HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032497
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
District No. 1 Commissioner:
District No. 2 Commissioner:
District No.3 Commissioner:
Clerk of the Board:
Director of Public Services:
Deputy Director of Public Services:
Lorna L. Delaney
Gary A. Rowe
David Goldsmith
MINUTES
WEEK OF MARCH 24, 1997
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard W ojt. Commissioners Daniel
Harpole and Glen Huntingford were both present.
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the minutes of
March 17, 1997 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
David Goldsmith, Deputy Director of Public Services re: Discussion of Clerk Hire
Wage Rates: David Goldsmith reported that there has never been a policy for setting wage rates and
providing for raises for casual labor known as "Clerk Hire". He asked the Board to provide direction and
suggested a policy be drafted to deal with these items. He suggested that the wage rate be no greater
than that for an entry level Union position that does similar work and that any raise given be no greater
than the percentage raise given to Union employees.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Clerk Hire budget can be used to hire professional short term
help? David Goldsmith explained that Departments can use Clerk Hire for some short term professional
service need.s. They can also hire professionals on a contract basis.
The Board concurred that a policy be drafted to provide a uniform manner for departments to give raises
for Clerk Hire persons as well as a method for setting the beginning wage rate.
Page 1
'\..; -
23 j',', 192
-'\..
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
.,,-.rr
-'f ..,o.t{:'"
..
Discussion re: Draft Letter of Support to the Legislative Transportation Committee Re:
Washington State Rural Mobility Grant Program: After reviewing the draft letter, Commissioner
Huntingford moved to approve and sign the letter of support for the State Rural Mobility Grant Program.
Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: There was no Public Services briefing.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Community Development Director AI Scalf reported
that the first hearing for public comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan EIS will be held on April 2,
1997 at 7 p.m in the lower level conference room ofthe Courthouse. The following public comments
were made: Disagreement with the Fair Board's decision to ban rock and roll bands from using
Fairgrounds facilities and a request that guidelines be developed for the use of these facilities.
(Commissioner Harpole reported that he recommended that the Fair Board draft guidelines and policies
for use of their facilities and not ban "Rock and Roll" bands); a letter was read for the United Families of
Jefferson County asking that the County allow their subdivision approvals to proceed; a former Planning
Commission' member asked that his name be taken off the draft Comprehensive Plan because he feels it
was not the document reviewed by the Planning Commission; there was a commendation to the Board for
their first "On the Road" meeting in Quilcene and a request that these meetings be scheduled for 3 to 4
hours instead of just 2 hours; a request that copies of documents be provided for any reference used in a
draft ordinance, and that the definitions in the draft ordinance be clarified; a request that the Board
members clarify why some of the land use designations were made the way they were; a question of
whether subdivisions that have preliminary approval will have to be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney
before final approval? (AI Scalf reported that these subdivisions are not currently reviewed by the
Prosecuting Attorney); the draft Comprehensive Plan is not the plan that the community groups or the
Planning Commission reviewed and a suggestion was made that the names of the former Planning
Commission members be taken off the document and the names of the true authors be put on; the
possibility of the Prosecuting Attorney reviewing subdivision applications is confusing and frustrating to
property owners who are trying to meet the regulations in place and are then subjected to changes;
comments about the impact to families lives and their plans for the future; a suggestion that the Board
talk with the Prosecuting Attorney about his role in the land use planning process because it is felt that he
is putting the County in jeopardy; a moratorium is not a good thing for the County to do; a question of
whether the exemptions granted last year are legal or not?; and Commissioner Huntingford noted that he
had several calls over the weekend about whether a mobile home park could resell a space when one was
vacated? (AI Scalf answered that his understanding of the draft ordinance is that a building permit would
not be issued for another mobile home moved to a vacated lot).
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to delete items 9 and 14 and to approve the balance of the items as submitted.
Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. i4:.21 re: In the Matter of Amending the 1997 Staffing, Adopted as Part of
the 1997 Budget; Increase in Juvenile Services Staffing Schedule
VOL
231M,193
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
(i
THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued:
2. RESOLUTION NO. ~ re: In the Matter of Creating Little Quilcene Flood Control Sub-
Zone District
3. AGREEMENT #L9700010 Amendment #1 re: State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund;
Septic Repair Program II Project; Jefferson County Public Services; Washington State
Department of Ecology
4. AGREEMENT #CA-012497-01 re: Restoration of Old Gardiner Road; Jefferson County Public
Works; Parametrix, Inc.
