Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061493 ~ .. û~ <v ~ð~ MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 14, 1993 The meeting called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Assessor Jack Westerman re: Staffine Requests: Assessor Jack Westerman reported that he is asking for three staffing changes in his office: 1) promote the Property Data Technician to a non-union supervisory position to be called Property Systems Supervisor, 2) promote the Senior Administrative Clerk to Real Property Technician, and 3) promote the Administrative Clerk to Senior Administrative Clerk. He added that his request points out the problem with the pay scale for mid-level managers. The way things are right now there is no way to promote a Union employee to a mid-level management position that doesn't get paid overtime, longevity or a mid-year step increase without paying them higher than other mid-level manager. The discussion turned to how the mid-managers pay has been set in the past, and why these promotions are needed. Commissioner Hinton expressed concern about making any decision on this request until a pay system is developed for mid-managers. Community Services Director David Goldsmith explained that a group of mid-managers has been working to develop a fair salary system. Two needs this group identified for mid-managers are: 1) re-establishing the longevity system which will recognize the employees worth to the County the longer they are employed, and 2) add a cost of living increase in July. Jack Westerman concluded by saying that his immediate request is to have a spread between the Union employees and the mid-level managers by adding longevity and a cost of living adjustment in July. David Goldsmith. Community Services Director re: Permit Center Data Input: David Goldsmith explained that there is a backlog of permits for input into the computer at the Permit Center. He explained that there is a training program through the State Department of Employment Security for people between the ages of 18 and 21. This program would cost the County $190.00 per month. The Board concurred that David Goldsmith research this program further. : VO!_ " n r:.61 I >4 '~r;P",.. -L v (,.,; _ u _ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 2 Bob Minty. Emereency Services Coordinator re: Special Event Permit: Olvmpic Music Festival: (Bob Minty did not come in for appointment). PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following issues were discussed: a possible inequity between the recently adopted Community Planning Policies and the County-wide planning policies; the inadequacy of the Boating Ordinance in protecting shoreline properties in Port Ludlow from damage caused by wakes from boats and the Sheriff not enforcing the provisions of the boating ordinance. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to delete the application for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund listed in Item 3 in the amount of $163.84 and to approve the balance of the consent agenda as presented including advertising for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Hearing Notice re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Fees for the Solid Waste Division; Hearing Set for June 28, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in Superior Court Courtroom, continued to July 1, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queets/Clearwater School. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 50-93 re: Establishing Cash Drawer and Petty Cash Accounts for the Jefferson County Permit Center 3. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Two from American Legion Post #26 in the amounts of $425.00 and $163.84 (DELETE this item), and one from VFW Post #7498 $240.00 for Space Rent 4. Accept Resignation; Planning Commission Member (representing District #3); W.E. Seton 5. Request for Use of County Park for Reunion Picnic and Overnight R.V. Parking; July 31 and August 1, 1993; East Beach County Park; Former Marrowstone Island Residents, C/O Roberta Hendrix 6. No Objection to Special Occasion Liquor License; Saturdays and Sundays from June 26 through September 5, 1993; 7360 Center Road, Quilcene; The Philadelphia String Quartet 7. Reappointment of five (5) members to the Tri Area Community Center Board of Directors; Two Year Terms; Beth Williams, John Parker, Alice Sell, Toru Araki (new terms expire 05/18/95), and Pat Gould (new term expires 6/10/95). 8. Hearing Notice re: Six Year Transportation Improvement Program; Hearing set for Monday June 28, 1993 at 2:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers. 9. Request for Time Extension - 6 Months; Vacation of a Portion of Holman Boulevard; WWW Enterprises, Bill Irwin, Petitioner (See Minutes of June 23, 1992) 10. RESOLUTION NO. 51-93 re: The Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Second Street in the Plat of South Port Townsend; Florence Bolner, Petitioner 11. RESOLUTION NO. 52-93 re: The Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Cedar Street, Second Street, and Third Street in the Plat of Irving Park Addition; Woods Ranch, Inc., Petitioner 12. EASEMENT #9303742NJ re: County Property at Jacob Miller Road Landfill; For a Gas Flare Facility; Puget Power 13. EASEMENT #9305070NJ re: County Property at Quilcene Drop Box Site; For New Fuel Tanks; Puget Power 14. CONTRACT #2315-084305, Amendment #6; Increase Funding for Child Development Services at the Health Department by $4,000 and Individual Employment by $232 and Reduction in Specialized Industries of $4,232; State Department of Social and Health Services Letter to Andrea K. Grahn. Member. Jefferson County Plannine Commission re: Plannine Commission Representation: Commissioner Huntingford moved to sign and send the letter to Andrea Grahn as presented. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion, in the temporary absence of Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried. LVOL 19 r~G~562 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 3 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Plannine Commission Recommendation on the Proposed Administrative Rule Interpretation for the Jefferson County Emereencv Zonine Ordinance 01-0106-92: Craig Ward reported that the Planning Commission has made a recommendation of denial regarding a proposed administrative rule for interpretation of the Emergency Zoning Ordinance. The Administrative Rules to address unclassified uses that may serve a public need and are proposed by private or public parties was amended on May 7, 1993 in order to expedite permit processing. The amendment exempted public agency permits from this process. The Planning Commission recommends that this amendment not be approved by the Board. Senior Planner James Holland reported that the Planning Commission was not satisfied with the definition of "public use," and they feel that the amendment should be applied equally to all permit applicants. The Planning Commission also indicated that they don't feel it is necessary to amend these rules when the Ordinance will expire in July. They made their recommendation before the Board took action last week to hold a public hearing on extending the Emergency Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Hinton asked how many unclassified use permits are submitted each year? Craig Ward reported that there is a wide variety of unclassified uses i.e. a sign for the Quilcene Museum, building repairs to County, Port, and School District buildings, day care centers. Commissioner Hinton stated that he agrees with the Planning Commission that the terms need to be defined better. The Board concurred that the amendment be kept in force in its current form for the next week and directed that Planning Director to tighten up the definitions referred to by the Planning Commission. Discussion of Scope of Work for Consultant Services: Processine Subdivision Applications. Processine Zone Chanee Petitions and Implementation of the Open Space Tax proeram: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that he has had the consultants prepare and present a scope of work on the processing of subdivision applications and zone change petitions. He did not request a scope of work for the Open Space Taxation program because there is not enough money in the budget to cover that item. He has been negotiating with the two consultants and contracts are being reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney. He then reviewed the scope of work for each of these contractors. He reported that Susan Thomas has estimated it will cost approximately $25,000 for the subdivision application processing. The scope of work for the zone change petitions is estimated to cost $26,000. There is not enough money in the Planning Department budget to cover these items. The Board will need to make a determination on how the payment for these two contracts will be covered. lVOL 19 rA.G~563 Commissioner Hinton asked what the GMA grant money in the Prosecuting Attorney's budget was to be used for? Craig Ward reported that money was for the legal work on the Development Code EIS. Commissioner Hinton stated that he would like the information on what work the Planning staff might be able to do on the zone change applications before a decision is made on that scope of work. Craig Ward explained the scope of work for Susan Thomas on processing subdivision applications and he asked if the Board could approve that as soon as possible? Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 4 Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the scope of work and contract for Susan Thomas, subject to approval of the Prosecuting Attorney, to a maximum amount of $25,000. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING (Continued from June 7. 1993) re: Appeal of Final Mitieated Determination of Non-Sienificance: Laree Lot Subdivision of 50 acres with 1.500 feet of waterfront. into 8 lots with 34 acres to be held in common ownership as Open Space: Proposal site is on Dabob Bay; Gary Phillips/Pat Handly. Applicants: Chairman Wojt opened the continuation of the hearing and reminded Mr. Bahls and Mr. Delia that they were still under oath. Jerry Gorsline was sworn in and reported that he is representing the Washington Environmental Council (WAC). He submitted and read his testimony (see attached). Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Gorsline if he was part of the group of people that toured this site? Mr. Gorsline stated that he did not tour the site with the Interdisciplinary Team. In response to a question from Commissioner Huntingford regarding the wetland discussed in his testimony, Jerry Gorsline answered that he fees that wetland is probably a Class 4. It is small, and lacks diversity but because of its position he feels it makes an important contribution to slope stability. Jim Pearson pointed out that this wetland is discussed in the staff report on this project and is located on Lot 6 which is a fairly level area at the base of the slope south of the stream. Peter Bahls asked Mr. Gorsline if he had a copy of the proposed plat map when he visited the site? Mr. Gorsline answered that he had a reduced copy of it. He had trouble determining where the stream crossings would be located. Peter Bahls asked if he noticed any markings of lot lines, buffers, septic fields, etc.? Mr. Gorsline stated that he did not find any markings. Gary Phillips reported that ten different sets of setbacks and buffers would have to be marked. Tim Rymer of the State Department of Wildlife will determine where the stream crossings will be placed, so those could not be marked. There were soil samples taken in the area where the wetland is indicated and the soils did not indicate it was a wetland area. The use of bridges on the site was reviewed and a letter from Jay Peterson addresses that issue. Peter Bahls asked Mr. Gorsline to explain the process for upgrading the classification of a stream? Mr. Gorsline reported that the presence of fish or a determination that a potential fish habitat exists according to the physical criteria of the stream are needed to upgrade a stream classification. Mr. Bahls asked what would have to be done if fish were found in the stream? Mr. Gorsline answered that paperwork noting the discovery would have to be filed with the State Department of Natural Resources. He added that he based his stream classification on information provided by Tim Rymer which indicated that the stream was Type 3. Gary Phillips asked if Mr. Gorsline had read the WAC (Washington Administrative Code) on stream typing? Mr. Gorsline stated that he is familiar with the WAC. Steve Hahn. Division of Aquatic Lands, Shellfish Manager, State Department of Natural Resources. He submitted for the record a letter from Lisa M. Randlette, Environmental Planner (dated June 14, 1993). The Division of Aquatic Lands manages approximately 2 million acres of aquatic lands in the State of Washington. The Department's stewardship goal is to manage these lands for the social and economic benefit of the public while minimizing the adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. Within Puget Sound they manage about 70 commercial shellfish leases. The majority of the commercial shellfish leases are located within Jefferson County. Dabob Bay has the largest number of commercial leases within Jefferson County. He continued by explaining that he was asked to testify by one of the Department's lessees. Directly in front of the proposed subdivision the State leases tidelands (8 acres) to Mr. Delia for commercial shellfish operations. It is his opinion that these lands are some of the most ,VOL 1 9 (AG~ 564 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 5 valuable, for the purposes of shellfish cultivation within the State. The lessee is an active and productive shellfish farmer. He has an intensive, professionally managed farm operation. It is important that the Board consider the overall project and how it will possibly impact the shellfish beaches below. Aquaculture is the highest and best use of the tidelands in this region and specifically within Dabob Bay. Chairman Wojt asked what the value of Mr. Delia's lease is? Mr. Hahn explained that for this type of lease the State estimates the population of native oysters on the beach. They then calculate what those are worth per bushel and the State receives a 30% royalty on the wholesale price of a bushel of oysters. Portions of the property that are artificially enhanced are leased for about $110 per acre. He would estimate that Mr. Delia's lease could be worth up to $1,500 to $2,000 annually. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked if any leases have been terminated due to upland development? Mr. Hahn reported that they have had leases terminated due to water quality issues, such as reclassification of a body of water by the Department of Health. Liberty Bay near Poulsbo is an example where the bay was decertified and the people leasing the tidelands had to give up their leases because they couldn't harvest shellfish any longer. Peter Bahls asked Mr. Hahn to explain how the Tribal harvest allocation on State owned lands works? Mr. Hahn explained that the Tribes have signed the Point No Point Treaty Council Agreement with the State Department of Natural Resources which sets aside certain beaches that have natural set oysters, as Tribal Harvest areas (primarily Hood Canal), State beaches, and State Parks. The Tribes request access on to those beaches. The natural sustainable harvest is determined for each beach and then the Tribes are allowed to harvest on those beaches. The only lands that are not subject to the Point No Point Treaty Council signatories are the tidelands that are leased for commercial shellfish harvesting. Chairman Wojt asked what the leasing procedure entails? Mr. Hahn explained that the person applying for a lease fills out an application with a general legal description of the land to be leased. There is currently a moratorium on leasing shellfish lands from the DNR until there is either a negotiated settlement with the Tribes or the law suit is concluded. Leases approved prior to 1985 are being renewed and actively managed. To renew a lease the lessee must fill out an application, provide an engineered plat of the property (at their own expense), provide the State with a bond and a form of insurance. The lease period is typically 10 years. Gary Phillips stated that there is a piece of County tidelands between the State tidelands and the uplands he owns. Mr. Hahn reported that the State only owns between the mean low and extreme low water mark and the County owns from mean low to extreme high. Commissioner Hinton asked Mr. Delia if he is harvesting on the County property? Mr. Delia reported that the majority of his product is grown at minus tide levels, but they do cross the County property to get to their product. Most of the oysters on the County property are attached to rocks and they do not harvest them. