Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051815District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Kathleen Kler County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of May 18, 2015 Chairman David Sullivan called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner Kathleen Kler. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: • Three (3) citizens commented on homelessness in Jefferson County and discussed possible ways to address the issue; • A citizen stated: 1) Jefferson County has more parks than it can afford; 2) the County park in the Tri Area may be a viable location for addressing the needs of the homeless and the County needs to take positive action on the issue; and 3) the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code regarding marijuana contains all kinds of inaccuracies in the findings; • Two (2) citizens loaned each Commissioner a copy of a book titled "This Changes Everything" and commented on climate change; • A citizen commented on the need for public land and the importance of the County holding onto it for public access; • A citizen commented on the proposed marijuana regulations; • A citizen encouraged those present in the audience to continue attending the Commissioner meetings and commented on the need for a broad based diversified economy in Jefferson County; • A citizen: 1) thanked the Commissioners for participating in the Rhododendron Festival and stated that hundreds of people come together to put on the event; and 2) Invited the Commissioners to a forum on Tuesday. May 26, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. • A citizen: 1) stated we need to find a way to provide jobs in Jefferson County; and 2) discussed past efforts to obtain land for the Olympic Discovery Trail; and • A citizen gave an update on legislation regarding marijuana and expressed concerns about the implementation of regulations by the Department of Community Development. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners reported the following: Chairman Sullivan Stated there are a large number of issues at the County level that we wish we had the resources to deal with. We do what we can for economic development, social services, parks and individual needs with the help of other agencies. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 Commissioner Johnson Agrees that there is not adequate funding for parks. Commissioner Kler Attended a Hood Canal Coordinating Council Climate Adaptation Workshop Stated a Jefferson Health Care groundbreaking ceremony will be held this morning. County Administrator Morley Stated the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. at the Tri -Area Community Center regarding recreational marijuana regulations. Stated the Board of County Commissioners will be holding a Special Meeting on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in the County Commissioners' Chambers to review the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding recreational marijuana regulations. Corrected a statement he made last week regarding a hearing comment which was not submitted by the deadline and therefore, is not part of the hearing record. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENTAGENDA: Commissioner Kler moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Request to Reconvene for the Purpose of Hearing Property Tax Appeals for the Year 2015; Jefferson County Board of Equalization 2. AGREEMENT NO. DTFH70 -14E- 00026, Amendment No. 1 re: Funds Transfer for Upper Hoh River Road Phase 2 /Olympic National Park, M.P. 0.00- 12.00, County Road No. 914207, County Project No. CR1941; In the Amount of $85,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Western Federal Lands Highway Division 3. AGREEMENT re: Material Testing Services, Dowans Creek Road Realignment, County Project No. CR17993, FEMA 17- 34- DR -WA; In the Amount of $7,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Northwestern Territories, Inc. 4. Advisory Board Resignation re: Jefferson County Lodging Tax Advisory Council (LTAC); Kalaloch Lodge (West End), Walter Kochansk 5. Advisory Board Appointment re: Lodging Tax Advisory Council (LTAC); Three (3) Year Term Expiring May 18, 2018; Kalaloch Lodge (West End), Kyle Forgey 6. Advisory Board Appointment re: Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee; Four (4) Year Term Expiring May 18, 2019; District No. 1 Citizen Representative, David Wilkinson 7. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers /Warrants Dated May 11, 2015 Totaling $581,941.56 8. Payment of Jefferson County A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated May 6, 2015 Totaling $126,897.70 Commissioner Kier excused herself from the meeting at 9:42 a.m. to attend the Jefferson Health Care groundbreaking ceremony. The meeting was recessed at 9:44 a.m. and reconvened at 9:59 a.m. with Chairman Sullivan and Commissioner Johnson present. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 BID OPENING re: 2015 -2020 Supply of Motor Fuel: Central Services Fleet Manager Matt Stewart opened and read the following two bids aloud: BIDDER Petroleum Traders Association of Petroleum Products BID AMOUNT $1,364,783.00 (No tax included) $1,274,072.00 (No tax included) Staff will review the bids and make a recommendation for bid award at a later date. The meeting was recessed at 10:04 a.m. and reconvened at 1:28 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. BRIEFING and DISCUSSION re: Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft of Regulations for Recreational Cannabis: Department of Community Development Director Carl Smith, Associate Planner Colleen Zmolek and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez were present to brief the Board on the Planning Commission's draft regulations for recreational cannabis. Director Smith presented the draft regulations for recreational marijuana/cannabis which will be the subject of a public hearing held by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. at the Tri Area Community Center. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic over the course of many months and a lot of work has been done by staff and the Planning Commission with public involvement. Some of the ideas presented were to draft regulations that would apply to all types of agriculture, while others had concerns about the impacts these regulations would have on other types of agriculture. To avoid unintended consequences for other types of agriculture, the Planning Commission decided to address marijuana as a separate type of agriculture. The Facts and Findings include reasons (item 7) why marijuana is different from other types of agriculture and the adopting ordinance should also list those differences. For these reasons, the Planning Commission and staff believes it is warranted to treat marijuana as a separate type of agriculture. Chairman Sullivan stated that in item 7 it states that, "...it is profoundly different... ". He asked how each of the five reasons listed relate to local land use policy? Director Smith replied that the regulations address those reasons and he proposed to review the performance standards. Chairman Sullivan stated he doesn't see how the reasons lead to the local land use regulations. How does the fact that marijuana is different under federal law relate to local land use? Associate Planner Zmolek stated that Jefferson County Code 18.45 includes findings requiring that proposed amendments be consistent with federal, state and local land use laws. The findings in these proposed regulations support why it is not in opposition of federal, state, and local land use and explain how the performance standards were developed. The facts describe the public participation. Chairman Sullivan stated that item 17 states that, "...by controlling the size and placement of structures, and conditions such as landscape screening and setbacks... ". He is having trouble connecting all the reasons listed in item 7 with the facets in item 17. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 Director Smith discussed the proposed Performance Standards which would be a new section in the Jefferson County Code under 18.20. In reviewing the Performance Standards he stated there is a general provision that these regulations would apply to recreational marijuana and that it would also be subject to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) administered by the Washington State Liquor Control Board. The definitions were all taken from the WAC. Associate Planner Zmolek noted that a change was made to the definition of "Marijuana processor" which was to add the following language: "Marijuana processing for the purpose of this section may or may not include drying, trimming and bagging of a recreational marijuana product." The reason for this change was to clarify that a Cottage Industry permit would not be required for every producer. Commissioner Kler stated it was her understanding that drying, trimming and bagging would be included under "Marijuana producer," because a "Marijuana processor" already had that capacity. She thought a "Marijuana producer" would get the ability to have drying, trimming and bagging and not be considered a "Marijuana processor." Associate Planner Zmolek stated that language about drying, trimming and bagging is included in both the definition for "Marijuana producer" and "Marijuana processor." Under the definition of "Marijuana producer" language was added that states: "Marijuana producing for the purpose of this section shall include drying, trimming and bagging of a recreational marijuana product." If a producer has a Cottage Industry permit, then drying, trimming and bagging of a recreational marijuana product would be allowed, but a Cottage Industry permit is not required to be a marijuana producer. The language was added to make it clear in both definitions. County Administrator Morley suggested modifying the definition of "Marijuana producer' in item (2)(c) "Definitions" to state that it is when done in conjunction with growing. Associate Planner Zmolek stated that the language in item 3 "Use zones" of the Performance Standards is all of the text that is included in the "Use Tables." In the event of a conflict between the two, the text listed in this section prevails. Director Smith added that this language outlines the three categories of recreational marijuana activities (production, processing and retailing) and the comprehensive plan zones in which each category is allowed. County Administrator Morley asked if the regulations in item 3 a. "Production" distinguish the difference between indoor versus outdoor production? Associate Planner Zmolek and Director Smith replied no. However, Associate Planner Zmolek noted that the Performance Standards include a distinguishing factor on size. Chairman Sullivan asked about making a distinction between larger rural residential zones? Director Smith stated that distinction is addressed in item 4 which sets limits for growing structures. In section 4 a., producing is allowed in Forest and Rural Residential zones as a Conditional Discretionary use subject to the recreational marijuana standards and structure size limitation. The Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrator can make the decision on a Conditional Discretionary Use or forward it to a Hearing Examiner for a decision based on the factors surrounding the application. Director Smith stated there was much discussion by staff and Planning Commission members regarding section 4 a. "Producing ", (i) "Permanent or Temporary Growing Structures." It was finally decided that the impact would be on the impervious area or perhaps visual, so they went with a combined allowance for permanent and temporary growing structures on rural residential lands as follows: Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 (4)a.