentioned that the elderly are real people, not just numbers and she does not think they are a great burden. They bring their garbage in and then they're out. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated he has previously mentioned to the Board his disagreeance with the proposed Solid Waste fee increase to $10 for reasons previously stated. He has read the correspondence stating the exact same reasons, they come in with one or two bags of trash in their trunk and they don't come near the current 80 pound minimum. One suggestion stated that a reasonable increase over time to $6 would be okay, as long as the weight was not increased to such a high level. Mr. Thiersch suggested reducing the minimum weight to 60 pounds and charging $6 for the first 60 pounds and then charging more in $20 increments. He believes one thing that would help improve faster trips is keeping the minimum fee at an even dollar amount, since that is 26% of traffic at the Solid Waste facility. He has noticed it takes a long time to make change, and reiterated it should be made an even dollar amount. Mr. Thiersch mentioned that a $6 amount would be just fine and 60 pound minimum would also be fine. He is willing to pay more for more weight as that is reasonable and understands that tonnage fees have to go up. Let's not hurt the poor people in the County, they really cannot afford it. If you did a sensitivity analysis as to what the actual traffic is going to be, rather than "seat of the pants" guesswork, but really do some analysis of this, you will find it will do a lot of harm by increasing this minimum fee to the proposed $10. It's not going to increase revenues as much as projected, and may even decrease revenue. It will discourage people from going to the dump as often as they need to. It is certainly going to encourage people to do illegal dumping, which is going to cause a public health problem by increasing the likelihood of disease factors: rats, raccoons and all kinds of other vermin who like to feast on your garbage. He believes this is an avoidable situation and with a minor increase in the tonnage fee this can all be accommodated with retaining a reasonable minimum fee. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson commented that he struggles with the proposed minimum fee and feels that it may not be proportionate to the other fee increases. Stuffing 140 pounds of garbage into the trunk of a car may not be easy to do. He anticipates more garbage being dumped along the streets if the fee were raised to $10. Commissioner Sullivan stated that storage of garbage until you have enough can be an issue for some people, especially if they are recycling, composting and do not have a garbage buddy system. He would like to see a more organized approach to the garbage buddy system, although for people who live in isolated areas, this could be a burden for them. Solid Waste Manager Talbot pointed out that in the City the cheapest curbside service for one can every other week is $10.15 a month and in the County it is $12.75 a month. Charging everyone by the pound, at some level becomes burdensome due to the amount Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 of work processing traffic and payment. He gave a comparison observation that if you sign up for curbside service, you probably do not generate as much garbage as you are paying for, but you are paying for the service regardless. Some jurisdictions provide a cheaper rate for commercial trucks to bring in waste. The County Solid Waste station charges the same for all users. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the minimum self - haulers are being subsidized? Solid Waste Manager Talbot replied they are not. Public Works Director Monte Reinders stated that the County is providing excellent service. Compared to other jurisdictions, they have a history of providing good service for small loads at a reasonable cost. There is upsides to that and some downsides to that. At some point the facility has to be able to accommodate all of those trips. County Administrator Philip Morley asked how much of a constraint for the tipping floor or the scale house where payments are made is the self -haul traffic and how close are we getting to requiring facility changes? Solid Waste Manager Talbot replied that due to the high volume of traffic on Saturdays, there may need to be some work done to the facilities that may limit hours of operation, or closing the facility for periods of time. Several years ago, there would be in upwards of 550 customers using the facility when tonnage was up. That was severely burdening the system, scale operation and tip floor. They are starting to see a rise in tonnage again. If one of the scales needs re- building or replacing, or if they are down to one scale, that would be extremely difficult to handle with the current level of traffic. County Administrator Morley asked if the basis for the minimum fee is mainly due to traffic? Solid Waste Manager Talbot replied yes, it is. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the facility is close to needing the equipment replaced? Solid Waste Manager Talbot replied that the scales were purchased in 1996. Public Works Director Reinders added that the scales read in 20 pound increments and the percentage of error goes down the heavier the load. Chairman Austin noted that if there were to be more cases of illegal dumping as the result of a higher minimum fee, the costs to pick up the garbage are high and the County would not be able to recover all of those costs. He asked how much prospective income would be lost if the minimum fee were to be $8 or $7? Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated that if there was a decreased proposed minimum amount charged, other fees would have to be balanced as they need a balanced budget. They would have to raise the fees somewhere else to make up the difference. For every dollar that you reduce in the minimum fee, you need to charge more for the TIP fee. What cannot be predicted is how people's habits will change. It would be hard to quantify at this point. County Administrator Morley mentioned that due to the tonnages of self - haulers they were seeing before the recession, they would have had to eventually increase the operating costs either through the addition of staff, or through capital changes to the facility and traffic flow. Replacing the scale facility with a design that would meet current standards, would take around 2/3 of the Capital Reserves, which is around $500,000 right now. Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated they currently would not be able to do this. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) reviewed this and supports the proposed fees. Chairman Austin mentioned that during the SWAC review, there was no public input. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 DRAFT KC County Administrator Morley suggested not delaying a decision on this issue for longer than a week as the rates for the County need to be approved by the Utilities Transportation Commission. For Murray's Disposal and Olympic Disposal it will be a pass through. If they were raising their own cost, it would require an extensive review. The City also needs a 60 day window of time to allow for DM Disposal to implement a new fee schedule. Commissioner Johnson expressed that a lot of this was perception and part of the issue was waiting many years before facing this issue. