Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112513District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of 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 Sheriff's 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 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2013 �7 3. 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) 4. 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) 5. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 1 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/#SUB12- 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 AdoptAmendments 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 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 �f 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. 1 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. 1 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 terns. 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 Ioose 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 DOD'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 gcs 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 neat regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Sullivan secandedj.he motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY f VOA",,U MISSIONERS 1 u t SEf�L; ATTEST: Caro yn ery Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 8