(i)(A) Rural Residential 1:5 — temporary or permanent growing structure size. The allowed structure size is a total combination of square footage of gross floor area for all growing structures. a) Five percent (5 %) of gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum 10,890 square feet gross floor area. (4)a.(i)(B) Rural Residential 1:10 & 1:20 and Forest Resource lands CF -80, RF -40, IF - Greater than 5 acres parcel size temporary or permanent growing structure size. The allowed structure size is a total combination of square footage of gross floor area for all growing structures. a) Five percent (5 %) of gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum of 21,780 square feet gross floor area. Commissioner Kler stated she does not see the difference between (4)a.(i)(A) and (4)a.(i)(B). Director Smith stated the only difference is that it is silent on properties zero to five acres in size that are zoned Rural Residential 1:10. Associate Planner Zmolek added that the difference is the maximum number of square feet allowed for growing structures based on parcel size. Associate Planner Zmolek noted, and Director Smith agreed that staff will recommend to the Planning Commission that the wording in (4)a.(i)(B) "Greater than 5 acres parcel size" be changed to read "All parcels" so that it includes parcels under 5 acres in size that are zoned Rural Residential 1:10 and 1:20. Chairman Sullivan noted that in each of these cases there is a maximum limit, but currently, there is no maximum limit for other types of agricultures. So if one of these uses was converted to another type of agriculture use, would an increase in the size be allowed? Director Smith answered presumably yes, because there is no limit in agriculture zoning. Associate Planner Zmolek stated that a 20 acre parcel could have a recreational marijuana facility for the structures and still have greenhouses off to the side for other agricultural products. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez noted that the maximum grow size allowed under the State's regulations is 21,000 square feet. Associate Planner Zmolek added that there can be more than one grow operation approved for a single parcel. The State maximum grow size is not established on a per parcel basis, it is established on a per premise basis. The State does not allow individuals to have multiple licenses, so each premise or operation would have to be under different ownerships, but could be located on one parcel. Chairman Sullivan asked if the proposed maximum growing structure size is strictly for marijuana or for all types of crops? Director Smith and Associate Planner Zmolek replied it is strictly for marijuana which is stated in the first sentence of item 4. Commissioner Kler stated that the State is combining medicinal and recreational marijuana regulations and she asked if the County will be making any changes in anticipation of the changes to State law? Associate Planner Zmolek replied that County staff is unable to anticipate what changes may be made to State regulations. Commissioner Kler asked if the linkage of recreational and marijuana is necessary for the County's Code? Director Smith replied that County regulations may need to be amended in the future, but, currently, it is unclear what is going to happen at the State level. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 '4 Attorney Alvarez added it is difficult to guess what the State legislature may or may not do with its regulations. Chairman Sullivan noted that would all be unnecessary if the County focused strictly on building size, setbacks and other conditions for all agriculture. So, no matter what the Liquor Control Board did to change things, the County Code would not be affected. Associate Planner Zmolek noted that it would affect the current farmers. Chairman Sullivan stated that limits could be set for future structures on farmland without affecting current farmers, and limits could be set for dealing with the impacts of those structures regardless of what is being grown there. Then the County would not need to be so concerned about what the Liquor Control Board does. This would not be an issue because all agriculture would be treated the same under County Code. Treating marijuana differently makes it complicated, so when there is a change of use, it gets complicated again. We will have a situation where we will limit something because it is marijuana, and then if the operator is not successful and decides to sell to someone else, they can make it bigger. We have not dealt with the size or impact issue which is why he is going to have trouble voting for any of this. Director Smith and Associate Planner Zmolek continued reviewing the proposed Performance Standards. Item (4)d. states that processing and retail in the Agricultural zoning district is allowed as Conditional Discretionary C(d) and shall be subject to the agricultural performance standards in JCC 18.20.030(3) and recreational marijuana performance standards (to be adopted as a new section in JCC 18.20). County Administrator Morley suggested removing the word "following" from