5. AGREEMENT re: Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening; Jefferson County Health and Human
Services; State Department of Health
6. CONTRACT re: Purchase New 1997 Grizzly 215 Transfer Stationary Compactor; Jefferson
County Public Works; Crane Equipment Manufacturing, Corp.
7. CONTRACT #CA-032096-1, Supplement #2 re: Amendments to Article 11.2.1 Basic
Compensation, Article 11.5.1 Additional Provisions and Article 12 Other Conditions or Services;
Larry Scott Memorial Park Project No. CR1069; Jefferson County Public Works; Nakano-Dennis
Landscape Architects
8. CONTRACT, Amendment re: Chemical Dependency Treatment Services for Individuals Losing
Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Income; Jefferson County Health and
Human Services Department; State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Division
of AIcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA)
9. DELETE CONTRACT #MD976322, Amendment 'A' re: Increase in Emergency Management Services Funding; Jefferson County Sheriff's
Office; Washington State Military Department (See item later in Minutes)
10. Two (2) Amended Special-Use Permits; Occupancy and Use of Forest Service Office #2002 and
Forest Service House 1009 and Double Car Garage #2314 ; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office;
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Quilcene Ranger District
11. Agency Information Sheet for the Primary Care Dental Program Grant Application; Jefferson
County Health and Human Services Department; Olympic Peninsula Primary Dental Care
Program
12. Final Short Plat Approval, #SUB96-0004; To Divide a 25 Acre Parcel into 3 Res-
idential/Recreational Lots; Located South of Thorndyke Road and Groves Way Intersection;
William McKay, Applicant
VOL
?3 <".191
t_~ f,.~~: ':I:
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
i),,, '0
, ~
-111;',,;tt"
mE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued:
13. Request for Sixty (60) Day Postponement in Paying 1997 Permit Fee; Dan Shafer, Manager, Snug
Harbor Cafe
14. DELETE Food and Beverage Purchase Request Form; Parent Education Classes; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Quen Zorrah
and Yuko Umeda (See item later in Minutes)
15. Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; Service Officers' Association for
$134.70
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
PERMIT CENTER BUSINESS
David Christensen, Water Resource Specialist, Jefferson County Health and Human
Services Department re: Discussion of Request for Funding to Install a Permanent Flow Meter on
Lower Chimacum Creek; Jefferson County Water Resources Council: Dave Christensen reported that
Chimacum High School is applying for a $2,000 grant which they are willing to use to purchase a
continuous reading flow meter to be installed in lower Chimacum Creek. The total cost of the meter is
$3,500. If the School's grant is approved the gauge will be paid for, but there are still questions about
funding the maintenance costs. If the school doesn't get the grant, the WRC would still like to put the
meter in lower Chimacum Creek. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the data from this gauge would
be used and if there is a data collection period established before the data is available for use? Dave
Christiansen stated that there is data on this stream from the 1950's which can be used as well as this
data.
Commissioner Huntingford moved that Jefferson County will participate in this program to install a
continuous reading flow meter in Lower Chimacum Creek up to $1,000. Commissioner Harpole
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
Emergency Road Restoration Project on Upper Hoh Road: Aubrey Palmer, Public
Works, reported on an emergency road restoration project on the Upper Hoh Road. Commissioner
Huntingford moved to approve a RESOLUTION NO. 46-97 designating the Upper Hoh Emergency
Road Project X01313. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
CONTRACT#MD976322, Amendment 'A' re: Increase in Emergency Management
Services Funding; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Washington State Military Department:
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve this amendment to the contract with the Washington State
Military Department for an increase in Emergency Management Services funding. Commissioner Harpole
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 4
VOL
23 1.'J,: 195
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
iJ".~ r,
.. ..t....
.. .1" I~';' i.t'
Discussion and Review of Draft Ordinance Establishing "Interim Official Controls:"
Approximately 120 citizens were present for the Board's discussion and review ofthe proposed draft
ordinance to establish interim official controls (RCW 36.70.790) until the draft Comprehensive Plan is
finally adopted. Community Development Director AI Scalf reported that the draft Comprehensive Plan
was issued to the public on February 24, 1997. Since that time the Planning staff, the Prosecuting
Attorney and the Commissioners have been discussing specific concerns around the Growth Strategies
Ordinance No. 05-0214-96 (GSO) which provides interim zoning controls in the County and includes a
map. The draft Comprehensive Plan also include a map. The concern is about the differences between the
two maps. There have been discussions about implementing a moratorium or establishing new interim
controls. A draft moratorium ordinance was drafted and the Prosecuting Attorney reviewed it and
provided his interpretation of the various issues to be addressed and issues regarding the administration of
projects currently in the review process at the Permit Center. Last week the Planning staff redrafted the
proposed ordinance which is being reviewed by the Board today.