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Solid Waste department has been doing what they can to keep the fees low and it is one of those things that is hard to compromise when you look at the numbers. Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated that at the end of the day, they still have to balance the budget. He explained the reason that the current fee is not rounded up to the nearest dollar was due to a tax increase. Public Works Director Reinders stated setting the fee at a rounded dollar amount would be fine. Solid Waste Manager Talbot added that tax is included in the minimum fee amount. Public Works Director Reinders explained that the proposed minimum fee is $10 and includes tax. If a new minimum fee is proposed, staff will make sure it includes tax and that it will be at a fixed rate so that if the tax rate changes, the minimum fee does not change. Chairman Austin suggested giving an advisory to Public Works to come back in a week with a schedule that would show a minimum fee of $8 and how that would fit in terms of balancing out other revenues? Commissioner Johnson indicated that the County already has the highest tonnage in the area and reducing the minimum proposed fee would make the tonnage fee higher. As it is proposed, the minimum fee stays the minimum fee and the tonnage rate increases by 2.5% a year. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the minimum fees as presented today. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. County Administrator Philip Morley asked if the fee indexing of 2.5% applies to the minimum fee as well, or is that set currently in the proposed ordinance before the Commissioners? Public Works Director Reinders replied that it does apply. Commissioner Johnson amended his motion to adopt the proposed ordinance and that the 2.5% annual increase not apply to the minimum fee and that it stay at a fixed rate for four years. Public Works Director Reinders and Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated this would not be a problem. County Administrator Morley suggested the Board make a motion if the Board agrees to direct Public Works staff to bring back a revised ordinance reflecting that change for their final action next week. Chairman Austin asked if this was acceptable to Commissioner Sullivan who seconded the motion? Commissioner Sullivan replied that it was. Chairman Austin repeated that it was moved and seconded that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance with the amendment that the increase per year not be applied to the minimum fees. County Administrator Morley suggested that a revised ordinance be brought back that has been signed off by the Prosecutor that would be adopted next week, and that the motion today would be giving direction to staff to prepare that ordinance change. Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan agreed to the suggestion. Chairman Austin called for a vote of the aforesaid motion which carried unanimously. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 DR-AFT - ------ XIC HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Jefferson County Code Establishing a County Enhanced 911 Excise Tax: JeffCom 911 Director Karl Hatton proposed an ordinance to amend Chapter 3.20 of the Jefferson County Code to extend an Excise Tax supporting Enhanced 911 emergency communications to include prepaid wireless telecommunications services. JeffCom Director Hatton stated that the proposed ordinance would not generate new taxes or revenues. As authorized by state law, the County presently has a $0.70 Excise Tax on telephones, cell phones and VOIP to support Enhanced 911 emergency communications provided by JeffCom. During the 2013 Legislative Session, the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1971, which gives counties the authority to set an excise tax of up to $0.70 on prepaid wireless telecommunications services. By exercising this authority, the County would be evening the retail playing field for different telecommunication providers, and also providing additional revenue to support emergency communications service by JeffCom to the growing number of citizens using prepaid cell phone services. JeffCom Director Hatton explained that the 911 excise tax would be collected at the point of sale and sent to the State Department of Revenue (DNR) for disbursement to individual jurisdictions based on sales. Industry analysis shows that 33% of cell phones are prepaid. If the ordinance were not to pass, there could be a potential annual loss of around $60,000 to JeffCom's budget. The request is to change the wording of the ordinance to include prepaid phones and contain language for retailers to charge tax at the time of sale and forward it to the DNR. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment period. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He asked how tax is applied to refillable phones that are not on a plan and not just burners, how is the tax applied? Is it each time you refill it? Can you explain the mechanics of how and when this tax is collected? JeffCom Director Karl Hatton replied stating that legislature is working on this issue as they speak. If refillable minutes are purchased online, the 911 tax is currently being collected, but it is not benefiting individual counties. Currently, online retailers of refillable cell phone minutes are not forwarding the collection of the tax on to the state who would then forward to JeffCom. He added the legislature is trying to keep up with technology. Tom Thiersch asked when do the subscription phones pay the tax? JeffCom Director Karl Hatton replied that all subscription phones collect, pay and forward the 911 tax to counties. They are also working towards making it mandatory for all pre -paid phone services to do the same. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 05- 1112 -13 Establishing a County Enhanced 911 Excise Tax on the Sale of a Prepaid Wireless Telecommunication Service to an End User. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 The meeting was recessed at 11:59 a.m. and reconvened at 1:36 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. LETTER: Commissioner Johnson moved to send a condolence letter to the widow of local volunteer Bob Helander. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , Ee AGREEMENT re: Training services for Public Works shop employees; Peninsula College: Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt an agreement between Peninsula College and Jefferson County for training services. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination • Chairman Austin will be attending a Knotweed Conference in Port Townsend on December 11, 2013 • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) meeting in Shelton on November 15, 2013 • The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) will be meeting on November 15, 2013 • Chairman Austin will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on November 19, 2013 • All three Commissioners will be attending the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Conference in Vancouver, Washington November 19 -21, 2013. Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Johnson will be attending all three days. Chairman Austin will be attending November 20, 2013. Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Coastal Caucus and Timber Counties meeting • Chairman Austin will be attending a Cooperating Agencies Conference in Vancouver on November 22, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Northwest Straits Commission Conference in Bellingham on November 22 and 23, 2013 • Community Impact meeting will be on November 22, 2013 • The HCCC will be meeting on December 11, 2013 and January 15, 2014 Miscellaneous Issues: • HCCC and release of hold on 2013 grants • WSAC election • Barking Dog Ordinance • Parks: Parks and Hospital meeting; Parks and City meeting • Public Infrastructure Fund (PIT): Quincy Street; Building 202; Quilcene • JeffCom space license and tower agreements • Coyle Cell Tower Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013 • Scout Cabin • ER &R candidate • Budget 2014 and message • Charter. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) as a nuisance ordinance like San Juan; Charter meeting Saturday NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:16 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Sullivan, Member _ _ Page 14 ON co 9SkIN�� District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin l O,R1( �, f T County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of November 18, 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 mentioned there is a group forming to meet the current needs of the Mountain View Commons building and urged the Commissioners for further cooperation; • Nine citizens expressed concern over possible program cuts and closing of the Port Townsend Recreation Center. Of those citizens, most mentioned they would like to do what they can to help. Benefits of keeping programs running were noted. Citizens urged the Commissioners to have more information available on how they can help; • A citizen stated: 1) Last weekend in Quilcene a meeting was held to brainstorm future plans for Worthington Park; 2) Santa is coming to Quilcene the day after Thanksgiving; and 3) a craft fair is coming soon; • A citizen stated: 1) Everyone needs to remember that President Kennedy was assassinated. He mentioned 5 democratic public figures that were assassinated around the same time and explained why the U.S. was moving towards fascism; and 2) There is a desperate need for industrial zoned property in Jefferson County; • A citizen noted that you can only raise taxes to a certain point. Regarding the Port Townsend Recreation Center, he believes raising fees to make programs self - funding is a solution; and • A citizen stated: 1) Regarding the Port Townsend Recreation Center, Jefferson County is not the only agency facing cuts, it's happening to the State and the Nation as well; and 2) Jefferson County Democrats will be interviewing candidates for the office of Assessor on November 19, 2013 at 630 p.m. at the Port Townsend Recreation Center. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: 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. HEARING NOTICE re: 2014 Budget; Hearing Scheduled for December 2, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers AGREEMENT re: Subcontractor to update www.jechoice.org website; In the Amount of $1,960; Jefferson County Public Health; Reynolds Training and Consulting Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 RAFT 3. AGREEMENT re: On -Line Food Workers Training, Testing and Card Issuance; In the Amount of $7 per card issued; Jefferson County Public Health; Tacoma - Pierce County Health Department 4. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 11 re: Consolidated Programs containing both State & Federal Funds; Additional $10,220 for a total of $1,248,065; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health (DOH) 5. AGREEMENT re: Internet Vehicle /Vessel Information Processing System (IVIPS); In the Amount of $0.04 per VIN search; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) 6. AGREEMENT re: Coordinated Prevention Grant No. G1400361; In the Amount of $133,333.33 with a match at $33,333.33; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) 7. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 1 re: Medicaid Administrative Claiming No. 1163-35242; Un- suspending Contract, fee for service - no max; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Health Care Authority 8. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 6 re: Language change; No dollar amount; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Division of Behavioral and Recovery for Substance Abuse Prevention 9. AGREEMENT re: Developmental Disabilities Video Interviews; In the Amount of $1,500; Jefferson County Public Health; Wall Fly Films 10. AGREEMENT re: Continued lease for the Mail Postage Machine located in the Courthouse; In the Amount of $252.12 per month; Jefferson County Central Services; Pitney Bowes 11. AGREEMENT re: Snow and Ice Removal on Clearwater Road, County Road No. 107508, M.P. 0.00 to M.P. 4.13; In the Amount of $10,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) 12. AGREEMENT re: Wetland Biologist Services; In the Amount of $25,000 maximum; Jefferson County Public Works; Olympic Wetland Resources Inc. 13. AGREEMENT, Supplemental No. 1 re: Queets Bridge Painting, County Project No. CR1881, County- Road No. 107518, M.P. 0.60 to M.P. 0.76, BHOS -16WA (001); In the Amount of $42,522.34; Jefferson County Public Works; Exeltech Consulting, Inc. 14. AGREEMENT re: 2014 Public Defense Funding; In the Amount of $33,918; Jefferson County Administrator; Washington State Office of Public Defense 15. AGREEMENT and SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT re: Collective Bargaining Agreement and Trust Participation for the Jefferson County Central Services Staff; Teamsters Local 4589 and Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust 16. Advisory Board Reappointment re: Jefferson County Civil Service Commission (CSC); Six (6) Year Term Expiring November 1, 2019; Robert Gebo 17. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 13, 2013 Totaling $637,771.31 18. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 6, 201' ) Totaling $122,287.69 Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: All 3 Commissioners - Will be attending the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Conference this week. Chairman Austin - Will be attending a Board of Health meeting this week. Commissioner Sullivan - Will be attending a Community Impact meeting this week. Commissioner Johnson - Will be attending a NW Straits Conference this week. HEARING re: Setting the Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County Levy in 2013 and Collection in 2014: State Iaw (RCW 84.55.120) requires that the Commissioners hold a public hearing on the 2014 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for levy in 2013 and collection in 2014. County Administrator Philip Morley explained the two part process. The hearing today sets the Ad Valorem tax levy rates and amounts for 2014. Later in December, there will be a budget hearing where the budget for 2014 will be set and the amount that gets collected will not exceed the budgeted amount, except for new construction. Assessor Jack Westerman elaborated by saying that the portion of the budget that is around property tax, the revenue side of the budget will reflect exactly what is adopted. The amounts for the budget adoption aren't necessarily the same amounts as shown on the four separate individual resolutions. This is due to the amounts of the one percent increase resolutions which are exclusive of new construction, state assessed utilities, refunds from the previous year, etcetera. The amounts on the resolutions will not match the amounts that the levy will be set for because that is the amount that will be