Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102300District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole District No. 2. Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of October 23, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt in the presence of Commissioners Dan Harpole and Glen Huntingford. COUNTYADMINISTRA TORS BRIEFING SESSION: Charles Saddler and Assessor Jack Westerman reviewed the impacts of two proposed initiatives on the November election ballot. Initiative 722: · Rolls back tax and fee increases (made between certain dates) and will require some identified taxes and fees to be refunded to taxpayers. · Limits increases in property values to 2% or the rate of inflation. · Impacts the County's ability to levy taxes and raise income. The impact will be to the County levy which includes the General Fund, Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Veterans Relief. The General Fund levy is the total levy amount less what is levied for Mental Health, Development Disabilities and Veterans Relief. The worse case impact in the County would be on the Quilcene and Brinnon Fire Districts. · The refund wording in Section 1 ofi-722 may be challenged in the Courts. · $436,000 will be lost in taxing capacity from 1-695 and I- 722. Initiative 745: · Taxes for roads need to be spent where trips are generated. · Street lighting or curb and gutter maintenance would not be eligible for funding unless there was a health and safety concern. · The State and Counties pay for traffic enforcement out of road funds. There is a question if this would be allowed under 1-745. · This initiative remands the issue back to the State Legislature to make it work. There will have to be considerable thought and debate on how it will be instituted. · There is concern about the impact this initiative would have on the local Transit initiative that just passed. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Several residents from Brinnon were present to ask the Board to keep the Bayshore Motel open; the motel must be making a profit; the Public Works Department has not given them any data that shows that the motel isn't making money; the Brinnon Seniors feel they can run the motel at a profit and don't understand why it is being closed down; they need to keep the motel open; (Charles Saddler reported that OIyCAP and the County are working on an agreement to have OlyCAP take over the facility in early November. The County is going to close the motel, but it is his understanding that OlyCAP will reopen the motel under their management. They expect to have the agreement to the Board for their approval soon); a request for 500 to 1,000 County newsletters about the Th Area provisional UGA; can the Tri Area fbrm its own water district?; and what will a Water Conservancy Board do for the Th Area? APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve and adopt all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING NOTICE re: CDBG Block Grant Application Supporting Several Activities Benefitting Lower Income Persons; Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP); Set for Monday, November 6, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers RESOLUTION NO. 83-00 re: Declaration of Surplus County Personal Property and Authorization for Disposal (surplus computer components - less that $2,500 in value.) AGREEMENT re: Appraisal Services Larry Scott Memorial Park Trail Right of Way Acquisitions; Jefferson County Public Works; Stowe Appraisal, Inc. Appoint Person to Serve an unexpired term on the Jefferson County Substance Abuse Programs Advisory Board; Term Expires 2/9/02; Laura Lee Nastri Appoint Person to Serve a term on the Jefferson County Developmental Disability Board; Term Expires 10/23/03; Kirsten Behrenfeld Sportsmen's Club Representatives re: Shooting Range Issues: John Minor, President of the Sportsmen's Club, submitted a letter detailing the change in hours. The Club members have discussed these changes and agree to implement them if the County approves. They are: Monday Closed Tuesday through Friday 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday Noon to 4 p.m. Law enforcement agencies are restricted from night firing during Daylight Savings Time. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 The Board reviewed the proposal and advised they feel this is a good strategy. John Minor advised that the members are not allowed to shoot after dark and that they want to be good neighbors. They will have a full time caretaker at the shooting range as soon as they can get water to the site. Chairman Wojt asked how someone becomes a member of the Sportsmen's Club? John Minor replied that anyone interested in becoming a member can fill out an application. They cannot be a felon; but other than that, the Club is open to anyone. The Club dues maintain the site and fund the improvements. Update and Discussion of Conservation Futures Tax: Several members of the Jefferson County Land Trust were present to request that the Board approve a Conservation Futures Tax. Kees Kolff, President of the Land Trust, stated that The Land Trust Alliance reported that in1999 there were 92 referenda passed in counties around the nation supporting taxation for open space. In Washington State there are 12 counties that collect this tax. Sara Spaeth explained that this tax would allow the purchase of critical habitat and compensate private property owners for environmentally sensitive areas. The County, the Land Trust, and other organizations have already identified critical areas in the County where these