Commissioner Harpole asked if the issues brought up by the Prosecuting Attorney are not addressed in
the new draft ordinance, and if not, are they going to be addressed at a later date? AI Scalf answered that
they will be reviewing those issues in the next few weeks and may bring back another draft Interim
Control for the Board's consideration. Commissioner Harpole then asked about the following:
~ Page 3, Section 3,3.01 Commercial and Industrial Development states "No applicationfor a
permit or other approval shall be accepted for any new commercial or industrial development by
Jefferson County while this ordinance remains in effect, " How does it relate to the GSO? AI
Scalf explained that the GSO has two use tables, one for areas outside of rural centers and one for
inside rural centers. The GSO was implemented to provide a rural nature for commercial
development of allowed uses (i.e. furniture stores, real estate sales, auto repair) in the rural
centers of the County.
~ Page 4, Section 3.08 talks about multiple residential dwelling units located on a single legal lot of
record. What will happen with properties that have two septic systems installed and two building
permits have been issued, but the structures are not completed yet? AI Scalf explained that he is
not aware of any such circumstances, but this issue has not been addressed.
~ Section 3.09 Minimum Lot Size -- Is the minimum lot size 10,000 square feet or 12,500 square
feet? AI Scalf clarified that it is 12,500 square feet depending on the use table. In an area served
by public water the minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet. In an area without public water or in a
rural area, the minimum lot size is 1 acre.
~ Effective date - This section says that the ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption and
shall remain in effect for a period of 180 days from the above date. The current strategy is to have
the Comprehensive Plan adopted March of 1998. How will that work? AI Scalf explained that the
State statutes allow the adoption of an emergency interim control for a period of six (6) months
and then after another public hearing and additional findings offact, it can be extended for another
period of six months.
Commissioner Huntingford made the following statements or asked the following questions:
. Item 8, first page: "Since the release of the 1997 Draft Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County
has observed applications for the division and development of land that does not reflect the
VOL
23 r~(:~196
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
~"{..'"
.." .~
"
.t ~'J' (t
zoning and densities illustrated by the Draft Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map released/or
public review February 24, 1997." When he voted for the GSO, Commissioner Huntingford
noted that the Board was instructed by the legal and planning staff that the 1 per 5 or 1 per 10
densities in it would keep the County from crossing the line with the Hearings Board on densities
in rural areas. He continued by stating that very little of the draft Comprehensive Plan reflects
anything that has been worked on for the past four years. The map in the draft plan is the most
restrictive land use map that has been presented and as far as he knows it was not developed at
the direction of the Board of Commissioners. He asked who is giving the direction on this? What
are we trying to do? He feels all of the past public participation has been ignored. He feels the
draft plan is far from the middle of the road for Jefferson County. This draft interim control is far
over and above what is needed to protect the status quo for Jefferson County.
AI Scalf answered that the direction he was given over a year ago was to
build a Comprehensive Plan that would be in compliance with the
requirements of the Growth Management Act. The draft Comprehensive
Plan that has been issued is the best of their (planning Staff and
consultants) ability to meet the requirements of the Growth Management
Act and preserve the integrity of the public participation and involvement
of the people to this point. It is a draft plan and they anticipate through
public, Planning Commission and Board participation, it will be changed.
. Section 2.02 Commercial and Industrial Permit for Remodels and Minor Expansions -- He feels
this leaves too much discretion for Planning staff. It should be stated clearly, what will and will
not be allowed. He doesn't feel this is clear enough.
Commissioner Huntingford continued by noting that a memo from Monica MacGuire at the Permit
Center indicated that 43 commercial building permits were issued in 1995. Some of the permits were for
temporary spaces, mobile homes, fire damaged buildings, Port Townsend Paper Company and other
minor expansions of commercial businesses. When all of the minor expansions are taken away, it leaves
10 commercial building permits. In 1996, of the 33 permits issued, 12 were for more than minor repairs
and in 1997 there were actually 6 commercial building permits. He asked what the problem is?
