Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060815District 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 June S, 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 the Port Ludlow timber harvest issue; and Four (4) citizens commented on the proposed marijuana regulations. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT: Ferry Advisory Committee (FAC); City of Port Townsend Representative, Planning Director Lance Bailey Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated June 1, 2015 Totaling $2,562.31 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: To allow time for discussion of scheduled agenda items, no updates were provided. DISCUSSION re: Proposed Ordinance Relating to the Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana within Jefferson County: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith and Associate Planner Colleen Zmolek were present to discuss the proposed ordinance relating to the production, processing, and retailing of recreational marijuana within Jefferson County. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez arrived toward the end of the discussion. Ms. Zmolek explained that the ordinance being presented to the Board for approval includes the use table, allowed uses and process as proposed by the Planning Commission. County Administrator Morley noted that the code revisions outlined in the ordinance were recommended by the Planning Commission in a vote of 6 -0 after a public hearing on May 20, 2015. Under the law, the Board has the option to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and take action to adopt the proposed ordinance, or make further changes and hold a separate hearing on those changes. In addition to adopting the proposed regulations there is a substantial group of "Findings" that Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 are included in the ordinance and lay out the process and justification for the code changes. Upon adoption, the regulations would go into effect immediately and repeal the existing moratorium. For clarification purposes, Commissioner Kler requested a slight language change to add the word "outdoor" to paragraph 5 on page 4 so it reads "WHEREAS, the outdoor production of marijuana must comply... ". County Administrator Morley noted that as a matter of process, the Commissioners can amend the language of the "Whereas" statements because they are not regulations in and of themselves. It is the code changes which the Commissioners cannot change without holding a public hearing on the changes. Commissioner Johnson and Chairman Sullivan concurred with making the language change as suggested by Commissioner Kler. Chairman Sullivan stated this has been a challenge. He has difficulty with the approach that is being taken. As noted in some "Whereas" statements, Jefferson County has been very supportive of agriculture. He has been an advocate of dealing with this issue from an approach of impacts based on scale and intensity. Part of the difficulty is trying to deal with this as marijuana, County by County by County. The State has laid this issue on Counties to deal with. It has been brought up that if we deal with issues based on impacts, we might be restrictive on marijuana and could end up being more restrictive on other types of agriculture. That has not been our intent. Agriculture has been one of the areas where we have grown jobs during the recession, it is one of the growing areas of our economy, and it is a place where we have grown jobs with young people. It is not our intent to do anything that would hurt that process. We have put limits on agriculture in critical areas and places where there needs to be a balance with environmental issues. But, this has been done in a very judicious way in trying to meet the needs of both the economy and the environment with hope that both will be better in the long term. He has appreciated that approach over the years. With regard to this issue, he is disappointed that we haven't taken an approach that would deal with the impacts as a separate issue from marijuana. He is finding himself not wanting to support the proposed regulations and wishing that we would take a different approach. We have the moratorium in place. He discussed concerns with the existing code and stated that there are issues that need to be addressed in a way that is balanced and fair and helps us promote agriculture in this County. There is an unfairness with the proposed regulations, and that bothers him. He wants to deal with the impacts such as size and setback restrictions rather than dealing with this as a marijuana issue. He is willing to consider extending and changing the moratorium to deal with the impacts, but he is unable to support the proposed regulations. Commissioner Kler asked Chairman Sullivan if the tension within his offer is whether or not adopting this code would be more harmful than extending the moratorium? Chairman Sullivan replied yes. What he would like to see the moratorium changed to narrow it further using the setback and building size limits we have outlined. He understands the immediate concern is with marijuana businesses, but he would like not to have a blanket conditional use process for all the smaller operations. He also has sympathy for the individuals who in good faith have done a legal economic activity and have started making business plans based on the direction this County was taking. In doing a moratorium, we told them we would have regulations in six months. Then we needed to extend the moratorium for another four months, and now we are feeling pressure because 10 months has not been enough time to deal with it. He appreciates the effort staff and the Planning Commission has put in on this, but they also were pressured