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Delia if he is crossing the County property to get to his lease? Mr. Delia agreed that is probably correct. Peter Bahls then submitted a map that identifies the areas that are available for the Tribes to harvest. The discussion continued regarding the Tribes rights to shellfish on State owned tidelands. Peter Bahls reported on the letter from Rick Olson, an oyster grower, who states that a bluff failure adjacent to his shellfish beds resulted in a loss of productivity for up to five years and destroyed approximately $20,000 worth of product. Gary Phillips remarked that Mr. Olson's letter is referring to George Wilson's project. This project was done without a permit and there was no process or rules followed. He feels that comparing his project to that project is ridiculous. Peter Bahls reported on the following letters that have been submitted: · Taylor United dated June 11, 1993 · Dick Steel of the Rock Point Oyster Company · Walter Magahan dated June 4, 1993 lVOL 19 rAG~ 565 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 6 Commissioner Hinton asked if all of the people who have presented testimony on behalf of the appellants have been on-site? Peter Bahls answered that many of them have. He asked specifically who Commissioner Hinton is referring to? Peter Bahls stated that not all of the people who have submitted letters or testified have been on the site. All of the technical experts who have testified have been on the site. After review of Mr. Magahan's letter, Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked if Mr. Magahan had provided any suggestions on how the impacts could be mitigated? Peter Bahls explained that the consensus of Tim Rymer, Mr. Magahan and himself, is that there are too many lots on this site and it will take major reconfiguration of lots and road design to reduce the impacts. Mark Huth asked again if Mr. Magahan had presented any specific mitigation? Peter Bahls reported that he did not present any mitigation. Peter Bahls then reviewed his qualifications: · He is a Fisheries Habitat Biologist for the Point No Point Treaty Council · He has a masters degree in Fisheries Science and Aquatic Ecology from Oregon State University. He has a Bachelors of Science in Biology Environmental Studies from Middlebury College in Vermont. He has 10 years of experience in fish and wildlife research and management in the Pacific Northwest and other places in North and Central America. . . He then reviewed the issues on which the appeal is based: InadeQuate and insufficient information: Pertinent letters on file with the Planning Department were not given to the Board for review at the first appeal hearing. He feels that comment letters have been ignored throughout the process. The environmental checklist was signed on 1/7/92, which is nearly 1 1/2 years prior to distribution for comment under the SEPA comment period. Significant new information and changes to the proposal were made in the interim that are not included on the checklist. The checklist states that a Shoreline permit would be required under the 1992 proposal, but now it is not considered necessary by the County staff. There is no mention of the update of the 1991 Bald Eagle Management Plan and the updated plan was not given to the Department of Wildlife to review. There is no storm water or drainage plan listed in the checklist, even though one was completed. There is no mention of archeological or cultural resources although they were found on the site. There is 1,800 feet of off-site road to access the site and 2,300 feet of internal roads which are not mentioned in the checklist. Surface indication of soil instability are understated in the checklist. There is no mention of unstable stream ravines, old slumps, or the new mass wasting from the 1992 clearcut. The checklist states that clearing of trees and brush for homesites and roads will be done on approximately 2% of the area. About 40% of the site has been clearcut since the checklist was written. The checklist, the mitigated DNS issued March 17, 1993 and the final MDNS issued April 29, 1993 do not indicate that the applicant plans to do additional selective cutting on the steep slopes of the Bald Eagle management plan area, outside the road location. The environmentally sensitive area determination checklist is incorrect. It does not indicate that there is a wetland area on the site. There is no indication that 40% of the site has been clearcut in the last three years. l VOL 19 r~G: 566 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 7 The purpose of the environmental checklist is to provide information to help the agency identify impacts from the proposal, reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal if it can be done, and help the agency decide if an EIS is required. The new information, specifically the revised Bald Eagle plan, cultural and archeological information, the geotechnical report, and the stormwater report were not distributed to the State agencies with regulatory authority for review, such as the State Department Wildlife, or to the Tribes for their review. There was no on-site flagging of lot lines, road locations, stream crossings, house locations, septic areas, community well area, shoreline or stream buffer or wetlands. Due to difficult terrain with steep slopes, narrow ridges and multiple stream crossings, it is essential that these areas be identified on the ground so that adequate environmental review can be done, Mr. Bahls continued. The topographic plat map that is being used is not accurate enough to properly evaluate the proposal for an environmental impact statement. He urged the Board to inspect the site before they make a decision on this project. There was no County interdisciplinary team (representatives of departments involved in approving portions of this project) to conduct on- site review. Peter Bahls added that the additional mitigation conditions agreed to between Mr. Phillips and the North Canal Shellfish Coalition are not specifically written to give the protection wanted. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Bahls if he was speaking for the Shellfish Coalition or the Tribe? Mr. Bahls referred to the letter (April 1, 1993) from the President of the Shellfish Coalition which states that the suggested mitigation was to be submitted to the County by Gary Phillips with a member of the Coalition signing on them. He stated that he doesn't know if that has been done. He added that the Tribe has not had a chance to go over the details of the mitigation. Examples of the inadequacy of the mitigation are: · On lots 1 to 5 a maximum of 30% of the site may be cleared excluding the access road shown on the plat. This does not address lots 6 through 8. Another mitigation says that bulkheads and other structural shore defense works are prohibited. This type of restriction was to be listed as a plat restriction, a conservation easements ora mitigation condition. Having no reference to whether a plat restriction is required seriously compromises the intent of the protective measures. . Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that it doesn't matter if the Shellfish Coalition or the Tribe signs off on these proposed mitigations or not. Mr. Phillips submitted them to the County and he has agreed to them. Water Quality: Mr. Bahls reported that it is known that failing septic systems kill shellfish and 40% of the shellfish beds in Puget Sound are now closed to shellfish harvest. There have been no soil suitability surveys or soil tests done on the site. They don't want to have the project approved and then have the septic permitting done later. The current MDNS avoids evaluation of septic suitability and is an example of segmenting the proposal to avoid environmental review. This is not only inappropriate, but also illegal under WAC 197.11.060 B. This WAC states that a single course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document. The same rule provides that phased review is not appropriate when it would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments and avoid discussion of cumulative impacts. Stormwater Drainage: Stormwater runoff and non-point pollution are a major cause for water quality problems and shellfish pollution in Puget Sound. The stormwater drainage and erosion control plan by NTI is inadequate to protect water quality in the stream and the bay. There will be greater runoff from compacted and impervious surfaces and that will further de-stabilize the channel. The proposed conceptual silt ponds fall far short of the standard DOE Storm water Management Manual. The DOE manual also requires a "wet cell" component which is usually a second pond where silt can settle out. It also requires biofiltration swales constructed to exact specifications to protect water quality and remove contaminants. This plan does not effectively treat water quality or quantity problems. Furthermore this plan does not address stormwater management on the shoreline lots. This lVOL 19 rAc~567 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 8 is another example of the improper and illegal segmentation of the proposal to avoid full environmental review. The only restriction to the use of potentially problematic chemicals (used in landscaping) is a mitigation condition on Lots 6 and 7 preventing their use in the buffer zone. Without the preventative measure of banning the use of potential contaminants on the property and without the stormwater management plan for shoreline lots, there is every reason to believe that pollution will be inadvertently routed to the bay. Without the storm water plan for the lots, the County has insufficient information, Mr. Bahls said, to issue a MDNS. Sedimentation Hazards: Sediment deposition on tidelands kills significant amounts of shellfish directly and can reduce or destroy production for use in the future. Additional sediment will be a substantial impact to limited trout and potential chum salmon spawning habitat. The SEP A checklist does not evaluate the impact of sediment on individual lot clearing. The geotechnical report is inadequate in its scope and depth of inquiry and incorrect in its findings. The report does not evaluate the slope stability of the off site road that will access this property. It is based on one site visit by an engineer and geologist. This report says that the slopes appear to be stable, Mr. Bahls pointed out that this is in error because testimony indicated that there is a large slump south of the southern stream on the north side of the ridge. Mr. Bahls then reviewed several letters previously submitted which he feels support the need for an evaluation of the site by someone with soils and hydrology experience who can make specific recommendations. Impact Areas: · Stream crossings are a concern. The biggest risk is that the stream will get blocked up creating a catastrophic blowout. Some of the culverts may be as long as 40 feet. Clearing of lots 1 to 5 which are on a steep ridge, could cause mass wasting onto the beach. Inadequate stormwater treatment will increase the runoff from the roads and lots to the unstable stream ravine which will accelerate erosion of the stream channel. The location of the road on the site will make it hard to maintain slope stability. A number of priority wildlife species were not mentioned or evaluated, such as Pigeon Gilimonts, Blue Grouse, Blacktail deer, Pileated woodpecker, etc. The Bald Eagle Management Plan does not address other wildlife. It was recommended that a wildlife management plan be developed to protect sensitive and priority species that may occur on this site and to survey the site to see what's there. The Planning Department has inadequate information on which to base a DNS. · · · · Fisheries: In the report done by Ken Brooks, which focused mainly on aquatic insects, he reported that no evidence of fish eggs, fry or adult fish were found. This survey suggests this unnamed stream is not currently supporting any fish above the high tide line. Tim Rymer reported that he did see fish in a stream on this site. Ken Brooks did not identify a substantial tributary stream that enters the southern stream right below the proposed road crossing. This is a small stream and not a big producer of salmon, but Mr. Bahls stated that it is important for resident cutthroat and potential sea run cutthroat. Mr. Bahls reported that he disagrees with Ken Brooks testimony that this is not potential chum habitat. He noted that he has seen chum spawning in small, shallow streams like the lower section of this stream. The stream channel is already full of sediment which was activated by the removal of wood from past logging on the site. There could possibly be (if the assumption is made that each culvert will be 40 feet long) 120 feet of stream buried by culvert. The Treaty Council recommended a 50 foot minimum buffer along the riparian zone, but that has been reduced to 25 feet in the most valuable section of the stream (lower portion of the stream). Archeological and Cultural: The Tribe appreciates Mr. Phillips willingness to conduct an archeological survey at their request. The tribal elders have indicated that the dead were buried wherever they died which means that there is the possibility of remains being found at this site. The mitigation provided for 125 foot buffer to protect the shell midden area (as recommended by the consultant), however, the Tribe recommended a 200 foot buffer. ~VOL 19 rAG~ 568 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 9 The Tribe would like the County to increase that buffer to the width they recommended. Groundwater: Due to the potential for seawater intrusion because the project site borders Dabob Bay, the well site should be located as far inland as possible. Also, Mr. Bahls stated that he feels it would be appropriate to have some evaluation and determination that there is groundwater available for eight lots. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't know if the County can hold up a subdivision for water. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth added that if there was an indication on the checklist that there isn't enough water, the County could require a study under SEP A regulations. But, speculation doesn't give the County enough authority for this requirement. Non-Compliance with the Shoreline Mana~ement Act: The County position is to require shoreline permits for individual lots after the subdivision is approved. This is an unlawful example of segmentation to avoid environmental review under SEP A. This is a discredit to the Planning Department who have actively assisted the developer in this evasive effort. This is not consistent with the Shoreline law or SEP A (WAC 197-11-060). This site has been logged under two separate Forest Practice Applications. Mr. Bahls reported that they feel that because the proposed clear cut is within the area proposed for subdivision the entire parcel should have gone through SEP A. The goal of the Shoreline Management Master program is to prevent inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State shorelines (RCW 90.58.020). The Board Spit area is on a shoreline of statewide significance and preferred activities on such a shoreline are those that protect resources and the ecology of the shoreline, and preserve the natural character of the shoreline. Piecemealing a project to avoid shoreline review of the whole project undermines these clearly stated goals. Further information needed on the project: information is needed on this project: · Building site, buffers, lot lines, septic and well areas designated on site. · Accurate topographic map. · A septic feasibility study, including perc tests and a soil survey by a qualified professional soils hydrology expert. A geotechnical report by a professional soil scientist or hydrologist to actually look in detail at the site. A storm water management plan done to DOE Stormwater Management Manual standards. A wildlife study