AI Scalf reported that he has the same concerns as expressed by
Commissioner Huntingford. He noted that the intent was to preserve the
options and to keep the playing field open so that the Comprehensive Plan
can be deliberated in public to its fullest ability. He doesn't feel the intent of
the Board was to close out acceptable commercial activity in the County.
In order to be fair the same opportunities had to be available throughout
the entire County and not just in one area. The intent was to preserve the
options in the commercial designations between the GSO commercial
which is the 1994 Zoning Code and the proposed draft Comprehensive
Plan. The draft Comprehensive Plan has a tremendous amount of down
zoning throughout the County whereas the 1994 zoning maps have distinct
VOL
23 r~L;197
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
commercial zones. A freeze on commercial activity is recommended to
preserve the options.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if during the legal review, the issue of how the County will protect its
citizens from the takings issue was addressed? AI Scalf reported that the legal review has not taken place.
They anticipate that to happen with the closure of the Comprehensive Plan process and that the
Prosecuting Attorney will provide the legal advice needed on this complicated issue.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that when there are areas, like Glen Cove, that were clearly set up with
the developer and the County working together to create a commercial/industrial area, that it doesn't
make sense to not allow building permits in that area. He feels this will set the County up for legal action.
This is an area that was clearly set aside for a specific purpose. AI Scalf stated that he agrees with
Commissioner Huntingford because in closing the door, the County is closing the door on good
businesses as well as businesses that are out of the zone.
. Section 2.03 Resource Based Commercial and Industrial Activities -- These activities will be
allowed by this ordinance, but will the Pulp Mill be allowed to apply for building permits for
commercial expansion? He doesn't know if that is true, because further down in the ordinance it
says that no application for a permit will be approved. If you're going to allow commercial
growth in a resource based area, he feels it's arbitrary to tell everyone else that they won't get
commercial building permits. He feels these sections contradict each other. Commissioner
Huntingford asked if this ordinance isn't premature, since the resource based ordinances are truly
interim. We could be allowing resource based and industrial activities in an area that may not be
zoned that way in the future. Then we've created a problem.
AI Scalf agreed and noted that the three ordinances cover the Mineral,
Agricultural, and Forest lands. There are uses (i.e. sawmill in the Forest
lands) that are allowed in these ordinances in these area. The question is
how far open will the door be left.
. Section 2.04 -- "Any application that has been determined "substantially complete" on or
before the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with RCW 36. 70B.040 and RCW
36. 70B. 070 shall be subject to the rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time the
application was submitted . . " This is the rule that has always been followed. It goes on to say".
. . exceptfor pending subdivision applicationsfiled after July 1, 1992, but before February 14,
1996, which shall be reviewed by using Jefferson County Ordinance No. 04-0526-92. . ." It
looks like there will be a window where the County is going to tell applicants that even though
they applied under a certain ordinance, they are not vested, and subsequent ordinances will be
used for determinations. Commissioner Huntingford noted that he has real concerns about this
section.
AI Scalf recommended that this section be deleted from the ordinance, in
particular, the sentence that says ". . . or any previous additions of said
Page 7
VOL
23 rM,;198
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
iJ""
.. I'?
, ~
"
+ t... .r,it
,,"
ordinance and subject to the applicable density minimums set forth in the
Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance. " The Prosecuting Attorney
recommended this wording. AI Scalfpointed out the danger of taking 80
projects that were vested under older ordinances and bring them under the
Growth Strategy densities of5/l0/20 acres. There hasn't been time to
review this section legally and look at the consequences of it. Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney Paul McIlrath stated that he has not reviewed the
subdivision applications that are currently in process. He would be willing
to review the legal issues raised about this section.
. Section 3.04 - Residential Cluster Development. He is concerned about clustering and how it will
be implemented in this County. The draft Comprehensive Plan does not follow the public
participation. We've ignored the public participation and issued the draft Comprehensive Plan.
. Page 4, Section 3.06 Home Business -- This section puts further restrictions on home businesses
which are the backbone of Jefferson County. He asked why, and how the County is going to
enforce this? About 80% of the businesses in Jefferson County are home businesses. He is
concerned about putting restrictions on them. He doesn't feel this has been a big problem for the
County.