by time to deal with this in this way. Every County in the State is trying to grapple with this Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 issue. We are going to have to come back and visit these issues because of the new law regarding medical marijuana. He wants to look at a different type of moratorium, perhaps just on marijuana businesses that establishes setback and size conditions. Commissioner Kler stated she thought that is what we had attempted to do and we ended up with something that doesn't quite fit. Chairman Sullivan stated that he does not think this will solve the concerns people have about marijuana. There are legitimate concerns about marijuana in our community, such as youth using marijuana before they are fully developed. There are reasons to be concerned about marijuana, but he does not think these regulations address those concerns. Commissioner Kler stated that there is misunderstanding that the discretionary conditional process give the power of veto to neighbors. She is hearing that individuals are surprised that they cannot say no and they thought that is what all this was about. Chairman Sullivan noted that it can increase the expense and cause delays for the business owners. But, also he thinks we will end up in frustration. Commissioner Kler agreed and stated that is because neighbors will get to express concern, but not stop a marijuana business, and business owners will have to wait and pay for the hearings. The County is trying to be friendly to both agriculture and business. Establishing code can be done in a reactive mode to deal with the fear and part of the County's response was reactive to the large size of the one operation that was locating in a part of a neighborhood that nobody thought was appropriate. She noted that Chairman Sullivan stated that the County establishes protective codes with regard to critical areas. Where we are running into problems is that this is predictive. We don't know all of the impacts. County Administrator Morley stated the intent of the conditional use permit is not to be a popularity vote in noticing neighbors, but rather allowing issues about offsite impacts to be brought to the attention of the Department of Community Development and in more extraordinary cases, potentially to a hearing examiner so that those issues could be addressed as conditions in the permit to mitigate any impacts. Commissioner Kler stated she understands the intent. What she is hearing from individuals in the community is that a popular understanding is distorted. When people go further into details, she thinks there will be some frustration because of their misunderstanding that notification gives them power to say no. Commissioner Johnson asked Chairman Sullivan if he is basically suggesting that the Board take action to extend the moratorium? Chairman Sullivan replied yes, but limit it to large parcels by using the language in item #4 under "Producing ". Commissioner Johnson stated many individuals want to get their businesses started. Chairman Sullivan stated his idea is to let them do that as long as they don't have a building that is too big or too close to a property line and has appropriate screening. The moratorium would be on anything that is too big and too close as outlined in the moratorium, and then we could develop the code which would formalize the regulations. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 Commissioner Kler asked if the County's existing code contains enough regulation to cover everything else not subject to the moratorium? Chairman Sullivan replied that he thinks we could develop a moratorium that would include some of the language in attachment "D" of the proposed regulations under item #4 which outlines size limits. He would also be willing to consider changing those size limits. Commissioner Kler asked if those size limits could be changed without a public hearing? Chairman Sullivan replied no. If the Board takes action to approve a new moratorium, a public hearing on the moratorium would have to be held within 60 days. Chairman Sullivan would also like to include in the moratorium the setback requirements outlined in item "H ". If the Board approved a moratorium with limits on size and setbacks, then everybody with operations that are smaller and more friendly and appropriate for their neighbors could move forward. This would give the County a chance to deal with this issue and the medical marijuana issue which has some unknown elements. We are going to visit this issue again in a new way Commissioner Kler shares the concern that the County will be facing this again with regard to medical marijuana. Chairman Sullivan stated he feels we need to try to be as friendly as we can be to business interests and as fair as we can be. Commissioner Kler stated last week she looked into the number of County's that still have a moratorium in effect while refining code. Thurston County tried something that is not working and are now redrafting regulations. There are not many Counties that have this worked out. She expressed appreciation to Chairman Sullivan for working so hard on this issue. This has not fit what we have needed, yet she has been hesitant to completely lift the moratorium because there might be issues with scale and intensity. There are many concerns about this new use. Nobody knows how much agriculture land is going to be taken away from food production. How to be cautionary without being overly restrictive comes down to scale and intensity. Commissioner Johnson agrees we are dealing with scale and intensity. It is not only the marijuana producers, it is the people that came here to live a rural quite lifestyle and now have the potential of this encroachment. Jefferson County's agriculture