in the budget, and that does include the estimate. He stated they estimate the two on the high side because they don't know what the state utilities will be and he has to levy the lesser of. He mentioned that they have to budget a little on the high side because if the state utilities come in much higher, and they didn't budget for it, they can only set an amount for the lesser of the budget amount, or what you're allotted to by law. The following are the levy amounts (Real and Personal Property) for the 2014 tax year. Levies have been set in accordance with law. I. Total County General Fund Levy (2013 actual amount @ 101% plus new construction and refunds) A. Veterans Relief (2013 actual amount @ B. Mental Health (2013 actual amount @ 101 % plus new construction) 101 % plus new construction) Page 3 $7,430,000 (43,000) (42,500) :Qr DRAFT c Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 C. Developmental Disabilities (2013 actual amount @ 101 % plus new construction) (42,500) D. Current Expense (Remainder) $7,302,000 II. Total Road Levy (2013 actual amount @ 101% plus new construction and refunds) $4,160,000 A. Diversion to Current Expense (Set Amount) (720,000) B. County Roads (Remainder) $3,440,000 II. Conservation Futures (2013 actual amount @ 101% plus new construction and refunds) $218,500 Assessor Westerman explained the reason for doing this in a two part process is because when voters approved Referendum 47, it forced every taxing district, except for the state, to adopt the I% increase resolutions. Instead of the public having to delve through an entire budget to find out what was happening in the coming year versus what happened in the past year, the legislature felt it was important to adopt these resolutions on one page, showing the amount of the increase that is being taken in property tax from one year to the next. He elaborated by saying that due to the language in Referendum 47, you required to have the percent increase amount and the amount increase. This is not a significant increase given the inflation rate, in fact, there are those that would argue that this can be somewhat crippling to a taxing district. For districts where property tax is their only source of revenue, it can be someone limiting. That is why over the years, some of the districts like the Library District, Fire Districts and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Districts, will ask for a lid lift of the 1% to ask for a higher levy rate than they have at the time. He stated that in his tenure with the County, they have never done a lid lift. County Administrator Morley reviewed the four resolutions before the Board: The General Fund Levy in the amount of $7,352,892.14 which is an increase of $72,800.91, one percent (1 %) from the previous year. The Road Levy in the amount of $4,110,537.54, which is an increase of $40,698.39, one percent (1 %) from the previous year. Diversion of Road Levy for Traffic Law Enforcement. He stated that under state law, out of the road fund, there can be a diversion to road traffic law enforcement. So what this resolution does, it set the diversion amount to $720,000 (which has been the same amount for about 4 years) deposited in the Current Expense Fund and identified as Revenue Code 311.20, and the remainder deposited in the County Road Fund. The Conservation Futures Tax Levy in the amount of $214,684.17, which is an increase of $2,125.59, one percent (1 %) from the previous year. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment. Linda Herzog, Quilcene: She did not intend to testify during the hearing, but changed her mind. She stated that the Commissioners have her support as a citizen for raising the tax levies in whatever way they can without a vote. It is probably time for a levy lid lift. Ms. Herzog noted that most of the people who spoke earlier about loss of programs because there is not enough tax money, or there is not enough revenue in the account, left the room before an opportunity to speak in support of levy amounts and even to possibly suggest an increase in that percentage. She for one would love to have some way for people to get educated on what is going on here. It is not just a matter of complaining about what the Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 q n' Ak r E El Commissioners cannot do, and being explained as to why they cannot do it, it's a matter of what can be done if people have the will. She is discouraged of the missing part of citizenship responsibility. When the Charter movement began, people thought it was a problem with the form of government. Ms. Herzog believes that it is a problem with people not paying attention, not caring, and not putting their money where their mouth is. If anyone has some brilliant ideas on how to get that education out there and how to make people really understand how it all works and do their part with their property taxes as well as with their complaints at this microphone, she would love to help them get that done. She also thanked Assessor Jack Westerman for his services. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He seconded the comment made by the previous speaker regarding the absence of public at the hearing. He mentioned this was very notable and a great observation. There was a lot of people asking "What can they do ?" and then they left the room. People were not involved at the Metropolitan Park District (MPD) meetings either, no one showed up. I don't know what it takes to get people's attention, maybe change the name to Redskins or something. It is guaranteed to fill the room if the subject is football. In regard to Commissioner Sullivan's comment he made after the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting where he was explaining some of the County's difficulties, he noted that the assessed valuation of the County had decreased from $5.4 billion to about $4.4 billion. In doing that, he believed the statement suggested that it had something to do with County tax revenues, when he knows Commissioner Sullivan knows that it doesn't. Mr. Thiersch stated that is how that comment comes across, people do not understand that just because property values go down, their taxes do not go down. They get redistributed, but they never go down. He suggested to Commissioner Sullivan that when he makes those kinds of comments in the future, to make it clear that it has absolutely nothing to do with tax collection. In regard to Chairman Austin's comment he made after the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting about Tim Eyman's initiative in respect to the 1% limit, Mr. Thiersch stated that it was due to Tim Eyman. It was an initiative and it was passed by the people, but it was rejected by the State Supreme Court and it was re -passed by the State legislature. The 1% is a reflection of the democratic process of representational government. It has nothing to do with an initiative as such. Let's be clear and let's be honest. We the people said no, we do not want unlimited tax increases every year, which was running about 6% or 7% before that law was passed. Mr. Thiersch stated he would hate to see us go back to the 6% per year. Can you imagine what your property taxes would be if that had continued? It would be astronomical. With talk of lack of construction, lack of people wanting to move here, with that cost of living, not a chance. He thanked Mr. Westerman for his years of service to the County and that he had done a pretty good job. Steve Oakford, Port Townsend: He was moved by the public comments that were made this morning. When you are figuring out what things cost, what is more expensive, the cost of providing healthy programs that get our kids going in a good direction, or remedial programs after they are messed up and in trouble? He believes Sheriff Hernandez can be quite enlightening on that issue. Mr. Oakford says he is like everybody else. He hates to see taxes increase, but these are things that do take cash. County Administrator Philip Morley mentioned that volunteering is great, but some things just takes cash. Some things have to be done by people with licenses and certifications so that it can be compliant with the myriad of regulations. He encourages, if there is a legal way to generate more revenue, go for it. If people want programs, like Mr. Thiersch stated, they have got to be paid for. Taxes are not always the answer and fees are not always the answer because they rule out those less advantaged with nowhere else to turn. It has to be a combination. Everybody should have to be a part of it. If you can provide a Page 5 __ Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 EM scholarship for someone to participate in a program, they still should have to pay some minimal amount so they take ownership of it. He urged the Commissioners to search all the ways to raise the additional revenue because he believes the programs are very important. Possibly the City's cooperation could be extended. People need to show up for meetings. Mr. Oakford suggested holding the public comment period for each issue that is discussed, rather than at the start. He said there is a great flood of people at 9:00 a.m., and when the gavel is brought down at the end of public comment, there is a mass exodus of people. He suggested not making the time of public comment predictable, people may spend some time at the meetings and learn what is going on. George Yount, Port Townsend: Speaking on behalf of the Jefferson County Democrats. He urged the Commissioners to support the resolutions before them. To make democracy work, it is not only the responsibility for the citizens to be informed, but to work to be informed and to be involved. It is their duty to be present at meetings and be a part of the decision making process. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan addressed some of the comments mentioned during public testimony. He stated that when he spoke of the decreased valuation of the County, he was speaking towards equity losses and people's ability to pay for things. He stated that he was talking about a lot of things extemporaneously, but stated that in the future, he will try and be clearer when speaking on this topic. He added that the levy lift idea mentioned earlier is worth considering. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 54 -13 Increasing the Jefferson County General Fund Levy for 2014 Taxes. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 55 -13 Increasing the Jefferson County Road Levy for 2014 Taxes. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 56 -13 Diversion of Road Levy for Traffic Law Enforcement for the 2014 General Fund Budget. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 57 -13 Increasing the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Tax Levy for 2014 Taxes. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve a letter re: 2014 Real and Personal Property Levy Amount. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:42 a.m. and reconvened at 1:35 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 r T K_ COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination • Chairman Austin will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on November 19, 2013 • All three Commissioners will be attending the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Conference in Vancouver, Washington November 19 -21, 2013. Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Johnson will be attending all three days. Chairman Austin will be attending November 20, 2013. Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Coastal Caucus and Timber Counties meeting • Chairman Austin will be attending a Cooperating Agencies Conference in Vancouver on November 22, 2013 • Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Northwest Straits Commission Conference in Bellingham on November 22 and 23, 2013 • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Community Impact meeting on November 22, 2013 • The Courthouse will be closed November 29, 2013 • The HCCC will be meeting on December 11, 2013 • Chairman Austin will be attending a JeffCom meeting on December 19, 2013 • The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) will be meeting on January 15, 2014 • County Administrator Philip Morley will be attending a JeffCom meeting on January 23, 2014 • Chairman Austin will be attending a National Association of County Officials (NACo) Conference in March, 2014 Miscellaneous Issues: • Parks and Recreation • Department of Community Development (DCD) scheduling • Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) timing — impact on the Port Townsend Paper Corporation (PTPC) pond project, and on shorelines not yet being protected under the new standards • Uhaul project at Courtesy Ford • Transit project • JeffCom and Tower agreement • Beausite /Gibbs Lake transfer with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) getting close • Barking Dogs • November ballot and election certification • National Marine Sanctuary meeting; National Heritage Area • Transit stop request to move to Washington and Cass or Walker; also designer selection • HCCC —in 2014 Rob Gelder will become the Kitsap representative. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2013 NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:38 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Sullivan, Member Page 53 1;sl I ON CIO Fla l., , • �� +4 IN District No. i Commissioner: Phil Johns o F District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sul District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of November 25, 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: • 13 citizens voiced their support for the Port Townsend Recreation Center and its programs. Benefits for children and the community were pointed out. Some suggestions were to raise program fees, raise taxes and keep the budget cycle concurrent with the school year. A majority of those who support the Port Townsend Recreation Center would like to have more information on how they can help save the center; • A citizen mentioned an article published in a local newspaper last week regarding salmon restoration in Jefferson County. He pointed out the article did not mention work that land owners have done without mandatory buffers; • A citizen stated: 1) He is pleased with the two candidates for the Assessor position; 2) Half of the children that attend Chimacum schools have subsidized lunches; and 3) County residents believe that the City is full of Communists that try to make life miserable for them; and • A citizen stated: 1) Recreation Center fee increases are a good idea; 2) In the Memorandum of Understanding listed under Consent Agenda Item No. 6, the Sheriffs last name is misspelled; 3) The proposed Solid Waste minimum fee will increase by 100% for 26% of the people; and 4) He believes there should be another hearing held on the proposed Ordinance re: Solid Waste fees, because the language has been changed since the hearing was held. The