. Section 3.07 Septic Exemptions -- Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels these
exemptions should stand. The Board is going back on what they determined several months ago,
and causing more confusion for these people. These exemptions were discussed because they
were a result of people being caught in the gap as the County was changing ordinances. When the
Comprehensive Plan is adopted there will be more people caught in between and he questioned
how they will be taken care of
. Section 3.09 Minimum Lot Size -- Commissioner Huntingford stated that his concern is whether
the minimum lot size is based on gross or net density. He reiterated his concern about trailer parks
and if a renter in a trailer park leaves and takes their trailer with them, any new trailer moving
onto the site will require a permit which would not be issued under this ordinance because the
space does not meet the minimum lot size. Commissioner Huntingford concluded by noting that
this ordinance is more far reaching than what was started with two weeks ago. The more that is
done the more problems are caused.
AI Scalf recommended that the last sentence be deleted from this section.
('No exemptions to the minimum lot size will be granted per Chapter 246-
272-20501 WAC. ") The WAC does provide for a variance process and he
doesn't feel the County should be more restrictive than State law.
Commissioner Harpole asked if the deletion of that last sentence would address the issue of the mobile
home park lot? AI Scalf reported that it would. It would also solve a problem for a person with a 9,000
square foot building parcel in Irondale, who has his house plans prepared to submit next month and
~()L
23 r~r 199
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
.
V
would be denied under this ordinance. Through the variance process of the WAC they could make
application and possibly be approved. The issue of minimum lot size is very complex and was going to be
carried forward into the Comprehensive Plan process. There are many areas of the County that have
plats with small lots and it may be premature to address this issue in this draft ordinance.
Chairman W ojt asked about the two maps and why this ordinance is needed to protect the options due to
these two different maps? AI Scalf answered that the two maps are substantially different and pointed out
the following: In the Quimper area the Growth Strategies Ordinance map has a density of 1 dwelling unit
per 10 acres while the Comprehensive Plan map has densities of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres and 1 per 10
acres. There are also differences in densities on the two maps in the Marrowstone Island area, the Tri
Area, and areas where there are resource lands. We've created the nexus and the emergency and that is
why this ordinance is being proposed to freeze the playing field for subdivisions.
The Board then reviewed the information provided in a memo by Monica MacGuire of the Permit Center
about the location and type of commercial building permits applied for the last several years.
The Chairman noted that even though this isn't a public hearing, the Board would like to hear comments
on the draft ordinance. Following is a summary of the comments (more than one person may have made
the same comment.)
'- Concern that the proposed ordinance findings put the Comprehensive Plan on a pedestal it does
not deserve or warrant since it hasn't been reviewed and accepted, and is not law. This ordinance
should justifY why the old map is not acceptable without reference to the Comprehensive Plan.
~ Whose idea was it to roll back and apply minimum lot sizes to subdivisions that have been legally
created? Why doesn't the County set a date in the future to change these things and allow the
people who have started in a process to continue.
~ The County can't afford to weather a moratorium. There isn't an emergency with what exists and
what is going on. There is no need for this emergency ordinance.
~ Frustration with the financial impacts of this proposed ordinance and the lack of notification to
property owners who live out of the County and are trying to move into the County.
'- A request that all ordinances be written so that people can understand them. This ordinance does
nothing for the welfare of this County and it will leave many people with lots that they can no
longer build on, even though they have been paying taxes on them for years.
~ There are small businesses and home businesses in this County, not large commercial
establishments. The Comprehensive Plan does not reflect what the community plans wanted at
all. The section on Home Businesses in this ordinance is unenforceable.
~ People are wondering what will be done next. If this ordinance is adopted there will be many law
suits against the County.
~ It's hard for people who are trying to meet all of the County's requirements. The land rush was
caused because there isn't any faith that there will be anything to develop in the future. Builders
have gone out and developed everything they could to assure that they can provide jobs in the
future.
~ Why does the Prosecuting Attorney need to review a subdivision application that has been
granted preliminary approval? These property owners have followed all the rules and spent
Page 9
VOL
?3 'Ar-200
>-' I...,'
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
(I",,,"
... ~.
if'
.~ II;'"
thousands of dollars to get preliminary approval, and now they are being told that it's going to be
reviewed again. The Planners have said they want the target to stop moving, but the target isn't
minimum lot size or homes businesses.
~ The financial burden caused by changes in County regulations that hold up projects that have been
started.
~ Concern that a moratorium on commercial property will close off economic growth in the Glen
Cove Industrial Park which has been identified by the County and the City as a potential Urban
Growth Area.