funds might be utilized. The support for this type of tax is stronger than it was several years ago when it was first proposed. Larry Dennison added that the Salmon ESA and recovering salmon stocks is a critical issue. There have already been many positive salmon recovery efforts in the County. There are several volunteer organizations that have worked together to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore local salmon habitat. The Conservation Futures Tax won't provide all the money that is needed, but it gives the County the ability to leverage the money into a greater fund. They plan to promote a public sector partnership. Commissioner Harpole noted that the County received a proposal from Cedar River Associates for approximately $13,000 to do some aspects of this work. He asked if there is any way to move forward without spending that kind of money? Sara Spaeth answered that she feels the County has the in-house expertise to do the work and the Conservation Futures Tax allows for expenditure of funds for administration of the fund. Larry Dennison added that Cedar River Associates' proposal addressed the feasibility (advisability) of the tax. The Land Trust feels that this type of work could be accomplished by an advisory board. Kees Kolffrecommended an advisory board of 10 members, including a salmon expert, with the option of expanding to a total of 13 members. Tom Jay explained that regulations for salmon recovery on private property could lead to a difference of opinion between County residents regarding open space. The Conservation Futures Tax (CFT) is a chance to bring people together and build community. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 County Administrator Charles Saddler explained that RCW 84.34 allows the County Commissioners to approve a levy of up to 6¼ cents per $1,000 of assessed value for the purpose of buying property, easements or development rights for open space conservation. This tax is within the levy lid. The assessed valuation of the County could raise approximately $136,000 per year for a CFT. If this tax is levied at the maximum rate, the tax would be $6.25 per year on a $100,000 home. This tax can be used to obtain bonds and Jefferson County could bond about $1.5 million to purchase such properties. The tax is strictly for purchasing property or development rights, not maintenance of properties. He noted that RCW 82.46 would allow levying an additional excise tax for purchase and maintenance of property. The Cedar River Associates work plan included tasks that can be done using staff and volunteer resources. The costs associated with development of the program are refundable out of the tax proceeds, but that does not factor in the maintenance of the properties. There are several programs available to the County to help with protection and preservation of open space, timber land, and farm land areas. There is a question if this tax could be used for takings issues because it was implemented before takings became an issue and does not address them. In 1999 the Board adopted Resolution No. 43-99 directing the "Establishment of a Conservation Futures Advisory Board ( to provide report to BOCC before November 1, 1999 on the Conservation Futures Tax Program). "This resolution was approved in May 1999, but the full membership of the advisory board was never brought together. Work on the resolution was shelved due to the impacts of 1-695. The Natural Resource Policy Analyst did some research work on this program, but this staff position is currently vacant and unfunded in the 2001 budget. The work plan is not overly ambitious and could be done by staff, the advisory board, and volunteers. Charles Saddler reminded the Board that the County budget for next year is facing a funding shortfall. This additional tax is being proposed at a time when taxpayers are concerned with higher taxes. The CFT can only be used for purchasing property. There is the problem of maintenance once the acquisition is made. If the Board moves forward with this tax, he urged them to review the provisions of Resolution No. 43-99 and to add research on the issue of maintenance to the advisory board's tasks. The discussion continued regarding how the program would be put together. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the current trend for taxpayers doesn't appear that they would support another tax. What does this demonstrate to taxpayers about the Board's understanding of their concerns about higher taxes? Commissioner Harpole advised that he feels the message about taxation has more to do with taxes at the State level. The most recent initiative in this County was for the Transit system and it passed overwhelmingly. He wants to impose the Conservation Futures Tax now. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 Commissioner Harpole moved to set a heating date for adoption of a Conservation Futures Tax and to establish an Advisory Committee that will be required to do the tasks listed in Resolution 43-99 with an additional task regarding operation and maintenance and all these tasks will be done before any funds are used for property acquisition or purchase of easements. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion because Commissioner Huntingford would not. Commissioner Huntingford questioned if this tax could be reversed by the approval of the initiatives on the November ballot? Charles Saddler answered that the Prosecuting Attorney would have to give an opinion on that question. Chairman Wojt called for the vote on the motion. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carded. A public hearing will be scheduled on November 13 or 27, 2000. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES David Christensen re: Update on Request to Establish a Water Conservancy Board: Dave Christensen, Environmental Health, reported that a petition was received from PUD #1 requesting that a Water Conservancy Board (WCB) be established. The Board held a public heating on this petition and asked for additional information including draft by-laws. There are draft by-laws in the Board's packet including notes on unresolved issues. There were concerns about Water Conservancy Board members requiring continuing education credits and it is assumed that this is a State Department of Ecol°gy function. There has been a court case that changed the scope and purpose of these Boards. They are no longer allowed to transfer types of use (i.e. agricultural to municipal) or ownership (i.e. Citizen sells water rights to the PUD.) PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: Adoption of the Solid Waste Management Plan: Richard Talbot, Public Works Department, reported that public comments were received on the preliminary draft from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission; the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, the Forest Service in Quilcene, and the State Department of Ecology. A letter was received from the DOE agreeing with the changes made in the Plan to address their comments and recommending adoption. The Port Townsend City Council adopted the plan with the condition that the population data be revised if necessary after the 2000 census is completed. The City will be asked for a resolution of adoption after the Board takes action on the plan. No other comments were received during the public review period. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 Chairman Wojt asked how the population figures effect the plan? Richard Talbot answered that population figures are used in Table 2.4 - the projection of solid waste tonnages; the waste rate per capita and the recycling rate. Table 2.1 (page 3) shows the distribution of population between incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. Gary Rowe added that the plan is required to be updated regularly, so new population figures, when they are issued, can be updated in the plan during the regular update process. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comments for or against the Solid Waste Management Plan, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that on page 2.13 the plan indicates that 5,673 tons are recycled or composted. He asked why composting and recycling amounts are added together? The consultant advised that these figures will be clarified in the final plan. Gary Rowe added that the table that follows on page 2.14 clarifies the figures. Richard Talbot explained that everything that doesn't go to the landfill is considered waste diversion. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 84-00 adopting the 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan as a Jefferson County Planning document and approving implementation. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. WORKSHOP re: Unified Development Code (UDC): A1 Scalf, Director of Community Development, explained that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. The UDC will implement the Comprehensive Plan as written. The drafting of the UDC has been done in a public forum. The staff and consultants have been working on behalf of the Board to draft this document. November 20 is the last day the Commissioners can change, add, or subtract from the draft ordinance. The Commissioners will receive a report from the Planning Commission on the draft ordinance. Warren Hart, Planning Manager, submitted and reviewed a revised workshop schedule and UDC adoption schedule that outlines the Planning Commission's and the Board of Commissioners' activities. The Planning Commission will finish their deliberations on the draft ordinance on November 9, and between then and Novemberl3 the Planning Commission and staff will prepare their reports for the Board. The Board of Commissioners will have their own public hearing on the document. Any revisions to the draft UDC will be brought forward at the November 13 workshop. Commissioner Huntingford expressed concern that the Board has not had time to provide feedback on the draft document compared to the amount of review and discussion by the Planning Commission. He asked when the Board will have the same level of discussion on the document as the Planning Commission? A1 Scalfpointed out that the Board needs to give staff their input on the draft at these workshops. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 Commissioner Huntingford asked when the Board will discuss the proposed setbacks in the UDC? Why have they been changed from the setbacks in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that the County has always followed? Is there a problem with the UBC setbacks? Commissioner Huntingford feels that the Board has not talked about real issues that will affect property owners. A1 Scalfreminded the Board that the time frame for review and adoption of the UDC is tight. Warren Hart explained that the Planning Commission's statutory role as an advisory board is to act as the eyes and ears of the public and come forward with a recommendation. The Board has received copies of the Planning Commission minutes and the testimony that has been submitted. Staff has been working on behalf of the County Commissioners to prepare this Board initiated