Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121701District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 17, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners Richard Wojt and Dan Titterness were both present. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith updated the Board on the E-911 Users Group and communications from the East Jefferson County Fire Chiefs' Association. The goals of the Users Group are: · to increase response · to improve capabilities of the E-911 system · to convert the system to a user-based system which will reduce the subsidy from the General Fund · to create a stand alone department The Fire Chiefs have concerns about the current E-911 operations and priorities within the Sheriff' s Department. The County plans to move the Dispatch Center away from the County Jail. In order to make a stand alone department, a person with the necessary experience would need to be hired under contract to oversee the transition. The Sheriff supports this change if it is done correctly. The Fire Chiefs want this transition completed in 2002. There is approximately $50,000 in excess funds in the E-911 account that the Users Group has contributed over the past year. Their recommendation is to use those funds to contract with an individual who will review the dispatch operations and develop a report and transition plan. An RFP needs to be advertised. By the end of February they could have the position filled and the transition plan could probably be done within 90 days after the person was hired. The Board agreed that they want to see this project move forward. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: several people voiced concerns regarding a Planning Commission member's behavior at the meetings; a small industrial business owner in Glen Cove commented that much of the industrial park is now zoned residential and it is becoming more of a retail center than an industrial park; support for redistricting Option 1; and support for the LAMIRD option at Glen Cove. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 moved to delete Items 2 and 7 from the Consent Agenda and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 3. 4. 5. 10. 11. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 94-01 re: Standard Vacation of a Portion of Pear Street in the Plat of Irondale Orchard Tracts; Laurie Olafson, Petitioner DELETE Hearing Notice re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Fees for Parks & Recreation; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2001 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers NOTICE OF COURTHOUSE CLOSURE; Monday, December 24, 2001 at 12:00 p.m. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services; Update Personnel Policy and Create Employee Handbook; Caitlin O'Reilly, Roadmaps for Success AGREEMENT, #01-64021-023 re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding for Lead Based Paint Abatement; Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP); Washington State Office of Community Development AGREEMENT re: Administration of Community Development Block Grant Funding from the Washington State Office of Community Development; Housing Rehabilitation, Lead Based Paint Abatement; Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP) DELETED Agreement re: Construction Services, Segment 2/Contract 1; Larry Scott Memorial Park, Project No. CR1069; Jefferson County Public Works; Seton Construction (See item later in minutes.) DEED re: Right to Use Land for Open Space and Conservation Purposes; Neibenfuhr/Nylund Aquisition, Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), Little Quilcene River Enhancement; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Ecology Resignations; Two (2) Members Serving on the Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; Carol Brockett and Charles O. Cole Reappointment; Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; Ben Gracz, to Serve Another Three (3) Year Term Expiring 11/16/04 Appointment of Two (2) New Members to Serve on the Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; Laura Joshel, To Serve a Full Three (3) Year Term Expiring 12/17/04; and Bob Minty, to Serve an Unexpired Term Expiring 9/02/02 Resignation; Member Serving on the Jefferson County Substance Abuse Services Advisory Board; Dennis Kelly WORKSHOP re: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and Parks & Recreation Plan: Jim Pearson, Public Works Department, reported that the Parks Advisory Board and the Non-mortorized Transportation Task Force have been working on this project. Public forums have been held in several communities throughout the County and potential projects have been identified. The Consultant, Tom Beckwith, has put together a listing of typical project construction costs and property acquisition will be required on some of the projects. The main focus currently is the public survey. The contacts have been made, recruitment calls completed, and the surveys are being sent out. They plan to have the survey results by the end of the year. The survey will provide input from the general public and not just people who are advocates of parks and recreation. The topics include facility priorities, funding sources, and the level of funding that the residents would support. This survey information is being gathered to assist the Board in Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 making decisions about projects and funding mechanisms. Chairman Huntingford pointed out the amounts from several funding sources that are listed and asked if they are realistic? Parks and Recreation Manager Warren Steurer answered that at this point in the process, they listed all possible sources for funding that may be available. The Consultant added that the results of the survey will narrow the range of possibilities to help determine funding strategies. He added that the funding sources they listed are trends that they have seen in other counties. He reminded the Board that these are 6 