~ There is no justification for the finding in the ordinance that says that it is "necessary for the
immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety. "
~ A request that the Board exercise caution before adopting the present version of the ordinance.
Especially, where it deals with applications currently in the County's review process. The
requirement in the ordinance for consistency would mean that the County has a Comprehensive
Plan and resulting implementing ordinances that are consistent with RCW 36.70A (Growth
Management Act.) The County hasn't adopted a Comprehensive Plan, so how can this ordinance
be consistent with it? A suggestion was made that the County reference all of the applications
that are in the review process in the ordinance.
~ A request that Section 3.07 (Septic Exemptions) and 3.09 (minimum lot size) be struck from the
ordinance, and that wording be added that says that lots that have proposed or established septic
service be granted building permits.
~ Why are boundary line adjustments being allowed? The County is strangling people trying to
make a living in this County. People are given conflicting information and they are wondering
what they can and can't do with their property. A request was made that the Board put off
adopting this ordinance until it has been more thoroughly reviewed and decisions are made about
Growth Management at the State level.
~ Mobile home parks provide housing for people who cannot afford to buy a regular home and can
be a solution to low income housing. A request was made that the Board reconsider the 12,500
square foot minimum lot size.
~ A request was made that the Board provide solutions to the problems caused by changes in
regulations.
~ A request was made that the Assessor address some of the concerns that the public will have if
this emergency ordinance is passed with respect to taxation because properties are taxed at
highest and best use.
~ Has an economic impact study been done or is one planned on this draft Comprehensive Plan?
The Board is making decisions about the County without considering the economic impact of
such actions.
Senior Planner John Holgate reported that there is no requirement that an
economic impact study be done on the draft Comprehensive Plan, but there
is a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan that deals with economic
development in the County.
~ A suggestion was made that the map from the Growth Strategies Ordinance be used as the
Comprehensive Plan map.
Page 10
VOL
23 rM.~201
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
.
~
~ If the Board believes that this type of ordinance will get the County back to sustainable growth,
then it should be pursued. A serious look needs to be taken at all of the issues so that no
particular individuals are hurt more than the rest of the public.
The Board deliberated on whether to pass this proposed emergency ordinance. Commissioner
Huntingford noted that he doesn't feel there is justification to pass this ordinance as an emergency
ordinance. Chairman W ojt stated that he feels an emergency exists only if the draft Comprehensive Plan
can't be debated in full and if the changes happening in the County don't allow discussion to be carried
on throughout the year (to March 5, 1998.)
Commissioner Harpole stated that his interest was in looking at a moratorium on the creation of new lots
through the subdivision process, not on applications that were already in the review process. He
explained that he does not support this emergency ordinance in it's current form. There may be an
emergency brewing, but an emergency exists only if it can be stated and factually substantiated within the
ordinance. Adoption of this ordinance would be setting the County up for a lot of law suits. Findings of
fact need to be stated in the draft ordinance to support an emergency, if the ordinance is to be passed in
that manner.
There has been public input and Commissioner Harpole feels that it is essential to have further legal
review of Section 2.04 regarding what a "substantially complete" application is. Section 3.07 (septic
exemptions) is a new policy direction. He pointed out that he was one of the Commissioners that stated
in a previous meeting that if anything was to be done about minimum lot size (as stated in Section 3.09 of
this draft ordinance) there would be further public meetings before any decisions were made. Even
though he doesn't support this ordinance, he still has concerns. He understands there is immense
frustration regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Any letter that comes to the Planning Department or
Planning Commission expressing concern (general or specific) about the Comprehensive Plan will be
docketed and responded to.
Commissioner Huntingford asked where the County is going to go with this and what will be done in the
future? Chairman W ojt noted that the reason this draft ordinance was proposed was the concern that an
emergency may be developing because of the disparity between the two maps. AI Scalf suggested that
the Permit Center provide information weekly on the activities and requests that come into the Permit
Center as well as the status of the pending applications. Chairman W ojt asked that information be
provided on the location distribution of the applications that are submitted.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that even though this ordinance isn't going to be adopted, there are still
people waiting to hear what will be done about the exemption for multi-residential dwelling units located
on single lots of record, and minimum lot size. His recommendation is to take the comments made today
and have the Board sit down with Planning staff and the Prosecuting Attorney to come to some
resolution on the issues that remain. Commissioner Harpole agreed and a meeting will be arranged.