regulations basically allows agriculture anywhere. He does not think that many Realtor's told purchasers that they were buying property that is zoned agriculture. Chairman Sullivan added that this issue also affects rural residential properties zoned RRI :10, RRI:20. Commissioner Johnson stated in some cases the effect on neighboring properties is potential and may or may not happen which is why he is in favor of moving forward with the proposed regulations immediately which will allow people to get started on their projects. Commissioner Kler expressed concern about everything having to go through a conditional discretionary process, in terms of timing, bottleneck, and staff stresses at the Department of Community Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 NV:71 Development. It seems like we are adding to those if every single application must go through that process. Director Smith commented that he realizes this is a difficult issue to get resolution on. The conditional use process is not required for every type of application. It will be used primarily for applications for producing and processing in residential zones. There are other zones where applications will be approved without going through this process. He noted that the Department has had experience with one application that went through a conditional use process which allowed notice to the neighbors and turned out to be beneficial because the neighbors were able to meet the applicant and understand the project which alleviated concern and the project was approved. Associate Planner Zmolek added that the application was for processing with a Cottage Industry permit. The applicant also had to get approval for a lot consolidation. The permit is ready to issue. This is evidence that it does work. It is a process that allows notice to neighbors. Neighbors on both sides of the issue met which gave the hearing examiner some examples of how to facilitate the approval. The conditional use process is important because of the notice to neighbors which makes it possible to have conditions on a permit. Director Smith added that it does not have to be a very burdensome process for DCD staff or the applicant. He commented on the "Findings" of the Planning Commission which were addressed at eight meetings including a public hearing. The members of the Planning Commission heard from many people, including neighbors to these operations who are concerned with their quality of life, property uses, and quiet enjoyment. The Planning Commission was trying balance those concerns with the "wants" of the marijuana proponents. Individuals with agriculture interests also expressed concern about any additional regulation on agriculture as being a potential impact on them. Marijuana is a new industry and so the Planning Commission felt that it deserves an initial cautionary approach. We will revisit this again, but the Planning Commission felt it was wise and appropriate to have something in place because we don't have experience with it. Chairman Sullivan stated that he is sympathetic to working more, but he thinks a lot of the things that Director Smith just mentioned could be addressed by limiting size and setbacks. If we kept the moratorium on that, we can allow everything else to go forward. This will give individuals the choice to wait until the County develops further regulations or making their plans. We don't know what plans individuals may have in terms of size and setbacks and we may find this becomes a non- issue. We do not require conditional use permits for everything. Especially, projects that are not going to have much of an impact on neighbors. In the end, if people locate their projects in smaller buildings and farther away from their neighbors, they will not have much of an impact. After discussion of federal and state regulations with regard to marijuana, Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the proposed Ordinance Relating to the Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana within Jefferson County. Commissioner Kler stated she would like to explore a narrower moratorium that better fits the intent. The motion died for lack of a second. The Board agreed to continue discussion of this topic at 1:30 p.m. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Department of Community Development Director, and Associate Planner regarding Attorney- Client Privilege, Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The actual period of time the Board met in Executive Session on this topic was from 10:04 a.m. to 10:53 a.m. At the conclusion of the Executive Session the Board resumed the regular meeting and took action to authorize staff to begin a negotiation process with Port Ludlow Associates regarding their recent timber harvest. CLOSED SESSION: A Closed Session was scheduled from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. with the County Administrator, Prosecuting Attorney, Assessor, Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff, Treasurer, Public Works Director, Public Health Director, Clerk of the Board, and outside Labor Relations Consultant to discuss strategy or position for Collective Bargaining as excluded from the Open Public Meetings Act outlined in RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). The actual period of time the Board met in Closed Session on this topic was from 11:00 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. At the conclusion of the Closed Session the Board resumed the regular meeting. The meeting was recessed at 12:05 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. CONTINUED DISCUSSION and FINAL ACTION re: Proposed Ordinance Relating to the Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana within Jefferson