the last sentence in item (4)c. "Processing ". He asked why item (4)e. "No recreational marijuana facility may be permitted as a home business. All recreational marijuana activities are subject to the applicable requirements of JCC 18.20 & 18.30." is included in the Performance Standards if it is State law? Associate Planner Zmolek stated they want to make it clear in the County Code because there are home businesses and cottage industries. Sometimes it is left to the interpretation of the administrator, so this makes it clear that marijuana will not be considered as a home business. Director Smith added that staff has tried to parallel some of the Liquor Control Board regulations with the County regulations, because they could change. His understanding of the new law on medical marijuana is that it has to be in someone's home. A group coop has to be located in a home. So staff wants to make it clear that if that is true, recreational marijuana is not included in that allowance. Associate Planner Zmolek noted that home business performance standards would not rise to the level of meeting the buffer, setback and structure size requirements. It is clear that it is a cottage industry. In response to Chairman Sullivan's question about medical marijuana not having to meet the building size and setback to the landscaping, Director Smith stated it is a shifting landscape and it is his understanding that individuals are limited in how many plants they can have which is a small number. Staff does not think it will be an issue, but, the regulations may need to be revisited when changes are made to State law /Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Director Smith and Associate Planner Zmolek reviewed items (4)f. through (4)m. County Administrator Morley asked if item (4)m. allows the County to deny or revoke a County issued permit if an individual does not have a State Liquor Control Board license, or if such a license gets revoked? Director Smith replied that an individual with a County issued permit for a building could use it for another type of use. County Administrator Morley asked if the word "licenses" in item (4)m. should read "licensees ?" P Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 Director Smith replied yes. County Administrator stated it is his understanding that operation plans are subject to periodic amendment. Therefore, he suggests changing the language "their operations plan" to read "all operations plans." Associate Planner Zmolek reviewed the proposed language additions to JCC 18.20.030 "Agricultural activities and accessory uses" addressing recreational marijuana. The use table was also amended to include recreational marijuana in Table 3 -1, JCC 18.15.040. Director Smith stated that staff and the Planning Commission are proposing allowing processing and retailing in Commercial zones, but not allowing producing, and in some case, not allowing processing. The reason is to preserve limited commercial areas for uses that are felt to be more in -line with the purpose statement. Most of the Commercial purpose statements speak of providing the daily needs of residents and people passing by or the traveling public. Approximately 40 applications have been submitted, and 16 (40 %) of those applications are proposed to be located on land which is zoned rural residential. Of those 16 applications, 12 are proposed to be located on land which is zoned rural residential 1:5. Director Smith stated that he feels a desire to preserve the County's values in these rural residential zones that are primarily for residential use. Of course, the County promotes other economic activities, but, the purpose statement says it is for the continuation of residential use. In his view, that expresses the need to insure that any other activity allowed in rural residential zones needs to be compatible and not contrary to the primary use. Chairman Sullivan stated that the proposed activity must be located on "rural residential" zoned land, although, he noticed somewhere in the proposed regulations where the word "residential" was used. Director Smith stated that is a typographical error. County Administrator Morley asked if Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez would review item 7 of the Facts and Findings after today's meeting, to see whether: 1) it captures all the underlying reasons for regulating; 2) it is legally sufficient, should a majority of the Board of County Commissioners wish to regulate and distinguish recreational marijuana separately from the rest of agriculture; and 3) there needs to be a nexus between how it is distinguished from the rest of agriculture and the regulations being proposed for adoption, which was an issued raised by Commissioner Sullivan. Chairman Sullivan agreed that there needs to be a connection. Are the statements in item 7 sufficient to justify the statements in item 17 of the Facts and Findings? It is also mirrored in the answers to the questions found in the "Guidance to Create Findings for MLA14- 00066." Throughout the document there are places where it states "Yes" for recreational marijuana, but, then it does not address the issue of why it is "No" for all other agriculture and why marijuana is different. For example, in the "Guidance to Create Findings for MLA14- 00066" under item 1. a)(i) it states, "Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and /or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? [Answer yes' or `no' and describe why] PC Response: Yes. WSLCB adopted final rules on October 16, 2013 for marijuana producers, processors and retailers, said regulations being codified at Chapter 314 -55 WAC. Jefferson County Code did not cover this use." Chairman Sullivan stated that Jefferson County did cover this use as agriculture, but, now we want to do it as new or different agriculture. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 X, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez explained that he believes that the statement "Jefferson County Code did not cover this use" means that nobody was conceiving recreational marijuana at the time the Code was developed. Chairman Sullivan added that item 1. a)(iii) discusses maintaining "rural character" by controlling the size of structures, setbacks, landscaping for recreational marijuana only, but, not for other agriculture because it is not an issue with other types of agriculture. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez replied that the major issue is that there are a lot of people who do not think that marijuana should have been legalized which is who this is written for. It is for those individuals who feel that if marijuana is going to be legalized, then it needs to be kept out rural residential areas. That is the logic that would support differentiating recreational marijuana from other types of agriculture. Chairman Sullivan stated that he is thinking of it as legislating defensibly because we are liable to be challenged by anyone on either side of the issue. He believes that when Findings and Facts are developed, the issues need to be dealt with from both directions, not just one. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez replied that only the language after `Now, therefore, be it ordained" could be challenged. The other language is explanatory, not regulatory. He does not think the County would be challenged because the Findings are inadequate. He thinks the County would be challenged if it failed to do something. Chairman Sullivan questioned if it has to be consistent with the Findings? Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney replied, it does. We will make it sufficient by saying that there was public concern that recreational marijuana is not typical agriculture because of the high value of the crop; because it is illegal; because it is a controlled dangerous substance, etc. That it is why the regulations are needed, and the County must comply with the State Liquor Control Board. Those are reasons enough to distinguish recreational marijuana from other types of agriculture. It is very hard to challenge a regulation. The Growth Management Act (GMA) gives the Board of County Commissioners discretion as long as it meets the procedural requirements. Chairman Sullivan stated that item 12 in the Facts and Findings mention citizens expressing great concern. He said some did and many others expressed the opposite opinion. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez replied that he would respond that there was enough concern that the County decided to differentiate recreational marijuana. It could be noted that I -502 passed in Jefferson County with a vote of 65 to 35 which is enough to treat it as agriculture and not change anything. But, lawsuits came out of it, there has been public outcry, and many people do not want it in their backyard or their neighbor's backyard. That is enough reason to regulate recreational marijuana separately. Chairman Sullivan agreed that is true, but, he is concerned about not having enough accurate supporting statements to withstand a challenge. Additionally, item 12 states, "...larger projects having resultant impacts not previously known or planned for,..." He stated the County has had the same agriculture Code with the same possibility of having bigger structures and other types of things all along for the last decade or so. It just happens that with recreational marijuana there is somebody potentially doing it. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez stated that recreational marijuana will be a different scale because of the profitability. Chairman Sullivan stated that is what needs to be said, as opposed to all the other things. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 County Administrator Morley stated that is why he requested that Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez review the Facts and Findings to insure that they are complete and legally sufficient, assuming that it is the will of the majority of the Board to regulate recreational marijuana separate from other types of agriculture. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez stated he will review the Facts and Findings and he believes they are defensible. It was agreed that item 12 needs to be formatted into shorter paragraphs. Commissioner Kler stated there are some words in the Facts and Findings that she views as a trigger, such as the word "profoundly" in the first sentence of item 7. She also asked if the statements which say "may" could be worded differently so it does not sound like conjecture? Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez replied that it is conjecture at this point in time. It is unknown what individuals will experience by having a marijuana operation located next door to them. He stated it is important to include the issues from both sides. Chairman Sullivan stated that item 12 states, "...may result in impacts such as increased traffic, noise, light, hours of activity, odors, water supply withdrawals,...", yet the County is only regulating building size, setbacks and screening /landscaping. Director Smith stated that there is a presumption that if you limit the size, setbacks and screening /landscaping, it affects those other impacts. Chairman Sullivan stated that could be stated clearer. Chairman Sullivan asked about the statement in the last sentence of item 12 which states "...for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of all Jefferson County citizens and businesses." Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney stated that is a reference to the general police power of the County. The County has 40 applications which could potentially change the rural character of rural residential land. He would state it as the County is preserving the health, safety and welfare of the rural character. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between recreational marijuana and other types of agriculture. Ms. Zmolek stated that the County will be requiring a Conditional Use Permit which will address issues such as noise, traffic, etc. Director Smith referred to item 7 and stated that the Federal Attorney General's memo was strong and said that States need to have strict regulatory systems in place to avoid the Federal Government from coming down on them. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez added that they must also be strictly enforced. Director Smith stated the actual memo states that the Federal Government is going to "defer" their right to prosecute. He feels that is a very strong statement. That is a big reason why recreational marijuana is different and warrants particular control. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez stated that Chairman Sullivan may want to draft language that addresses his concerns which could be added to the document. Chairman Sullivan stated that he may have a series of amendments, depending on the Planning Commission's recommendation. County Administrator Morley asked the Board to think about any substantial changes they may want to consider. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez reviewed the procedural process and timelines and stated that the existing moratorium will expire on June 11, 2015. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 The meeting was recessed at 3:25 p.m. and reconvened at 3:36 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination • There will be a Transit Board meeting on May 19, 2015. There will be a Budget Committee meeting on May 20, 2015. • Commissioner Johnson will attend a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting in Bremerton on May 20, 2015. • There will be a Planning Commission Hearing on recreational marijuana regulations on May 20, 2015. • The Board of County Commissioners will be holding a Special meeting on May 21, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers. • Commissioner Johnson will coordinate with the Central Services Department to conduct a homeschool group tour on May 21, 2015. • There will be a Board of Health meeting on May 21, 2015. • Commissioner Kler will attend a Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN) and Olympic Consortium Workforce meeting on May 22, 2015. The Haines Place Transit Opening is schedule for May 22, 2015. • Chairman Sullivan and Commissioner Kler will attend Shrimp Fest on May 23 and 24, 2015. • Memorial Day is Monday, May 25, 2015, therefore the Board of County Commissioner meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 26, 2015 and will need to end at 2:30 p.m. • Commissioner Kler will attend a Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board of May 26, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Kler will attend a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting on May 28, 2015. • Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Kler will attend a Coastal Caucus in Seattle on May 29, 2015. • Commissioner Johnson will attend a Sunshine Coffee Dedication on June 8, 2015. • Commissioner Johnson will attend a Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) meeting on June 10, 2015. • Commissioner Kler will attend a Marvin Shields ceremony at the Gardiner Cemetery on June 10, 2015. • Commissioner Kler may attend an American Legion ceremony on June 10, 2015. • Commissioner Kler will attend a Hospice Foundation Breakfast on June 11, 2015. Commissioner Kler and County Administrator Morley will attend the Indian Island Change of Command ceremony on June 11, 2015. There will be a Transit Grand Opening ceremony on June 12, 2015. • Chairman Sullivan will attend a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) tour on June 19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. • Commissioner Johnson will be out of the office July 22 -26, 2015. • County Administrator Morley will be out of the office July 2 -25, 2015. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2015 Miscellaneous Items • Draft letter of support for Clean Cities Electric Vehicle proposal. • Olympic Consortium ILA. • County budget, bonding, hiring RCW review. • Civil Legal representation. • Budget Committee and mid -year funding issues. • Tri-Area property sale letter of interest to the County. Legislative Update: (not discussed) Future Agenda Items: (not discussed) NO, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS, Letter of Support: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve a letter to Andrew Hudgins, Project Leader, National Renewable Energy Laboratory in support of the proposal by Western Washington Clean Cities on behalf of Olympic National Park and other project partners for funding through the Clean Cities National Parks Initiative for electric - vehicle infrastructure. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:26 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. y SEAL: ATTEST: to Erin Lundgren, C1CdC J Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OFJCOMMISSIONERS Johnson, Member Kathleen Kler, Member Page 11