Page 11
VOL
23 t~.'.: 202
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on
Tuesday morning with all three Board members present.
CONTRACTS (3) re: Emergency Road Restoration Project #X01313 Upper Hoh Road:
Commissioner Harpole moved to approve contracts with Winney Construction, Forks Sand and Gravel
and Hillcar and Fletcher, Inc. for emergency road restoration work. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion
in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried.
Rhododendron Festival Committee re: Requestfor Fundingfor a New Truck and
Trailer to Carry the Float: Deputy Director of Public Services, David Goldsmith, reported that the
Rhody Festival Committee has requested funding for a project to replace the truck and trailer that carry
the float. They went to the Tourism Coordinating Committee that oversees the distribution of the
Hotel/Motel Tax Funds and were advised by that Committee to come to the Board of Commissioners.
Emmy Shipman, Rhododendron Festival Committee, reported that the Rhododendron Festival is in it's
62nd year and is run by a group of approximately 25 volunteers. The Festival Committee takes the float
to other community parades in Western Washington to promote the festival, the City and the County.
Steve Bozak, Festival Committee Chairman, then reported that they need approximately $25,000 to
replace the truck and trailer used to transport the float. A smaller and lighter trailer is needed. The
Festival Committee would like to spend their funds within the County for this trailer. He reported that
they currently have a 5th wheel trailer which is 24 feet long (flat part). They would like to have a trailer
with a flat space that is 30 feet long. This trailer will be made with the help of volunteers, so the cost is
not what it would be to purchase a commercially built trailer.
Chairman Wojt asked if they talked with the Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC.) Emmy Shipman
answered that they discussed this with the TCC who said that the Hotel/Motel funds have been allocated,
and recommended that the Festival Committee talk to the Board of Commissioners for funding from any
possible reserves in that fund. Commissioner Harpole asked if the City Committee that handles their
Hotel/Motel Fund has been asked for funding? Steve Bozak reported that they have been contacted.
Chairman W ojt asked how much money is currently in the Hotel/Motel Fund reserve? David Goldsmith
answered that a 5% contingency ($4,000) was set aside and explained that the funding generated for the
County's fund comes from County establishments. The City establishments pay their tax to the City's
Fund. These funds can be used for events that promote the County.
Commissioner Huntingford asked how soon they expect to start work on the trailer? Steve Bozak
answered that they want to start as soon as they have the money, but they will be using the existing trailer
this year.
Commissioner Harpole asked if there is any carryover reserve funds? David Goldsmith reported that
about 10% is carried over each year to provide cash flow for the fund. Commissioner Huntingford asked
if the Festival Committee has any commitment for funding from other groups? Emmy Shipman reported
that they have had some help from Pope Resources, but haven't heard from anyone else yet.
Page 12
VOL
23 r~f:~ 203
Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of March 24, 1997
Commissioner Huntingford suggested that he would support the payment of $1,000 per year for 5 years
from the contingency fund, with the total amount to be paid this year. Commissioner Harpole stated that
he feels the most urgent need is the lighter trailer which he understands will cost approximately $10,000.
He suggested he would be willing to approve the payment of $2,500 contingent on the City matching that
amount. The discussion continued on the amount of funding to be given and the best way to encourage
the City to provide funding also. Chairman Wojt added that he would like to see a letter of support for
this project from the TCC.
Commissioner Harpole moved to allocate $2,500 from the Hotel/Motel contingency reserve to the
Rhododendron Festival, with a challenge to the City of Port Townsend to match that amount and
contingent on a letter of support being received from the TCC. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Food and Beverage Purchase Request Form; Parent Education Classes; Jefferson
County Health and Human Services: Quen Zorah and Yuko Umeda: Commissioner Harpole moved to
deny this Food and beverage Purchase Request form because it is for a program, and not for employees,
quasi-employees or volunteers. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
The meeting was recessed on Tuesday and reconvened on Thursday. Ail three Board
members were present.
AGREEMENT re: Labor; January 1, 1997 through March 31,2000,. UFCW Local
1001: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the labor agreement with the UFCW Local #1001
SEAL:
ATTEST:
.
.
'" ..). ,~
. ,..J...:
. ~~...,,' ,//
. r Ji ~ ,"'\ .... '" ..."
. ard W ojt, Chat
D~Me
-&ng
Page 13
VOL 23,M:: 204