County: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith, Associate Planner Colleen Zmolek and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez were present to discuss the proposed ordinance relating to the production, processing, and retailing of recreational marijuana within Jefferson County. Commissioner Kler explained that the discussion was continued because she wanted more information on Chairman Sullivan's suggestion to extend and change the moratorium and there was not enough time to explore that option during the morning session due to other scheduled items on the agenda. Chairman Sullivan stated that he expressed his concerns this morning, so he will not repeat them again. His suggestion is a compromise to modify and extend the existing moratorium (Ordinance No.01 -0209- 15 adopted February 9, 2015). Language in the second bullet on page five (5) of the existing moratorium would be replaced with the following language from the Planning Commissions proposed regulations: Production and processing of marijuana at a parcel or parcels designated Rural Residential 1:5 where the temporary or permanent growing structure size is a total combination of square footage of gross floor area for all growing structures less than five percent (5%) of gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum 10,890 sfgross floor area, or designated Rural Residential 1:10 & 1:20 and Forest Resource lands CF -80, RF 40, or IF where the temporary or permanent growing structure size is a total Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 X�c combination of square footage of gross floor area for all growing structures is less than five percent (5 %) of the gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum of 21,780 sf of gross floor area, and that have a minimum 25 feet setback from all property lines including front road setbacks that abut Residential zoned land and have Type A landscape screening from adjacent parcels, per Jefferson County code 18.30.130, Development Standards. Chairman Sullivan stated that by making these changes applications can be reviewed based on scale and intensity, and individuals will be allowed to continue with their plans as long as they meet the size, setback, and screening limitations. Associate Planner Zmolek stated that it is her understanding this would implement certain Planning Commission's recommended performance standards in a moratorium. She explained that if the Board approves such a modified moratorium, DCD staff would need to review every process against the moratorium without a permit, which is a huge process for them. Based on the discussion this morning, it appears the biggest concern is the conditional discretionary use in Residential and Forest land designated zones. She asked that the Board consider the fact that staff cannot anticipate every property's configuration and potential conflict. This varies greatly depending upon each project's individual traits. A conditional use process allows for site specific issues to be addressed. Eliminating a conditional use process and only using specific development standards for each proposal use will leave us vulnerable to unanticipated conflicts. The development standards are developed to address most of these issues, but with new industry, they may not cover all issues. We heard loud and clear from the public that they want to be noticed and want the opportunity to comment. The public citizens against it have said that while they do not like the conditional use process, they are willing to accept the process allowing public participation and noticing. Her biggest concern with the proposal to modify and extend the existing moratorium is that it does not allow for public participation or the opportunity to comment on projects proposed in Residential and Forest land designated zones. Director Smith stated he is concerned about the additional time demand on DCD staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners, should another moratorium be enacted. Chairman Sullivan stated the Board shares that concern. He regrets that we have not spent the last 10 months as wisely as we could have. He thinks we could be a lot farther along. Modifying and extending the existing moratorium is more desirable than doing nothing and letting the moratorium lapse. He would rather do something that is fair to business, fair to the people who have acting in good faith and addresses the concerns of small property owners. We have to judge whether or not a conditional use process is needed if these conditions are in place. He weighs this against what the County's conditions are for projects that are bigger, more intrusive, and have a greater impact. That is also part of the equation. By strictly focusing on marijuana, we are saying that certain individuals cannot have as big an impact as other individuals have and that certain neighbors will have less of an impact than what other neighbors could expect. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez asked what will be done with the performance standards? Chairman Sullivan replied nothing would be done with them in this proposal. County Administrator Morley stated another option that the Board could consider is to adopt the ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission and set a timeframe, as is done with a moratorium, for Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 considering further modifications. The timeframe could be similar to a moratorium, nested with the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas updates, or we could set a timeframe that would allow us to get some experience with conditional use permits to see if there are additional off site impacts that we have not addressed in the performance standards. Perhaps, once we have completed the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas updates then we could perfect the marijuana regulations. He sympathizes with Chairman Sullivan's perspective of uniform scale and intensity concerns. So this could be a sequencing to address those concerns in the future. Chairman Sullivan stated that would take several years. County Administrator Morley agreed. Chairman Sullivan stated that we will probably be reviewing these regulations again because of the recent law change with regard to medical marijuana. Commissioner Kler stated that a sticking point for her is that we have experience in other types of agriculture and even though the argument keeps coming up that this shouldn't be about marijuana, it is marijuana and we do not know yet what is ahead and whether the fears are founded or not, but it has colored how we have been making this decision. So it does come down to the fact that this is about marijuana. Whether or not our code is fair, because we are focusing on marijuana, is difficult to judge with all of these moving pieces. It is unknown what is ahead regarding medical marijuana and weaving that into our use seems to her an ongoing challenge. This is not the finished point, but can we have a set point and then move from there? Chairman Sullivan stated he understands, which is why he is offering this compromise, because he sees his proposal as less unfair that what the Planning Commission has proposed which strictly addresses marijuana which is counter to the philosophical point and practical point he has been making for the business owners. After two moratoriums and 10 months later he does not feel that what is being proposed addresses the issues in the way he feels comfortable with. Commissioner Kler stated that it is difficult to reach a full point of satisfaction on a moving target. Chairman Sullivan agreed. He believes it is a moving target because we have not focused on scale and intensity and impacts. Instead, we focused on the subject of marijuana and tried to make it fit. If we dealt with it based on scale and intensity we would be able to address concerns. What code does not address is the size of buildings because of the agriculture exemption, and the setbacks. Commissioner Kler stated that what we could not address with existing code is neighbor notification because it is marijuana. Chairman Sullivan agreed, and added that notifying neighbors may possibly delay the project with a hearing examiner process and probably would not have a material impact unless there was cooperative agreement between the neighbors. If projects are setback far enough, have screening, and are small scale, they are not going to have those kinds of impacts. The concerns people have about marijuana are not land use concerns, they are social concerns which will not be addressed in the code. This is not going to solve some of the real community problems about marijuana. Commissioner Johnson stated he thinks we need to move forward with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt the proposed regulations and work on refining them as needed. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 Director Smith stated that this ordinance will allow for some protection while we get more experience and familiar with it. This will need to be revisited in the future. But, right out of the gate, will give the community some protections. Chairman Sullivan stated that "protection" is a very strong word for a business that is screened, setback, and smaller than what is already allowed for other things. Protection from what? Commissioner Kler added that the State Liquor Control Board uses the word "Site Obstructing ", which is not structural, it is visual. Director Smith noted that the ability to do processing and producing in Rural Commercial zones would also be eliminated in the modified and extended moratorium proposal. All the other performance standards would be eliminated as well. Commissioner Kler moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 04- 0608 -15 Relating to the Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana within Jefferson County, with the addition of the word "outdoor" to paragraph five on page 4 so it reads "WHEREAS, the outdoor production of marijuana must comply... ". Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Chairman Sullivan stated he understands the undesirable alternatives. He called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Kler and Commissioner Johnson vote in favor of the motion. Chairman Sullivan voted against the motion. The motion carried. COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination: • Commissioner Kler will attend a Developmental Disability Advisory Board (DDAB) meeting on May 26, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. • Commissioner Sullivan and County Administrator Morley will attend a JeffCOM meeting on May 28, 2015 • Chairman Sullivan and County Administrator Morley will attend a North Olympic Development Council (NODC) meeting on May 28, 2015 • Commissioner Kler will attend a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG) meeting on May 28, 2015 • County Administrator Morley and Central Services Director Gifford will attend a meeting regarding the Tri Area Food Bank on May 29, 2015 • Commissioner Kler and Commissioner Johnson will attend a Sound Choice meeting on May 29, 2015 • Commissioner Johnson will be out of the office on June 1, 2015 • Commissioner Johnson will attend a Sunshine Coffee dedication on June 8, 2015 • Commissioner Kler will attend a Tourism Coordinating Council meeting on June 9, 2015 • Commissioner Kler will attend a Substance Abuse Advisory Board meeting on June 9, 2015 • Commissioner Johnson will attend a Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) meeting on