and protection plan for priority species. Some assurance that water supply and groundwater won't be robbing the spring fed stream of its water supply. A shoreline substantial development permit and review of shoreline activity as part of the SEP A process. County Planning staff give consideration to the local knowledge and expertise of the shellfish growers of this area, as well as the fishery, wildlife and soils specialists with the State agencies. Peter Bahls reported that they feel the following · · · · · · Commissioner Huntingford asked what assurance there is that everyone would agree to the results if these studies are redone? Peter Bahls answered that they might not agree with the results of the studies, but'they might find that there is a significant impact. Mr. Bahls concluded his presentation by noting that one of the main things they want is an evaluation of alternatives to the proposal before them now. They would like the restructuring of the lot lines, the roads, and some of the buffer requirements. He added that the Planning staff are not wildlife or fisheries biologists, they are not soil scientists or experts in hydrology. They have to depend on the experts and the local knowledge of the people in the area. The Planning staff has virtually ignored the State and tribal objections to the proposal. An EIS is required because the proposal has been improperly segmented to avoid full environmental review and because the mitigation and cursory studies are insufficient to minimize impacts to water, wildlife, shellfish, fisheries, culture and archeological resources. lVOL 19 rAC~ 569 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 10 Chairman Wojt added that even though the project proponent has been cooperative in dealing with the issues as they have been brought up, the question is sufficiency of the information and mitigation presented. Peter Bahls agreed the question is one of sufficiency. Jeffrey Delia read quotes from "Hood Canal - Splendor at Risk" done by the Bremerton Sun. He then read the following statement: "I'm asking Gary Phillips and the Jefferson County Commissioners to make the choice to protect the environment and, in this case specifically, the tidelands below the proposed development on Dabob Bay in Quilcene, Washington. If the tidelands were to become decertified in the future, they most likely would not reopen to shellfish harvest. A small business would be shut down, and the water quality of Puget Sound downgraded and many other industry related businesses would be impacted by the loss of this resource. I am making a request for the withdrawal of the mitigated determination of non-significance and requesting a shoreline substantial development permit before any road building or construction begins, due to the lack of sufficient information and probable significant impacts. Common sense suggests the amount of testi ony from qualified experts is enough to withdraw the MDNS. From what I've been Ie rning and reading and most recently in the Shellfish Protection throu h Land Use Mana e ent book from the State, it seems to me that the minimum necessary under the Growth Man gement Act still must include tidelands and shellfish habitat under critical areas. The dev loper has submitted what we feel to be an incomplete environmental checklist. There is i sufficient information to determine a DNS. There will be probable significant impacts as we have gone over. Shoreline and water permits, I believe, may be needed. Development is not consistent with Shoreline Master Program. A site plan is needed with water, septic systems, archeological sites, roads, storm water, basically what Peter said. Flags or actual markers, marking the site, so a problem solving team can see and solve some 0 the difficult challenges of this development, such as are any of the roads being put in over lopes of 45 degrees. If we could pre-visualize the development, we s ould be able to solve some of the problems before we make them. I'm a photographer, as s me of you know, and pre-visualization is the ability to see the final project. And, in photogr phy, if you don't do this very well, usually your pictures are pretty boring and don't' work. That's one of the questions I see with this project, because I have lived out there for 17 ye rs, on the edge of it, and see some changes coming about. I would like to see a team come out there and work to solve these problems. I really believe this should have been done a 10 g time ago and could have gotten us much further. I am formally requesting that the ounty Commissioners visit the site of the proposed development before any decision conc rning this appeal is made. The question is, will partial clear cutting nearly a mile of roads, with access roads to 8 waterfront homesites, three stream crossings, steep and somewhat unst ble gullies, ravines or hillside, eight private or two or three community septic systems, eight ndividual or a smaller number of community wells, and the proposed storm water runoff pro ect one small mom and pop shellfish farm that has been at the same location for 17 years. Will there be probable and significant changes to the water quality and the shellfish ha itat? I believe there has been enough expert testimony to answer that question. We, the ystermen of Puget Sound have seen what happens when man interferes with nature. Unl ss it is done with the utmost of care, it is usually destructive, not constructive to the natur 1 environment of those surrounding it. At a recent Planning Commission meeting, one of the members brought up the question of buffers. His question was 'Are the buffers for t e protection of the people or the protection of the critters?' In this modern, overcrowded s ciety, I believe the critters have become the indicators of what lies ahead for the people of t e future. I believe we will all go the way of the critters if we don't afford more protection to the environment and habitat in which we all live. Extinction is forever. Shellfishermen a e the experts of the tidelands. We also have a considerable knowledge on the upland and ad acent areas and what can be expected from natural and unnatural changes. Yesterday or the day before, my wife drove down to pick up shellfish, over the stream bed that we've been talking about the whole time. She noticed from the recent rains that the stream bed wher we normally cross is now anywhere from eight to twelve inches deeper. She carries a ru er. Quality shellfish should be enjoyed by everyone. Just as the loss of this resource ill be shared by all - Tribal, white, afro- rAC~ 570 .VOL Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 11 american, oriental, all of us. In the oyster industry the quality of water we use is equal to the quality of the product we grow. If the water quality is good, the shellfish is good. Protect and enhance what is already a clean water, clean environmental industry; A valuable resource has been identified by the experts. This is the economic (from the Department of Fisheries) outlook on Dabob Bay in Quilcene. The oyster industry produces approximately 9 million pounds of shucked meat per year. On Dabob Bay natural seed oyster set produces commercial quantities seven out of every eight years. Natural seed oyster production in Dabob averages 50,000 bags per year at a value of $600,000. An important spot prawn fishery also occurs with 30% of the total harvest of 150,000 being taken on Dabob Bay. Approximately 18,000 pounds of Dungeness crab are taken from Dabob Bay by sport fishermen every year. In addition there are tremendous deep water populations of Geoducks and hard shell clams in Dabob Bay. One thing that's very interesting is in 1990 in Jefferson County the value of the harvest between oysters and hardshell clams is estimated at 3 1/2 million dollars. This is the April 1993 shellfish industry in Jefferson County from the DOE. According to the Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development there is a revenue multiplier of 1.22. This basically adds $.22 on each dollar that is generated by the industry in other services. Thus, it's estimated that the industry generates approximately $4,200,000 in private sector revenues. This is not counting the private hatchery productions which gross sales