ordinance. The draft ordinance is an attempt to address items reviewed over the past months. The Planning Commission will make their recommendation and the Board will be able to make changes before the ordinance is published for public hearing. The draft that is approved by the Commissioners will be published. Warren Hart asked that the Board members give directions to staff today to make changes that they feel are necessary. The staff is doing their best to address all of the comments and changes suggested. Charles Saddler noted that a matrix will be included with the UDC that indicates the items that need to be addressed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The draft ordinance published for the public hearing may not be the same as the ordinance that is adopted. Commissioner Harpole stated that the published ordinance needs to reflect the Board's directions because if any substantial changes are made the draft ordinance would have to be republished. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez stated that he will provide a separate legal review of the UDC before November 13. There may be legal issues from that review that will require revisions in the original draft. Other items may need to be discussed in executive session. A1 Scalf reminded everyone that the legal review provided by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office is an attorney/client document and is not a public document. The following sections were reviewed: · Section 6 - Development Standards: Road standards and the Stormwater Management Manual are adopted. The major highlights show areas where discussion from the Board or the Planning Commission is necessary. · Setbacks: Commissioner Harpole asked which section in the UDC addresses increased setbacks? Warren Hart answered that the consultant suggested new setbacks for zoning areas. The 5 foot setback would be the same setback as an urban area such as the city would use. There is a 10 foot setback for new lots (5, 10 or 20 acres.) If the 10 foot setback won't work for an existing lot of record, then a 5 foot setback is allowed. A1 Scalf commented that a 5 foot setback is a urban standard being used in a rural area. The Board directed that the setback be set at 5 feet. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 Exemptions for Political Campaign Signs: Warren Hart advised that there were a few changes made to the sign code. The new language requires that campaign signs be removed 72 hours after the election or termination of candidacy. Commissioner Huntingford asked who is going to enforce this regulation? Section 7 - Subdivisions: Changes include: · Extinguishing lots within entirely undeveloped, pre-1937, sub-standard plats. · Boundary line adjustment procedures. · Binding site plan procedures. · Exemption of properties 40 acres or larger from having to go through the subdivision process. Commissioner Harpole asked for clarification about the lots in the undeveloped pre-1937, sub-standard plats. A1 Scalf answered that the lots are in one ownership and undeveloped. There are 19 subdivisions that will be affected. Staff will research how many actual lots are included in these subdivisions. The property owners can use the provisions of the UDC such as clustering to develop buildable lots because currently these lots are unbuildable. Extinguishing the lots in these subdivisions means that the lot is no longer a lot of record and the property owner will not be able to sell the lots. Commissioner Huntingford stated his concern for these property owners rights. Clearing and Grading: The UDC does not require a clearing and grading permit but it does regulate the impact of clearing and grading on property. A stormwater permit is required at a certain threshold. Jim Pearson, Public Works advised that the stormwater management process addressed this, but there is no permit required. The ordinance does not regulate constructing cuts and fills. This ordinance requires an approved plan if more than 10,000 square feet of land will be disturbed. Best Available Science will be available for the Board's review on November 6, 2000. Parking: Commissioner Harpole suggested an incentive strategy for businesses with common walls and impervious surfaces to share the same parking space by operating different hours. Section 3 - Wetland Mitigation: Commissioner Harpole interjected a comment about wetland mitigation. He noted that feedback from around the State shows that wetland mitigation has been marginally successful at best. Why put it into policy? Jim Pearson answered that mitigation is a series of steps and avoidances. Warren Hart added that this allows the Administrator a criteria and strategy when a violation occurs. Section 6 - Impervious Surface Coverage Requirements: Commissioner Huntingford stated that in rural crossroads and commercial designations there needs to be more flexibility to allow people with large parcels to use the property. Warren Hart replied that these numbers were an attempt to address the 4(d) Rule. Randy Kline pointed out that there are no longer minimum lot sizes in commercial areas. These areas are governed by performance standards through impervious surface, health or water, and setbacks. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 23, 2000 AGREEMENT, Amendment I re: YIPPEE After School Program Services; LilHan Hilton: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the amendment to this professional services agreement, as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board Richard Wojt, Chair Glen Hunt~ Dan Harpole, Page 9