June 10, 2015 Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 • Commissioner Kler will attend a Marvin Shields ceremony at the Gardiner Cemetery on June 10, 2015 • Commissioner Kler will 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 • There will be a `World's Largest" swim lesson on June 18, 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 June 21, 2015 through July 4, 2015 • County Administrator Morley will be out of the office July 2 -25, 2015 • Commissioner Johnson will be out of the office July 22 -26, 2015 Miscellaneous Items: (not discussed) Legislative Update: (not discussed) Future Agenda Items: (not discussed) The meeting was recessed at 2:15 p.m. and reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. UPDATE re: Quilcene Acquisitions 2012 Project (RCO #12- 1384C); James and Henderson Properties: Public Health Department Environmental Health Specialist Tami Pokorny was present to provide an update on the Quilcene Acquisitions 2012 Project (RCO #12- 1384C). She stated that Jefferson County has had a grant since 2012 to receive funding from the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Salmon Recovery Funding Board to acquire properties in the Quilcene Floodplain. When this project initially began, two different properties had been identified for acquisition, but efforts to acquire them were ultimately unsuccessful. With approval of the RCO and the lead entity, County staff has identified two substitute properties: 1) Henderson property located at 195 Rodgers Street, Quilcene, WA; and 2) James property located off of Fremont Avenue, Quilcene, WA. A comparative market analysis was completed for the James property indicating a value below $10,000. An appraisal of the Henderson property indicates a value of $28,000. County Administrator Morley asked if the funding for the acquisition is entirely RCO funded? Ms. Pokorny replied that the funding is coming from a match bank that was created when the properties on the Lazy C were purchased several years ago. This project and the 2012 Dosewallips /Duckabush project are the last opportunities to use this match funding mostly because the time eligibility is almost exhausted, but the funding is almost exhausted as well. County Administrator Morley asked what is the required funding match? Ms. Pokorny replied 15 %. In 2015, Public Works has offered to provide Title III of Secure Rural Schools funding to match the grant Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 we are pursuing this year. They would also potentially be available with that fund if there was a desire to negotiate if necessary. Commissioner Kler stated that if these properties are purchased by the County they are taken off of the tax rolls. She stated that the appraised value of these properties is not huge, and she asked if there is an estimate of the amount of taxes these properties generated. County Administrator Morley replied that it would be very low and that she could get a more precise amount from the Assessor Jeff Chapman. He noted that taking such action would shift the tax burden to other tax payers. It is not lost revenue, except there could be a very small amount of lost revenue in the case of the EMS levy which is already at its statutory maximum. Ms. Pokorny added that the community is excited about the economic development potential of having a trail system which would be part of the ultimate restoration and education opportunities in keeping pollution out of the river. County Administrator Morley asked if there is any aspect of this project to remove structures? Ms. Pokorny replied yes, that would be the next step. The grant funding would pay for acquisition and restoration. County Administrator Morley asked if Ms. Pokorny will be presenting information on the estimated cost of the restoration? Ms. Pokorny replied yes she can do that. County Administrator Morley stated that before the Board takes action to approve the acquisition, it would be helpful if staff could share more information on the total cost of the project. Ms. Pokorny stated she can submit the budget for the project along with the acquisition authorization approval request for consideration by the Board at a fixture meeting. Ms. Pokorny will conduct the project management of the remediation efforts. In terms of next steps, Ms. Pokorny asked if would be better to request negotiating latitude with the consent of Public Works, or whether she should request an Executive Session with the Board? There is a misconception on the size of the lot. The property owners thought it was 40,000 square feet and are asking $49,500 for the property. The appraiser identified it as only 30,000 square feet in size with an appraised value of $28,000 which is quite a bit less than the asking price. The probability of a counter -offer is likely. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board will not pay more than the appraised value for the property unless there is some fault with the appraisal. However, there may be other options because Public Works is more invested in these properties and their location. County Administrator Morley stated that he would think Ms. Pokorny would want general authorization to negotiate based on the appraisal information and bring back a proposed settlement for final approval by the Board. He suggested Ms. Pokorny discuss the process with Public Works staff and report to County Administrator Morley about future action. Page I1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015 y` NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:25 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: Erin Lundgren, C C Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF OMMISSIONERS Davi u livan, a r Phil Johnson, ember Kathleen Kler, Member Page 12