are estimated at 2.25 million dollars yearly. The Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development also estimates that approximately 159 jobs are either directly or indirectly generated by the shellfish industry in Jefferson County. Statewide an estimated 3.3 million pounds of shellfish are harvested by recreational users per year. With 17 public beaches in Jefferson County that are suitable for shellfish harvesting it is likely that our economy receives a substantial number of tourist, as well as natives, who come in to harvest shellfish. This business is not my retirement, this is my life, my livelihood, twelve months a year, every year, for the last 17 years, and I hope for the next 17 years and the next, if I'm around or if my son chooses to farm oysters in Dabob Bay. Single family dwellings are still one of the biggest fears for most oystermen on Puget Sound. Within the last few years, Coast Oyster successfully convinced, I used that word lightly, 26 waterfront homeowners to upgrade their failing septic systems~ and they got results. Instead of having to go to court to get decisions, the agreements were worked out and these people all, with the exception of one, upgraded their systems to keep the bay healthy. The Shoreline Management Act is over 20 years old. It needs to address single family dwellings. There is far less waterfront and more people wanting to live on or near the shorelines than there were 20 years ago in Jefferson County. Finally before the Commissioners make their decision, I would like to ask that all parties involved meet again and work toward a plan that would allow development in sensitive areas and protect our existing shellfish and shellfish habitat. I still believe the best and safest solution to protect shellfish habitat is on the drawing board. Basically, is your crankshaft up to specifications - yes or no? It's pretty basic here, it's become so technical we can almost answer it in that way." Mr. Delia concluded by stating that he doesn't know what to say to the Phillips or the Commission. If the project is given the go ahead and all else fails, he asked if a performance bond is something that they would entertain? Julie Jaman, Olympic Environmental Council, stated that there are ways, other than an EIS, to get the needed information. Negotiating at a table with all parties can work effectively. Ken Brooks stated that the question of stream typing has been mentioned and he provided copies of the Forest Practices Act WAC's on stream typing. Anadromous fish can do many marvelous things, but they can't breath in air and they can't jump waterfalls, unless they have a pool of water in which to gain sufficient momentum to negotiate the falls. The stream being discussed contains no pools in its current condition which would allow resting places for adult anadromous fish. The presumptions, in the Forest Practices Act definitions, for significant anadromous and/or resident fish use, is based on a limit of a 12% grade. The LVOL 19 rAc~571 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 12 topographical maps suggest that the average grade on this stream is 14% and the grades on the upper sections of this stream are significantly greater than that. Mr. Brooks continued by noting that through his 16 years of being a water quality advocate in this State, he recognizes the importance of aquaculture because it provides an incentive for clean water. Aquaculture has an impact on the environment. Impacts can be more or less depending on the care with which we plan and carry out activities in perpetuity. That is why he recommended that some kind of commitment be made on the part of the developer to at least an intermediate term monitoring of the bacteria, aquatic invertebrate, fish health, the sediment transport and the functioning of the storm water system. This monitoring will help ensure that these systems were not only designed well, but are also maintained well and function in the way they were designed. He concluded his remarks by saying that seldom has he seen, in his role as a natural resource mediator, a proponent go to the lengths that Gary Phillips has, to try and address the concerns of people who felt that a project jeopardized something they value. He is a little disappointed at this point, that those accommodations don't appear to be sufficient for these people. He doesn't believe that an EIS is necessary on this site. . If the site will not support septic systems, or doesn't have adequate potable water, or if the Department of Fisheries can't figure out a way to put the roads in with proper culverts, then people can't build homes on it. A structure has been developed for addressing and acting on these issues, and the proponent has followed that existing structure. Chairman Wojt stated there is concern that the culverts, if installed as planned, will cause so much damage if something were to occur that there is no way to mitigate for that possibility. Ken Brooks explained that he suggested that the technology which exists to make culverts as fail safe as possible, be incorporated into the design and that the culverts be maintained. Chairman Wojt asked about the division of the property and the responsibility of the eight people who purchase the lots? Commissioner Huntingford said that he feels the project proponent has written covenants for the plat which will address those issues. Gary Phillips explained that a clearing and grading permit is being required on each lot before any dirt can be moved. This mitigation was part of the agreement with the Shellfish Coalition. Chairman Wojt asked if the covenants are legally defensible once the subdivision is approved and the lots are sold? Mark Huth responded that the County cannot enforce covenants and restrictions. Only the other lot owners can enforce them. The County cannot base its mitigation on the fact that these covenants and restrictions exist. Jeffrey Delia asked if the covenants and restrictions can be changed by the lot owners? Mark Huth reported that it depends on how they are written. Usually they are written so that a majority of the lot owners can change the covenants and restrictions. Chairman Wojt asked what would happen if the project proponent deeded a small, unbuildable lot to a group like the Conservancy, who would then be a lot owner and could act on any change to the covenants, especially if 100% agreement of the lot owners is required to change the covenants or restrictions? Mark Huth reiterated that the County cannot make reference in the mitigation to requirement for the covenants and restrictions. Jim Pearson reported that the mitigation does not reference any covenants or restrictions that are agreements between the landowner and any subsequent purchasers. He added that the County cannot require that the proponent sell a parcel of property to anyone. Ken Brooks explained that he recommended that for some length (100 feet) that intrusion be allowed on the buffer area of the lot. This was not to degrade the buffers ability to protect the environment, it is to allow the most environmentally sensitive way to place the residence on the site. Jeffrey Delia asked if allowing some encroachment on the buffer would make it lose some of its protective qualities? There would be some loss in function of the buffer, but if the potential impact of siting the residence somewhere else on the lot were greater than the losses ~VOL 19 fAG~572 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 13 associated with the reduced buffer, Mr. Brooks explained that he would go with the loss of buffer. Jeff Drabing said that if the restrictions are made as part of the plat document, he believes the County would have review authority over any changes through the plat alteration procedure. In response to Walter Magahan's letter, Mr. Drabing stated that his description of the site is very similar to Dr. Brooks and Blaze Selwick's, and Mr. Magahan did not suggest any additional mitigation. The differences in the environmental checklist mentioned by Mr. Bahls are items that have come to light and have been addressed in other documents. Mr. Phillips has done more than most proponents would in an effort to address all of the items that have come up during the review process. Chairman