Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM031901��ING�� District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTE S Week of March 19, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Dan Titterness. Commissioner Richard Wojt was present. Commissioner Huntingford was not present. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION. • County Administrator Charles Saddler reported on the following: • The County's representative on the Fort Worden Advisory Board and an alternate for that representative were reviewed. Commissioner Wojt advised that he would be willing to serve as the Board member and that Charles Saddler be the alternate if the Board member cannot attend. Commissioner Titterness agreed. A followup discussion regarding wildfire season will be on next week's agenda. WSU Cooperative Extension is an outreach arm of the US Department of Agriculture regarding these issues. Last week he attended training on performance based budgeting and performance indicators. He noted that the Board needs to determine how they want to be updated on performance indicators and suggested a formalized, semi- annual review process. Commissioner Titterness feels that a quarterly review would be appropriate, possibly during a Budget Committee meeting or on a Monday afternoon. The North Olympic Peninsula RC &D will be meeting at Port Hadlock tomorrow while Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Titterness are at a Transit meeting. Commissioner Wojt MOVED that any Board member may represent the County at this meeting or, if they are not available, County Administrator Charles Saddler can represent the Board Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried Commissioner Wojt MOVED to authorize up to $1, 000 for annual dues to the RC &D for this year. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith advised that a time will be scheduled on the agenda next week for a discussion regarding the Dispatch Officers and the Public Safety budget. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: information regarding the terrifying effects of methamphetamine, and the horrible addiction caused by even one use, needs to be publicized, especially to High School students; and at last Monday's meeting, Chairman Huntingford suggested that the Glen Cove PUGA is too small and how can the County justify a higher number before the Growth Management Hearings Board? Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 27 -01 re: Temporary Traffic Delays West Valley Road, County Road No. 514109 2. RESOLUTION NO. 28 -01 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of V Street in the Plat of South Port Townsend; George and Leona Brown, Petitioners 3. RESOLUTION NO. 29 -01 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Second Street and Cedar Street in the Plat of Irving Park Addition; James W. Perkins, Petitioner 4. RESOLUTION NO. 30 -01 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Florence Avenue in the Plat of Irving Park Addition; Jan Anderson, Petitioner 5. CALL FOR BIDS re: One (1) New Self Propelled Vibratory Double Drum Asphalt Compactor With ROPS; Bids Accepted until 10:00 a. m., Monday, April 2, 2001 and Opened and Read Publicly Shortly Thereafter in the County Commissioners' Chambers 6. AGREEMENT re: Demolition and Removal of All Manmade Structures and Materials; Nylund Property Acquisition Located at 484 E. Quilcene Road, Quilcene; and Nebenfuhr Property Acquisition Located at 482 E. Quilcene Road, Quilcene; Jefferson County Public Works; Elite Construction - Trucking 7. AGREEMENT re: Removal of All Asbestos Materials; Nylund Property Acquisition Located at 484 E. Quilcene Road, Quilcene; and Nebenfuhr Property Acquisition Located at 482 E. Quilcene Road, Quilcene; Jefferson County Public Works; Northwest Abatement Services, Inc. 8. AGREEMENT re: Vendor Supply of Asphalt Concrete for 2001 Maintenance on Various County Roadways; Jefferson County Public Works; Ace Paving Co., Inc. 9. AGREEMENT, Supplement No. 2 re: South Discovery Road Railroad Bridge Overcrossing Replacement, County Road No. 601508; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation 10. AGREEMENT, Supplement No. 8 re: Irondale Road Improvement Project, #CR1107; Amended Scope of Work, Completion Date and Payment; Jefferson County Public Works; Parametrix, Inc. 11. Annual Certification of the Management, Administration and Operations of the Jefferson County Public Works Department for Calendar Year 2000; County Road Administration Board (CRAB) 12. Appoint Member to Serve Another Three (3) Year Term Representing the Jefferson County Fire Commissioners' Association on the Jefferson County Fire Code Advisory Board; Term Expires January 12, 2004; Roy Raudebaugh 13. Letter Supporting HB1608 and SB5586 Funding for Watershed Planning (WRIA 17); Representatives Jim Buck and Lynn Kessler Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 Request for Funding for Superior Court Video Arraignment System; Jefferson County Public Works: County Administrator Charles Saddler advised that this request is for funding to provide Superior Court with video arraignment capability. There is no provision for this funding in the 2001 budget. District Court has done video arraignment for several years and since Judge Majhan has moved to the Superior Court, he is in support of this request. A proposal has been developed and is going through the bidding procedures. The costs for transportation to bring inmates into the Courthouse for arraignment would be reduced substantially by this system. The request is for $15,000 from the balance of the unencumbered General Fund to be transferred to the Information Services Fund for this project. Sheriff Piccini added that the exposure of transporting inmates from the jail to the Courthouse for arraignment is a large risk and this video system would make it safer. Judge Majhan advised that when he was District Court Judge, Jefferson County was the first District Court in the state to do video arraignments. This system is very necessary for safety and will save substantial money. Superior Court Clerk Marianne Walters agreed. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the transfer from the unencumbered General Fund balance as requested. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. Letters re: Support and Sponsorship of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) S. 454; to Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and sign the letters to Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray asking them to sponsor and support S. 454 regarding the payment of PILT monies to the County. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. Letter of Support for a Grant Application; Volunteer Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Program Grant; Port Ludlow Fly Fishers: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and sign the letter to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife in support of the Port Ludlow Fly Fishers grant application to provide funding for public fishing access at Teal Lake. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. Providing a Positive Cash Balance for the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 31 -01 to provide $45,000 to the Water Pollution Control Loan Fund ( #160 - 000 -010) to be held in a restricted fund balance and provide a positive cash balance for this fund. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION from 10:20 to 10:44 a.m. with the Deputy Prosecutor, the County Administrator, the Deputy County Administrator, the Director of Community Development, the Environmental Health Director, and a Environmental Health Specialist regarding actual litigation. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 Direction on 4 Issues re: Appeals of the unified Development Code (UDC): At the conclusion of the Executive Session the Board re- opened the public meeting and made the following motions: 1) Letter to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB), the City of Port Townsend, the Shine Community Action Council, and the Olympic Environmental Council rewarding the UDC Areal: Commissioner Wojt moved to authorize the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to send a letter to the parties involved with this appeal asking for a 90 day extension to negotiate a potential settlement. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. 2) Port of Port Townsend UDC Appeal: Commissioner Wojt moved to authorize the County Administrator to contact the Port Manager and request that one of the elected Port Commissioners meet with the County to negotiate the concerns of their UDC appeal. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. 3) Northwest A &e a� Commissioner Wojt moved to authorize the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to contact the attorney for Northwest Aggregates to inquire if that firm still intended to request a Code Interpretation as is permitted by the UDC. Commissioner Tittnerness seconded the motion which carried. 4) City Appeal: Commissioner Wojt moved to authorize staff to proceed, based on the negotiations the County had with the City, with a potential City /County agreement on the issue of the UDC appeal they filed, and specifically, on official action regarding asphalt batch plants and the repository of certain public records about the public water supply. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. The Board then met in Executive Session from 2:00 to 2:44 p.m. with the Deputy County Administrator regarding collective bargaining. The Board recessed their meeting at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Wednesday for a workshop on UGA issues. All 3 Board members were present. The Board recessed their meeting at the close of the workshop and reconvened on Friday morning. All 3 Board members were present. Discussion re: Glen Cove/Tri Area UGAs: Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that this is a continuation of the discussion from March 12. Staff has requested that the Board answer the following questions: ♦ Does the Board concur with the analysis of the action alternatives from the Final Supplement EIS issued in August, 1999? This includes the land capacity analysis, the regional economic forecast, and the information submitted in the amended FEIS issued June, 2000. ♦ Is the Board prepared to issue the decision document? This document is the preferred alternative resulting from the consultant's work. ♦ Are the boundaries of the PUGAs that were approved by the Board in October, 1999, the boundaries that the Board wants to move forward with to complete the Special Study? Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 Commissioner Titterness asked if the Board can adopt the current boundaries and modify them as the study continues? Al Scalf replied that the County can continue through Task 6 and still change the boundaries, but it will effect the analysis and increase the public participation depending on the modification. ♦ Should the RFP to engage a consultant for Tasks 5 and 6 be expanded to include drafting final development regulations for public review and final adoption by the Board? Planning Manager Warren Hart explained 4 options that are available to the Board. Option 1: Accept the work that has been done to date, including the boundaries, the record and the studies for Tri Area only. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment on May 1, 2001 would represent the Board's decision to go with the action alternative and the PUGAs as a modified version of Scenario 3. Option 2: The same as Option 1, but including Glen Cove. Staff doesn't know what the true cost implications would be. Option 3: Reexamine the studies and the analysis. Does the Board want to reconsider the boundaries? If this is the case, they would have to go back over the land capacity analysis, the population allocation and other studies that were the basis for the 3 alternatives. Option 4: An RFP would go out for a peer review of the work to date. This is an extra step. In addition, the consultant would do Tasks 5 and 6. There would be a simultaneous adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a UGA Sub -area Plan for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. Commissioner Titterness asked if the adoption of UGAs and sub -area plans needs to be tied to the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that begins on May 1? Al Scalf advised that it is recommended that they are included in the annual amendment process because of the public participation and review of cumulative effects that are required. Warren Hart explained that the line in/line out recommendations for the 3 alternatives in the decision document are the policy basis and language for the UGA designations and sub -area plans. Al Scalf recommended that the Board choose Option 1 in order to move forward by May 1. He noted the Board's concern about the regional economic forecast analysis and the Trottier numbers, however, Option 1 can be refined in the future if the Board chooses to designate a larger UGA. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 Chairman Huntingford questioned why the Board would approve a document that is based on questionable data? In his opinion, the numbers need to be revised before the decision document is approved. Charles Saddler explained that the Board originally questioned the numbers in the consultant's work; the consultant reviewed and revised the numbers and then came to a final conclusion. A new consultant reworking the numbers would create discrepancies in the reports. Staff does not have the expertise to determine which report would be the correct interpretation so a third economist would have to be hired. This would result in a public record with a variety of economic statistics that could be used against the County in an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Chairman Huntingford asked why staff is not addressing the Board's concern about the numbers in the studies? Charles Saddler replied that staff doesn't have the expertise to say whether the first report is correct. However, part of the process in Tasks 5 and 6 is to review capital improvement and infrastructure costs in more detail. Chairman Huntingford asked when the issues in Glen Cove would be addressed if the Board approves Option 1 which only deals with the Tri Area? Commissioner Wojt stated that Glen Cove is zoned for light industrial uses and storage facilities. Commissioner Titterness added that he is not opposed to zoning the Glen Cove area for light industrial uses, warehousing, and storage facilities. Al Scalf reviewed the scenarios under the draft decision document. • Scenario 1 is a Glen Cove logical boundary expansion and a Tri Area UGA. • Scenario 2 is expansion of the logical boundary of the interim boundaries for both Tri Area and Glen Cove. • Scenario 3 is a Tri Area UGA and a Glen Cove industrial UGA. • The PUGA decision is the same as Scenario 3 without the Port Townsend Paper Company Mill. Commissioner Titterness asked how many acres there are in the Glen Cove industrial area boundaries if the mill property is not included? Al Scalf replied that it is approximately 79 acres. Commissioner Wojt asked if the economic analysis supports Scenario 3, including Glen Cove? Al Scalf answered that it is his understanding that the land use and economic analysis supports all of the scenarios. Charles Saddler asked staff if the Trottier Study took into account the allocation of industrial acreage in the Brinnon Sub -area Plan? Al Scalf replied that the Trottier Study examined the total logical boundaries for East Jefferson County, including Brinnon and Quilcene, as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the study did not include expansion of any of these boundaries. Commissioner Titterness stated that, in his opinion, Scenario 3 needs to include Section 6 in Glen Cove because this property was originally purchased from the County as light industrial property and then downzoned. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that many people purchased property zoned light industrial or commercial in the County and when the tightline was drawn on only developed industrial or commercial property and their properties were downzoned. He added that more discussion is needed to address these downzoned properties that already have the infrastructure in place for commercial or light industrial uses. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 Commissioner Titterness stated that his preference is a modified version of Scenario 3. Chairman Huntingford concurred. Commissioner Titterness added that as Tasks 5 and 6 are completed, the boundaries will become more apparent. Al Scalf explained that a large part of the total 280 acres of commercial and industrial property in the County can be allocated outside the logical boundaries. If most of that property is located around Port Townsend and the Tri Area, the problem arises about zoning to accommodate commercial and light industrial growth in other areas of the County over the next 20 years. Warren Hart explained that there are several strategies that can be looked at in Task 5 and 6 to address the designation of commercial and industrial zones throughout the County. The discussion turned to the 280 acre limit for commercial /industrial properties in the County. Al Scalf pointed out that this is the limit in the SEPA document and if the Board wants to exceed that amount, the economic analysis needs to be redone and another SEPA document would need to be issued. Charles Saddler added that at some point the entire Comprehensive Plan will have to be reexamined, and that may be the time to reexamine those numbers. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 and is up for review in 2002. Charles Saddler stated that staff is recommending that the Board take the Tri Area UGA as one issue for discussion and decision and the Glen Cove UGA as a separate issue for discussion and decision. Warren Hart suggested that the Board could choose to move forward with the decision document in both areas, and then direct staff to engage a different consultant for each area. The limiting factors for doing both areas simultaneously are staff resources, funding, and the amount of time it will take to move forward. Chairman Huntingford noted that the County needs to move forward on the Tri Area UGA analysis and the Board needs to take action on the decision document. The analysis on the Glen Cove UGA can be put off, but needs to be addressed soon. Commissioner Wojt moved to accept the decision document. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. Warren Hart explained that the Board also needs to make a decision on a scenario and the boundaries in order to move forward on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. This process goes from May 1 to December. The Board has the ability to modify the boundaries based on public testimony. The final boundaries that are adopted in December need to be consistent with the public record. Chairman Huntingford asked for clarification on Scenario 3. Warren Hart replied that the consultant's original Scenario 3 included the mill property, but didn't include Sections 6, 7, 3, or 5. Commissioner Huntingford asked when the Board would be given the opportunity to include Section 6? Warren Hart explained that the Board can include Section 6 today, or anytime in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process after the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendment and given the Board their recommendation. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that during the PUGA process, the mill property was removed from the boundaries. Commissioner Titterness amended Commissioner Wojt's motion to direct that the boundary line for the UGA at the outset of this process include the Board's original boundaries of the Glen Cove PUGA that was published in the newsletter of October, 2000 and Scenario 3 for the Tri Area. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 19, 2001 Commissioner Wojt agreed to the amendment. Al Scalf pointed out that the newsletter included additional analysis of Sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 in Glen Cove which would result in a higher proportion of commercial /industrial property in that area than the Board wants. The Clerk reread the motion which includes the approval of the decision document with the boundaries as adopted in the Glen Cove PUGA and published in the October 2000 newsletter and the boundaries in the Tri Area as represented in Scenario 3. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Commissioner Titterness abstained from the vote. The motion carried. Charles Saddler then asked the Board for direction to the staff on what they need to work on next. There is $100,000 in the budget for the Tri Area UGA analysis. There are no funds budgeted in 2001 year for the Glen Cove UGA analysis. The Board also needs to authorize the RFP for Tasks 5 and 6. In addition, the final development regulations for the Tri Area have not been budgeted. Al Scalf estimated that it will cost between $120,0004180,000 to finish the analysis on the Tri Area and Glen Cove, including Tasks 5 and 6. The differences between an RFQ and an RFP were discussed. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct staff to proceed with an RFQ and to prepare a Comprehensive Plan amendment based on the Board's previous action. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt asked for an estimated time line. Charles Saddler answered that staff will prepare the Comprehensive Plan amendment by May 1, 2001. The Planning Commission will review the policy language in the decision document as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. DCD plans to advertize the RFQ by June and award the contract by fall. The timeframe for the consultant's work depends on what the Board wants reviewed. The consultant will submit the official sub -area plan designation to the Board in early 2002. MEETINQA, JOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSION S q ��� Glen Hunting or " '* 1 e Dan Ti s , r f AT SST. orna Delaney, CMC is d Wojt, ber Clerk of the Board Page 8