and 20 year scenarios. Tom Beckwith explained that there are parks and recreation facilities that are for regional users and local facilities for specific communities. An option for funding local facilities is to have recreation service areas within the school districts. Chairman Huntingford noted that in the survey the existing inventory of County non-motorized transportation roads and trails is estimated at $500 for every registered vehicle in the County and that impact fees on motor vehicles are mentioned as a funding source. Tom Beckwith replied that the GMA allows impact fees to be collected for parks, transportation, and schools. This includes non-motorized transportation because some forms of non-motorized transportation use roadways, trails, or walkways. Chairman Huntingford asked how the people who were surveyed were chosen? The consultant explained a random selection of residents in the telephone book were contacted by telephone and then sent the survey. They want input froml00 residents and so they recruited 200. They will begin the recalling these residents which usually takes about 1-2 weeks to complete the process. Chairman Huntingford stated that funding sources are becoming fewer each year and there are essential facilities projects that the County needs to do. The Board will have to make hard decisions on the priority of this plan and how to fund the projects that are recommended. WORKSHOP re: Redrawing the Glen Cove LAMIRD Boundary: Director of Community Development A1 Scalf reviewed the history of development in the Glen Cove area. This workshop is to review the proposed criteria used for redrawing the interim boundary in Glen Cove. He submitted a copy of the Comprehensive Plan that deals with industrial land designations and lists the 1994 zoning, the changes made in 1998, and the allowable uses. The narrative states that the heavy industrial boundary for the Port Townsend Paper Company and the light industrial/commercial boundaries in Glen Cove are interim boundaries to be revisited upon completion of the Glen Cove/Tri Area Special Study. In 1998, the industrial/commercial property in this area went from 295.9 acres to 68.96 acres pending the completion of the Special Study to determine if Glen Cove will become a UGA. This was done at the request of the City of Port Townsend to preserve planning options. The other light industrial areas throughout the County were downzoned similarly with the provision that they were interim boundaries and would also be reviewed. It is proper at this time to address these interim boundaries. The Board needs to decide if they Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 want to look at all of the interim boundaries or just the Glen Cove area. The criteria for this review is based on SB 6094. Commissioner Wojt clarified that revisiting interim boundaries countywide does not necessarily mean that changes will be made to those boundaries. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment process would need to be followed. Associate Planner Randy Kline distributed copies of Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 00-2-0062C. In this case the WWGMHB laid out an analytical framework that discusses the provisions of the GMA that deal with limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs.) Randy Kline explained that this is the framework they will be using to revisit the Glen Cove boundary. The definition of built environment has been expanded and clarified compared to the definition that was used when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. They plan to concentrate on local circumstances and the historic use of the Glen Cove area. There will be a parcel by parcel analysis of all the properties that they want to include in an expanded Glen Cove boundary, based on the present built environment and several other factors. The analysis needs to be very detailed and defensible. Chairman Huntingford asked if most of this information already exists from when the tightline boundaries were drawn in 1998? Randy Kline answered that they have that information for the parcels included within the current interim boundary. Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez added that there are several sources for this information: the property owner, the Assessor's records, DCD's records, and possibly utility records. Chairman Huntingford reiterated that some record had to be established when all these properties were downzoned. A1 Scalf explained that they only used eight criteria from SB 6094 at that time and they did not look at infrastructure. He suggested starting with the Assessor's maps showing the 1990 built environment (structures) and then overlaying infrastructure that exists below ground such as waterlines or power. This will give them a picture of a logical contained boundary that preserves rural character. They plan to use the SEPA definition for built environment. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that commercial uses such as storage units are taking up valuable property designated for light industrial uses in Glen Cove. He thinks it is important to use light industrial land for that use and he does not agree with expanding boundaries for other uses. Chairman Huntingford stated that there are businesses going into that area that aren't appropriate because current zoning prevents them from locating in other areas of the County. Commissioner Titterness said that it is important to move forward with creating opportunities at Glen Cove now and once that is done staff can consider how to deal with zoning particulars and amendments to the UDC. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 David Alvarez noted several comments about LAMIRDs from the WWGMHB decision in November, 2002. He cautioned that the need for additional acreage is not a reason for expanding LAMIRDs beyond their logical outer boundaries. He explained that there are 3 types of LAMIRDs: 1) A logical boundary LAMIRD 2) A small scale recreation LAMIRD 3) A home based cottage industry LAMIRD LAMIRD types 2 and 3 are meant to encourage economic growth and they are designated on a lot by lot basis and have different characteristics. The logical boundary LAMIRD is based on the built environment from1990. It is important not to move economic incentives away from the UGAs. Expanding LAMIRDS to increase commercial acreage or to move the population growth away from UGAs is not permitted. The Comprehensive Plan states that when the Special Study is completed, the County will decide whether or not the current LAMIRD boundaries should be altered. It also delineates indicators that will be considered as the basis for findings regarding the necessity for a UGA designation or LAMIRD expansion. If the County uses substantive GMA indicators, both a UGA designation and a final LAMIRD designation should come together and occur at the same time. Chairman Huntingford stated that he has concerns about designating final LAMIRD boundaries in South County because in the future they may need to have the ability to expand. He added that they will need a middle step for their possible transition to a UGA. Commissioner Titterness acknowledged that based on determinations, court cases, and DCD's memo, the County made an error in the past because there was not enough information. His understanding is that to correct this the County can do the study, research the current infrastructure, consider the new information and make the expansion. A1 Scalf agreed. Commissioner Titterness directed staff to proceed with that process. He directed staff to consider: · mechanical infrastructure · transportation infrastructure · logical areas of development along transportation corridors as historically documented throughout recorded history and even pre-history Al Scalf recommended a two phase process: development of a new interim boundary using the expanded criteria that would then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for public hearing on a final boundary. David Alvarez agreed that this is possible. Commissioner Titterness clarified that an expanded interim boundary could be designated based on power, water and roads. Al Scalf replied that it would include both the infrastructure above and below ground. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 Chairman Huntingford asked if staff will be evaluating the infrastructure for the expanded interim boundary on the total 295 acres that was downzoned to 68 acres? A1 Scalf explained that originally tightline boundaries were set, and now an expanded tightline using the new criteria will be set. The new boundary would become interim zoning per GMA Section 390 and would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final review and public comment as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Wojt stated that he is concerned about how great the difference may be between the original tightline and the new tightline. Al Scalf responded that there is a new definition for built environment because of the Hearings Board case, there is more clarity about the definition of a LAMIRD, and, at the request of the City of Port Townsend, the County has preserved planning options and contained Glen Cove pending a UGA decision. The Special Study recommends a LAMIRD designation in Glen Cove and not a UGA designation. Chairman Huntingford noted that Glen Cove was designated as an industrial area 20 years ago, long before the Growth Management Act. The County downzoned a lot of acreage that was purchased as light industrial property because property owners did not choose to develop that property right away. He asked how staff will use the criteria in addressing parcels developed after1990? Al Scalf replied that they would have to look at these parcels as a variable. Commissioner Titterness asked staff to look at the land's geological features and location in relation to other industries, businesses, and transportation corridors to help define the logical boundaries. This criteria is also used by the Growth Management Hearings Boards. Al Scalf stated that he thinks there will be debate on the variables, although the development since 1990 could be considered infill. He asked that the Board direct the formation of a subcommittee to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners on the expanded LAMIRD boundaries at Glen Cove. Commissioner Titterness pointed out that staff has the expertise to assemble the technical data and bring a recommendation to the subcommittee. He suggested that the Planning Commission Chair and County Commissioners' Chair be included on this subcommittee. David Alvarez was also added to this subcommittee. Commissioner Titterness moved to have staff move forward with collecting the data, that they draw their concept of a preliminary tightline LAMIRD boundary for Glen Cove, and that they submit their recommendation to the subcommittee. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Budget Appropriations and Extensions; Various County Funds: Charles Saddler stated that this hearing for fourth quarter budget appropriations/extensions was properly advertised and the backup paperwork is available for review. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 Gary_ Rowe, Deputy County Administrator, stated that the request for Information Services includes approximately $16,700 for additional computer software changes that the Treasurer needed to administer the collection of assessments for the Port Ludlow Drainage District. The Treasurer is working with the Drainage District to recoup those costs through the assessment process. Donna Eldridge, Auditor, explained that the Elections Division required an appropriation due to the new matrix for mid-management salaries that was developed in 2001. She added that her Office is billing out $49,914 in additional revenues in Elections this year. The Department of Community Development had extensive backup on their appropriation request which was due to additional professional services contracts. Hearing no further comments for or against the budget appropriations/extensions, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 95-01, the budget appropriations/extensions for the fourth quarter of 2001. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which passed by a unanimous vote. Discussion and Plan Adoption; Redistricting County Commissioner District Boundaries: Chairman Huntingford explained that the redistricting hearing was held on December 6 and the deadline for written testimony was December 12, 2001. Commissioner Wojt stated that he doesn't think that Option 2 is part of the discussion. Chairman Huntingford noted that the majority of the comments received were for Options 1 and 3. He said that his preference is Option 1. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that the difference between Option 1 and Option 3 is who Commissioner Huntingford's constituency will be. Precinct 107 is the main concern. He stated that after reviewing the voting patterns over the past ten years, District 1 is predominately Democratic, the South County is predominately Republican, and the voters in between are the "swing vote." Commissioner Huntingford is a Republican, and when South County residents have problems they go to him rather than going to the Commissioner that represents their district. In the next general election, the area where the greatest discussion will occur is Glen Cove, the Tri Area, and the LAMIRDs. He feels that the candidate from the District 3 will set the tone. He thinks Option 1 benefits the Republican Party and Option 3 doesn't benefit either political party. If Option 1 is chosen, some people in the County will not have an opportunity to vote on a Commissioner candidate for six years. Commissioner Titterness pointed out that the only precincts effected by this would be 104, 105, 108, 304, and 305. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 Commissioner Titterness said he does not feel that either option has a political advantage. The smallest population of voters who would have to wait for six years to vote for their Commissioner would be in Option 1. The number of people that would be changing districts is far greater in Option 3. Commissioner Titterness stated that in his opinion Option 1 is the best. Commissioner Wojt reiterated that he feels strongly that voting for Option 1 would favor the Republican Party. Chairman Huntingford stated that Option 3 was created when the Board held their workshop on redistricting. He did not realize that there were such strong feelings about the options. At the workshop, Commissioner Wojt proposed Option 3 and gave the rationale that much of the middle part of the County is already District 3, such as Kala Point and Irondale and he understands this reasoning. He didn't realize that Commissioner Wojt felt so strongly about adopting Option 3 and if today's discussion had occurred at the workshop, he thinks more people would have attended the redistricting hearing and given testimony. He pointed out that in both options, there are people who won't get to vote for a Commissioner for six years. Commissioner Wojt stated that Option 2 would result in fewer changes. As far as configuration, Option 3 is better. He noted that a letter from Assessor Jack Westerman stated that Option 3 makes the most sense in terms of making adjustments. Commissioner Titterness observed that the Board received requests from the PUD and the Port of Port Townsend that it would be helpful if all the voting districts for these entities were the same. The PUD unanimously supported Option 1, the Port voted 2-1 in support of Option 1, and the dissenting vote was for Option 2. Commissioner Wojt replied that in the petition submitted by the Democrats they said that they have statistics that show the next few years are a transition time for District 2, and they can't predict which party will be favored. There was more discussion about Option 1 and Option 3 and the politics of each option. Chairman Huntingford reiterated that in Option 1, District 2 is a transition district and is split. He feels that he has many supporters throughout the County, including the residents in the South County. He also feels that he has disappointed people when he has voted in an effort to find a compromise position and not stuck to strictly conservative views. He thinks he can represent that "transition zone" because frequently in the past eight years, he has been the "swing" vote. There are tough issues to be addressed in the Tri Area over the next few years and he feels that adopting Option 3 would be the easy way out because he wouldn't have to face those issues. Personally, he wants to stay and face those issues. Commissioner Wojt disagreed with the rational that Chairman Huntingford would be helping the Tri Area if Option 1 was chosen. He feels that it is a political issue. Commissioner Titterness reviewed the other criteria for redistricting. Commissioner Wojt stated that he thinks Option 3 better meets the criteria that the district needs to be as contiguous as possible with a simple shape and straight lines. The other Board members noted that they didn't see that much difference between District 1 and District 3 in this respect. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt Option 3. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 96-01 establishing County Commissioner Districts based on redistricting Option 1. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. He added that he wants to continue to represent the people in his home district regarding the tough issues that they will be facing; but he regrets that he won't be representing Port Ludlow any longer. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Titterness and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Port Ludlow Drainage District Debt Services and Software Support: Treasurer Judi Morris explained that the Port Ludlow Drainage District' s assessment method is more complex than other assessments. In the past, an assessment was similar to a mortgage that was a set amount with a diminishing balance each year, paid off with interest. The method that the Drainage District chose is a formula that will change annually on every parcel. The County's software provider was contacted about developing an enhancement to allow a different assessment each year on the 1,180 parcels. The plan included adding the assessment to the tax statement rather than issuing a separate assessment bill. The cost for this enhancement was over $16,000. When she met with one of the Drainage District Commissioners to discuss the bill, he explained that they are having fiscal problems because set up costs were higher than expected. She contacted the software vendor to see if this enhancement could be used for other applications in the future and they said it could. She recommends that the County pay for the software system and Central Services Director Gary Rowe has agreed to incorporate it into his costs for this year. Gary Rowe added that, regarding the software, he has asked for the budget extension already, he has the money in the budget, and he understands that it may be difficult to recoup the costs. If the funds are not recouped, it may cut into the funding for other types of capital expenditures and he pointed out that the Board may have to consider a request for an appropriation from the General Fund for his Department in 2002. Judi Morris reported that the County's original loan to the Drainage District for $44,500 that is due in full at the end of 2002. Their higher start up costs means that their maintenance projects will be limited in 2002. She suggested that the County renegotiate the loan to be paid back over a six year period with the final payback in 2006. This way the District would receive the benefit of the lowered interest rate this past year. The original loan was at 6.45% and the current rate is 2.3%. She explained a proposed loan payoff which would require a payment of interest in May, 2002 at 6.45% plus next year's interest which would be a total of $4,404.53. This leaves the initial total balance of $44,500 that would be paid over the next four years at the 2.3% interest rate. The final payment would be made on May 1, 2006. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 Judi Morris advised that the Board has two options: 1) They can insist that the Drainage District repay the loan per their original agreement. 2) That the loan be established for one year under the given interest rates, and a new interest rate be established each year. In the past, the County has set only one interest rate when loaning money to other agencies. Commissioner Titterness suggested that since the software can be used for other assessments in the future, a certain percentage of the software costs be added to the Port Ludlow Drainage District's loan amount and that the loan be extended. Judi Morris replied that she is not sure how they would be reimbursed in the future when the software is used by other districts for assessments. Charles Saddler cautioned that it wasn't the Drainage District's problem that the County didn't have computer software to meet their needs. He feels that the acquisition of this software could feasiblely benefit all the citizens in the County at some future time. David Alvarez added that the complicated methodology for the assessment created the need for the software. A member of the Port Ludlow Drainage District Board pointed out that they did not make the final decision on the methodology, the County Commissioners made that decision. Chairman Huntingford mentioned that during the County Commissioners' discussion regarding the assessment methodology it was decided that County roads and ditches would be excluded from the assessment; but the County also stated that they wanted to share in the expense. He pointed out that if the County pays for the software, it can be their contribution to offset some of the cost. He added that some time in the future the County roads and ditches will have to be included in the assessment. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 97-01 amending Resolution No. 96-00 and Resolution No. 22-01, to renegotiate a loan for the Port Ludlow Drainage District and that the County pay for the assessment software from the General Fund. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION from 3:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney, County Administrator, and Deputy County Administrator regarding Real Estate Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session and took the following actions: Acquisition of Real Estate; Castle Hill Facilities: Commissioner Wojt moved to grant the Chairman the authority to execute a contract for a total of $3.1 million dollars, a downpayment of $150,000, and an annual payment of approximately $257,000 which includes both interest (6%) and principle. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt moved to grant Deputy County Administrator Gary Rowe authority to execute all closing documents. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 17, 2001 Commissioner Wojt moved to direct Jefferson County's Bond Counsel, Foster Pepper and Shefelman, to prepare bond documents which include a bond ordinance. Commissioner Tittemess seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on Wednesday morning for a workshop on the proposed fee ordinance. All three Board members were present. Agreement re: Construction Services, Segment 2/Contract 1; Larry Scott Memorial Park, Project No. CR1069; Jefferson County Public Works; Seton Construction: (Item #7 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the contract for construction services with Seton Construction. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened with all three Board members present on Thursday afternoon for a workshop on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: ~~~e~he~YlmCd~MC ~ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Gen H~ r Page 11