meeting was recessed at 9:36 a.m. to allow those in the audience to sign up for email notification regarding Park and Recreation updates and reconvened at 9:47 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to delete Item No.I and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (DELETED) ORDINANCE re: Establishing Revised Fees for the Public Works Solid Waste Division and to Adopt Amendments to the Jefferson County Code (Approved later in Minutes) RESOLUTION NO. 58 -13 re: Adopting the Jefferson County Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014; Jefferson County Auditor's Office Page I Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 AGREEMENT NO. JC1332 re: South Discovery Bay, Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) Project; In the Amount of $10,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) AGREEMENT NO. LA7591 re: Upper Hoh Road Access Preservation, MP 3.338 Culvert Replacement, CR1896, Federal Aid Project No. PLH- A160(001); In the Amount of $797,601; Jefferson Country Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) AGREEMENT, Amendment No. I re: Individual Employment and Individual Technical Assistance; An Additional Amount of $1,500 for a Total of $40,464; Jefferson County Public Health; Concerned Citizens 6. Memorandum of Understanding re: Warrant Entry Services; In the Amount of $55,000 per year; Jefferson County Sheriff; JeffCom 7. Final Short Plat Approval re: Pumpkin Patch Short Plat (Wayne Brown Short Plat) #MLA12- 00118/4SUB12- 00008; To Subdivide a 10.73 Acre Parcel into 2 Residential Lots; Located at 27 Lords Lake Loop Road, Quilcene; Wayne and Patty Brown, Applicants 8. Letter of Intent re: Beausite Lake Trust Land Transfer Project #02- 090358; Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 9. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 14, 2013 Totaling $1,541,382.26 10. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 20, 2013 Totaling $72,496.50 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 20, 2013 Totaling $15,351.95 Discussion re: Consent Agenda Item #1 ORDINANCE NO. 06- 1125 -13 re: Establishing Revised Fees for the Public Works Solid Waste Division and to Adopt Amendments to the Jefferson County Code: Commissioner Johnson stated he has concerns with doubling the minimum fee at the Solid Waste facility. He feels that by charging double for one can of garbage, it will not encourage recycling. He asked County Administrator Philip Morley about the time constraints for making a decision? County Administrator Morley stated that 60 days is needed for the commercial garbage hauler to work through the agreement with the City of Port Townsend as well as the Utilities Transportation Commission (UTC) for outside the City of Port Townsend, and then to reflect those rates in their retail sales. The longer the Commissioners wait on taking action, the longer the existing rates remain in place, which would mean less revenue in 2014. Chairman Austin mentioned that last week, Solid Waste Manager Richard Talbot noted that if the proposed minimum fee were to be decreased, revenue would need to be generated among other types of garbage that was brought in. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the current proposed fees will force people to coordinate their garbage disposal efforts. He hopes that this will not decrease recycling. For the people who bring in small amounts, it's a matter of cooperating with other people to bring their garbage to the Solid Waste facility. County Administrator Morley pointed out that there is a garbage hauler small can rate that is comparable to the proposed fees, and many citizens may not even have to self haul. County Administrator Morley asked Solid Waste Manager Talbot to clarify information he presented at the November 12, 2013 Commissioner meeting where he stated that for each dollar that the minimum fee is dropped on the self haul, the per -ton tipping fee would raise an equal amount? Solid Waste _. _Page 2 _ Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 AFT Manager Talbot who was in the audience mentioned that he vacation today and not working so he did not bring paperwork with him, but he stated that the relationship between the minimum fee and the TIP fee, is an approximate analysis and should not be used as an absolute. In regard to the timeframe, a short delay may not affect the Solid Waste department right away. He noted that the Solid Waste facility is losing money with the current fees. In the last two years the facility has lost between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. If there is any change done to the fee structure, Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated they would always fund operations first and what will suffer is capital renewal. He elaborated that it is like painting a house, you can put it off each year, but eventually you have to do it. He also noted that while the Solid Waste facility has seen more people bring in less garbage due to their recycling and composting practices, which should be lauded, it does have an impact on the facility. He compared it to water rates. Those who are efficient with their water use and use less water, while it is a good thing, inevitably the price per gallon goes up because there are still costs to be covered. Is $10 a rock hard number that we need to have to survive? No, but there is some underlying philosophy which says there is a benefit to the operation in the longer term by trying to create more efficiency in the way people bring in their waste. Solid Waste Manager Talbot suggested that the Commissioners take as much time as they need in making their decision. He stated that he stands by the proposal, but if other fees are decided upon, staff will adjust the program accordingly. Through the Climate Action Committee (CAC), the Jefferson County Solid Waste facility is tasked with reducing their footprint. A reduction in trips to the garbage facility moves in that direction and provides some additional contribution. Chairman Austin noted that during public comment period, a citizen stated that every time there is a change in a proposed regulation after a hearing has already been held, another hearing should be required. Commissioner Sullivan stated that legal council has looked into this before on other issues and he is confident they are following what they need to do. He mentioned that Commissioners are expected to make changes based on what they hear. Commissioner Johnson noted that looking at this from a recycling aspect, there would be fewer trips to the Solid Waste facility and less fuel involved. Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 06-1125-13 Solid Waste Fee Ordinance (Revision to Fee Schedules and Amendments to the JCC). Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: All 3 Commissioners - Attended the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Conference. Each Commissioner attended meetings at the conference regarding a variety of topics. Jefferson County received a Smart Community Award for the Mystery Bay Management Plan and the South Port Townsend Bay Management Plan. Commissioner Johnson - Attended the Northwest Straits Conference and a Timber Counties meeting last week. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 �'T The meeting was recessed at 11:04 a.m. and reconvened at 1:35 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Discussion re: Possible Changes to County Code Section 3.08 Conservation Futures Fund. Environmental Health Specialist Tami Pokorny and Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee Chair Richard Jahnke reviewed the recommended changes. Environmental Health Specialist Pokorny reviewed the four recommendations as follows: 1. Add County Code Section 3.08.050(6) stating: "No person on the citizen oversight committee shall serve as the application presenter or advocate during the annual application cycle that such a particular application is participating in except that this section is not violated when a citizen oversight committee member is the person authorized or required to sign an application, request or other document necessary for the Conservation Futures Fund application process and so signs that application, request or other document." 2. Add County Code Section 3.08.050(7) stating: "Recusal of any sponsor or applicant, or any representative, advocate, presenter or agent of any sponsor or applicant, who is a voting member of the citizen oversight committee shall be mandatory prior to the start of any meeting of the citizen oversight committee during which the citizen oversight committee is going to vote upon or rank one or more applications." 3. Revise County Code Section 3.08.010(8) to remove the words "for public use and enjoyment." So that the revised definition ends with the phrase: "farm and agricultural land and timber land as those terms are defined in Chapter 84.34 RCW." 4. Revise County Code Section 3.08.050(1) to remove the words "at least quarterly" and replace them with "as needed." Environmental Health Specialist Pokorny stated that in the last few Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee meetings, changes for the coming year have been discussed by the Committee. They have also discussed Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez's suggested revisions (Item No. 1 and 2 on the recommendation list) as they pertain to concerns of two of their members. Chair Jahnke mentioned that the committee is willing to go along with Prosecutor Alvarez's recommendations, although the members feel that there is not a great need for it. He pointed out that representatives of the Jefferson Land Trust (JLT) have always recused themselves from voting, although proposed Item No. 2 would make what was practice, mandatory. Chairman Austin stated that at the State Board of Health meetings, he has to read a statement at the beginning of every meeting requesting any member with financial interest in matters presented at the meeting make themselves known so the Board can decide if a recusal from voting is required. He commented that it seems like the proposed revisions go way beyond that. Chair Jahnke stated that in the past, it has been JLT's practice not to even attend a meeting where a vote is held. Members from JLT would not be present at the ranking meeting so the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee would not need to read a statement like that. Environmental Health Specialist Pokorny stated that there are several questions that are read at the beginning of the ranking meeting, and one of them is regarding conflict of interest. Commissioner Sullivan stated that by recusing a member with a conflict of interest from the ranking meeting, you miss the valuable input of those people if they are not there. He Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 ^ commented that no one is getting rich off this process and he appreciates all the work people put into the ranking of the projects. He mentioned that if this was at the request of the committee, he would want to respect that. Chair Jahnke stated that usually by the time a project comes to the Committee, it has been through many other entities such as the Salmon Recovery Board and other boards which do their own independent reviews. Environmental Health Specialist Pokorny stated that any project sponsor who forwards more than one application, typically the JLT, are required to internally rank those projects. She mentioned that everyone on the committee knows JLT's feelings on the ranking ahead of time. County Administrator Philip Morley asked for clarification on suggested revision Item No. 1. The phrase "No person on the citizen oversight committee shall serve as the application presenter or advocate during the annual application cycle..." If someone is a staff or volunteer with one of the applicant organizations, and they sit on the Conservation Futures Committee, what does that mean? Chair Jahnke replied that it means they could not also be the presenter. He elaborated on the Conservation Futures funding application procedures stating that they conduct a site visit and then a meeting. It would mean that a person affiliated with an applicant organization could not make the presentation and advocate for that particular project. County Administrator Morley pointed out that Item No. 1 states "presenter or advocate." He asked if that means that someone from an organization cannot speak at all about a project that has been applied for by their organization because that would be viewed as advocating? Chair Jahnke replied that a committee member could not speak for a project. It would need to be either the presenter or the advocate of a project. Environmental Health Specialist Pokorny mentioned that although the Committee member could not speak for a project, others from that organization could speak. Chairman Austin stated that he can understand applying this idea to a larger organization, but he does not believe it would be conducive in a small county like Jefferson County. Individuals who have a lot of knowledge on a particular project would basically be kicked off the committee during decision making times, and the committee may have to rely on other people that may not know the projects as well. He indicated that he has a hard time with proposed revision Items No. 1 and 2. Commissioner Sullivan agreed with Chairman Austin and added that being aware of the issues was more important to him. County Administrator Morley asked that pending the Commissioners' decision on Items No. I and 2, if they were to be approved, could the term "or advocate" be taken out? He stated that per Item No. 2, they would not be there to advocate during those meetings. Chair Jahnke replied that the ranking meeting is a very specific meeting. Rankings are all sent to Environmental Health Specialist Pokorny before the meeting. They go through the questions and there is no pressure for anyone to change their ranking, but they have a discussion and make sure everyone is happy with their numerical score. There is really no advocacy for a specific project, it is a question by question analysis of what your response has been. It is preceded by a power point presentation meeting where an individual pitches a project. County Administrator Morley asked if the Committee wants advocacy to be broader than those narrow meetings? Chair Jahnke stated that is what Item No. 2 addressed, but reiterated that Items No. I and 2 were Prosecutor Alvarez's recommendations and when the Committee voted on these proposed revisions, they concurred that they could live with his suggestions. The vote wasn't pushing for these revisions, it was more like the Committee agreed that they would be able to process applications within this framework if this is what the County wanted. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 Chair Jahnke stated that Item No. 4 works out better for the committee and is important to the group. In the past, meetings were held quarterly. Chairman Austin noted that he is not in favor of suggested revision Items No. 1 and 2. In regard to Item No. 2, he stated that recusing someone from the vote is one thing, recusing someone from attending the meeting altogether is basically telling them they no longer have a right to sit in that particular open public meeting. County Administrator Morley stated he believes the intent is to ensure there is no individual glaring or pressure on another member to vote in favor of a particular project. Chairman Austin commented that people should be able to handle glares. Commissioner Johnson stated that people should be able to speak in regard to their project and not have to recuse themselves from the meetings. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to get clarification from Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez on his recommendations for the Conservation Futures Committee. Commissioner Sullivan stated that if the Conservation Futures group wanted the proposed revisions, if it solved a problem and it took away an issue so they wouldn't have to deal with it, he would support the revisions on those terms. County Administrator Morley reiterated that the Committee stated they could live with the suggested revisions Items No. 1 through 3, but No. 4 is the item they are advocating for. He indicated that legal advice can change over time and suggested the Commissioners meet with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez and discuss the topic further before giving the Committee direction. Update re: Status of the Stormwater Retrofit Grant: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) has been participating in a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) stormwater retrofit grant since May 2012. Mason County, Kitsap County, and several state agencies and tribal entities have also been participating as a workgroup with HCCC and the project consultant, Herrera. This work is being completed through a Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant that HCCC received for the purpose of identifying potential stormwater retrofit sites within the three- County Hood Canal action area. End products of this grant include preparation of pre - design reports for some selected sites within each of the three member counties and preparation of a low impact development retrofit plan report. At the December HCCC Board meeting on December 11, 2013, HCCC will ask for approval to proceed with the next steps in the grant. DCD Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins, Lead Associate Planner Donna Frostholm and HCCC Project Manager Julie Horowitz were present at the meeting and reviewed the Stormwater Retrofit Grant process with the Board. Lead Associate Planner Frostholm stated that they are getting towards the end of their grant, so they are pulling the loose ends together in regard to site selection. She elaborated on the process, mentioning that Consultant Herrera compiled all the information and came up with a list of about 60 sites. Jefferson County had about a third of those sites. Consultant Herrera then did a drive by of those sites and refined their list to 24, eight of those being in Jefferson County. After an even closer look, they narrowed those choices down to five sites. Then, they added four neighborhoods. Lead Associate Planner Frostholm commented that the Agenda Request lists the nine sites that are proposed for the stormwater retrofit. She mentioned that at this point, they are trying to decide whether these ranking systems work and how to move forward. Of the nine proposed sites, only two to three will need to be selected. Project Manager Horowitz stated that there is local knowledge and concerns that are not captured in the ranking criteria. They desire to include that information to come up with the best candidates. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 Commissioner Sullivan noted that some of the proposed sites are public and some are on private property. Lead Associate Planner Frostholm stated that DOE has stated that commercial or residential properties cannot obtain funding and DCD cannot tell a commercial or private property owner they have to do a retrofit. County Administrator Philip Morley asked if there was potential funding source for private sites? Project Manager Horowitz replied that DOE would not fund private sites, however, the consultant could look for other funding possibilities. Chairman Austin asked if the HCCC agrees with the ranking system, or will they save the money? Project Manager Horowitz replied that the HCCC has an agreement with DOE to comply with the grant. If the funds are not used, they will lose the grant money. Planning Manager Hoskins emphasized that if they were not to fulfill the requirements of the grant, it would hinder the ability to obtain future grants. Project Manager Horowitz explained with the addition to neighborhoods on the project list, there would be an opportunity to capture a larger area, however the costs are significantly higher. Commissioner Sullivan asked what the next phase is? Lead Associate Planner Frostholm replied that they need to decide how they will select the sites, and then Consultant Herrara will prepare the pre - design reports for the sites that are chosen. Commissioner Sullivan stated that it seems like what was presented to the Board was an artificial comprehensive look and wondered if this was the best value for stormwater money in this state. County Administrator Morley asked if Public Works was consulted on this project? Planning Manager Hoskins stated that they were. Lead Associate Planner Frostholm commented that all emails that come through in regard to this project, get forwarded to the Public Works department. She added that Public Works has not had much comment on this project as they have their own. County Administrator Morley asked if Public Works was asked to prioritize the list? Lead Associate Planner Frostholm replied that Public Works was asked very early in the process if there were any areas they wanted the grant to focus on and their answer was no. She noted that there usually is not a big stormwater retrofit need in this county because we do not have the infrastructure for it. DCD did not anticipate comments from Public Works on the ranking but is coordinating with Public Health in regard to water quality. Public Health staff is working on the Pollution Identification and Control (PIC) for stormwater, but they did not rank the projects. Planning Manager Hoskins stated that Jefferson County has less of a need for stormwater retrofitting compared to Kitsap or Mason counties, but any work done would be for the good of the Hood Canal. She stated that DCD's top three choices would be the Chimacum School, Brinnon Community Center and the Dosewallips State Park. Commissioner Johnson stated that if he were asked to rank the list, his choices would be based on a gut feeling, and he worries that he might make the wrong decision. The Board agreed to wait on ranking the projects until Public Health and Public Works had a chance to supply commentary on the rankings. The meeting was recessed at 2:58 p.m. and reconvened at 3:04 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 'AFT COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Miscellaneous Issues: • Parks and Recreation • Health Department Budget 2013 -2014 NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:34 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Sullivan, Member Page 8