Wojt asked about the mitigation and recommendations of NTI being made after a cursory walk through of the site? Jeff Drabing answered that the NTI staff did walk through the site, but he would not characterize these visits as "cursory." Due to lack of access there has not been a subsurface investigation of many of the areas that have been proposed for further activity. They did have access to the northerly portions of the site, but that is not the area proposed for road or home building, so it would not have been appropriate to do sub- surface investigations in that area. There are other permit steps required for water and septic systems. He added that the erosion control plan submitted for the project proponent is up to DOE Stormwater Management Manual standards. Jim Pearson reported that the storm water management plan is in the County's file and is available to the Tribes. Peter Bahls reported that all he has is a letter that discusses storm water management. Chairman Wojt asked about the accuracy of the topographic map? Jeff Drabing reported that the source for the contours on the map is the U.S.G.S. quad sheet for the area. The contour lines are at 20 foot intervals. He explained that he has been on the site a couple of times and he feels there are areas on it that are suitable for building. Chairman Wojt asked the date that the U.S.G.S. quadrangle was done? Jeff Drabing reported that he does not know the date, but it was done within the last 20 years, probably 1984 or 1985. Jeffrey Delia said it appears to him that if the road is put in the project is on its way. Jeff Drabing disagreed by saying that he has seen projects where there are roads built and the project was not approved because of lack of suitable soils for septic or lack of water. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there is access to the property from the beach? Jeffrey Delia answered that there is. Gary Phillips stated that they have attempted to balance the interests of the users of the waterfront property, the shellfish growers, the fisheries uses and others. The project could have been done in about six months, but it has taken two to three years to allow input from users about the issues, how they could be addressed and still retain the ability to use the property. Many of the issues brought up by Mr. Bahls have been discussed at length at meetings with the Shellfish Coalition or the Tribe. The pesticide and fertilizer issues have been addressed by the Shellfish Coalition producing a pamphlet that will be given to anyone looking at or buying the property. The pamphlet provides information on the best ways to use pesticides and fertilizers to minimize the effect on shellfish. He doesn't feel there is any benefit to doing more studies and taking more time. He knows they can do the project and do it well. They have a lot of experience with building roads and they will be hiring the best people to do the work. The agreement to get septic approval on each lot before final approval of the subdivision is not even required for a large lot subdivision. This was agreed to as a show of good faith to the Shellfish Coalition. The mitigation concerning water are not requirements for subdivision approval. Mark Huth asked how much road will be built through the project? Gary Phillips answered about 3,200 feet. The first 800 feet is reconstruction of an existing road that serves peoplè that live to the north of the County property which is adjacent to this property. Mark Huth VOL 1 9 rAG~ 573 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 14 asked how much of the road is proposed to be built within 200 feet of the shoreline? The only portion that would come within 200 feet of the shoreline, Gary Phillips answered, would be the portion on Lot 5 which is between 100 and 125 feet. Jim Pearson reported that the Planning Department submitted a Memo to the Board last week which included copies of all the comment letters that had been received on the proposal. There were comments regarding the wildlife use of the site and references to the Department of Wildlife's management recommendations for priority species. The Board also has a copy of the updated Eagle Management Plan. In answer to the comment regarding adequacy of the environmental checklist, Jim Pearson reported that WAC 197 -11-350 (4) states that environmental documents need not be revised and resubmitted if clarifications or changes are stated in writing in documents that are attachments to, or incorporate by reference, the documents previously submitted. The changes and additional information have been submitted in accordance with the WAC. The drainage and erosion control plan prepared by NTI utilizes and refers to the Best Management Practices which are contained in the DOE Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. The Department of Public Works reviewed and approved this plan prior to the SEP A threshold determination being made. There is provision that clearing and grading of sites be conducted under the review and supervision of a technician who works under a licensed Civil Engineer. There is also a requirement that the future clearing and grading for residences be subject to a storm water management plan that would be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. As far as the potential impacts to archaeological resources on the site, the applicant was directed and had an archeological site assessment done. A 125 foot wide buffer was recommended as being adequate to avoid significant impacts. Julie Jaman asked what the total possible build out is on each one of these lots? Gary Phillips reported that there cannot be any further subdivision of the lots beyond the eight homesites. How many residences could be allowed on each lot is up to the Building Department and the Health Department. Peter Bahls asked if the individual lot owners will have to provide storm water and drainage plans for their lots? Gary Phillips reported that the individual lot owners are being required to have one prepared and approved by the Public Works Department. Mr. Bahls asked what clearing is allowed on individual lots? Jim Pearson answered that clearing on lots 1 through 5 would be a maximum of 30% of the site excluding access roads shown on the plat. Clearing is limited within 200 feet of the shoreline on lots 1 through 4 and in addition there are restrictions regarding types of trees that can be removed in the Bald Eagle Management Plan. Commissioner Huntingford noted that he would like to review the record before he makes a decision. Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved that the decision on this matter be set for 3:00 p.m. on Monday June 21, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Establishine Surcharees to Court Filine Fees and to the Marriaee License Fee to Provide Fundine to the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that this hearing is regarding the proposal to increase filing fees for marriage licenses and District Court case filings for the funding of the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing. Sheridan Fonstock, Chairman of the Board of the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center stated that he is available to answer any questions. .VOL 19 rAG~574 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 15 Hearing no further public comments the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 04-0614-93 establishing surcharges to marriage licenses and District Court filing fees, effective 10 days from this date, as recommended. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Prosecutin2 Attornev Mark Huth re: New State Law on Indi2ent Burial: Mark Huth reported that State law has been changed to give the responsibility for indigent burials. A resolution defining how these burials will be handled is being developed. Judee Maihan. District Court re: Staffine: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the District Court is trying to keep up with a heavy workload, while trying to implement a new computer system. Adding to that they lost a half time position at the beginning of the year. They have been investigating ways to best meet the workload needs of the Department with the least amount of budget impact. There is a program through State Employment Security called the Washington Service Corp. An employee through this program costs the County $190 per month. The District Court has requested a full time Clerk position for the balance of this year and a contract for services to handle the computer input duties. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the District Court hiring a person through the "Washington Service Corps" program. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Hinton were present. Commissioner Huntingford was not present for the 9:00 a.m. meeting, but was present for the other scheduled business. Community Services Director David Goldsmith re: Clarification of Intent and Administration of Subsection 3.30.2 Applicability of Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 "Jefferson Countv Subdivision Ordinance ": Community Services Director David Goldsmith explained the history behind the applicability section of the subdivision ordinance regarding how property is divided when a County or State road bisects the parcel. The current policy, stated in this proposed resolution, is that if the action of a public entity creates a division of a parcel by the dedication of property for the creation of a road, or if the road existed before 1968, the property is considered subdivided. If the action of a private party creates subdivided lots then the action is not considered a subdivision of the parcel. Assessor Jack Westerman explained that density and equity are the issues in this matter. For example a 40 acre parcel with a road through the middle of it is subdivided into eight five acre lots with several of the five acre lot boundaries extending across the road. If the policy isn't clarified as proposed, the property owner could consider the five acre piece as two 2 1/2 acre parcels because the road splits them in half. This isn't equitable because the property owner was not required to meet all of the requirements for the subdivision of the property. David Goldsmith added that this is not a change to the ordinance, it is just clarification of what the ordinance means. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 53- .VOL 1 9 rAG~ 575 . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 16 93 as presented. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion in the absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried. Irene Busey. President. Brinnon Seniors of Brinnon re: Fundine for the Brinnon Senior Center: Irene Busey, President of the Brinnon Seniors, stated that everyone seems to forget why this building was purchased originally. The Brinnon Seniors have cut their Center operations budget to the bone, and no raises have been given to employees. They need $7,000 to run their programs through February of 1994. Irene Busey asked if the Brinnon Seniors have a contract with the County to run the Center? Chairman Wojt asked why the Brinnon Seniors think they don't have a contract? Irene Busey explained that the contract is on-going if the budget is approved and she doesn't feel the budget has been approved and she has not signed a contract. Chairman Wojt asked if the Brinnon Seniors received a grant for the Center Director's wages? Irene Busey stated they have not heard about their grant application. Chairman Wojt asked what the $7,000 is to be used for? Irene Busey reported that the very least they need to operate the center is $14,400 from July through February. They have $8,000 left from the allocation the County approved for 1993. Commissioner Huntingford checked and then reported that the Brinnon Seniors have been approved for a Title V grant through the Olympic Area Agency on Aging in the amount of $5,000. Irene Busey reported that this grant will help, but the Center will still need more funding to continue operations through February of 1994. She reviewed the duties of the Center Director. Commissioner Hinton asked if it was necessary to have the Director on duty for eight hours each day? Irene Busey answered that the Seniors use the Center all day long and if the Director isn't there the building couldn't be open. Chairman Wojt asked if the Seniors have kept a record of the use of the building? Irene Busey reported that the Center is used all day long by the pool players. On Monday and Thursdays the Center is used for ceramics; a foot clinic on Tuesday; on Wednesdays the Center is used for crafts. Fridays are the only day that activities are not scheduled. Chairman Wojt asked if there are records of how many people participate in the scheduled activities? Irene Busey reported that during the craft times there are up to 30 people using the program. The Center is used every day for the Senior Nutrition Program. Chairman Wojt explained that the Board would like information on what programs are being provided by the Seniors to attract the public to use the facility. He explained that the Board would like to see the use of that Center by the widest spectrum of areas residents possible. An unidentified man asked if everyone agrees that the Brinnon Senior Center is funded from the revenue of the Bayshore Motel? Chairman Wojt answered that there is no revenue from the Bayshore Motel, because it is not making enough money to support the operation of the motel. The County has provided the Brinnon Seniors with funding from the County's general fund. The discussion continued regarding the funding for the Center, the operations of the motel and the use of the Center by the widest number of people in the community. Chairman Wojt stated that there is two ways to solve the problem: 1) the operations are continued the way they are and that requires more money or 2) the Center be operated within the amount of funds available. Irene Busey reported that since the Center funding is tied to the motel use, she feels that there needs to be a different manager for the motel. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the Brinnon Senior organization consider running the motel including someone to manage it, clean the rooms, etc. The discussion continued regarding the management of the motel and how much the County is paying the current manager. lVOL 1 9 rAG~ 576 ,. - f ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 14, 1993 Page: 17 Jack Lutz stated that he would volunteer to run the motel for a year and straighten it out. A woman asked what would happen if there was a need for major repairs? Chairman Wojt reported that there would have to be a contract which outlined exactly what was expected of any party involved in the management of the motel. Dick Koon stated that he wants the County to provide a written guideline on how the County wants the motel and the Center run. Community Services Director David Goldsmith stated that he feels that a contract can be drafted to allow this to happen. Commissioner Hinton asked the Brinnon Seniors to take the suggestions back to their organization to determine if they want to proceed with taking over the management of the motel and then let the Board know. The Board then met with Budget Director Gary Rowe and Community Services Director David Goldsmith to discuss requests from District Court, Public Works and the Assessor for personnel changes or additions. Requests for Staff Replacements: Public Works Department and District Court: After review of the staffing requests submitted by the Public Works Department Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Public Works Department filling the position of SecretaryIReceptionist and hiring a replacement for the Technician IV position for the Public Works Department. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Goldsmith reported that the District Court has a person working as clerk hire who will have to be replaced because their hour limitation will be reached in the near future. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve funding through the end of the year for a temporary position to do District Court filing. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ~....'~...i...··../"'''{.·'·VC·O.·1tf~.~.. [!l~;;r~:f,/~",.¡ '......y~...J .. J'I . , ,I, .~" ..".' \~\; .-: ,'_ ,....} '.)~.I'''J''..... " ',' ".., \\ _.(" ~ 1 ".. í./ 'f;'. . ...\........vø.. '.\ \7~·· .... '. ';, i\ . .... :1;" .. \. .. .. '. VJ . ¡ -,: \,~ ~ ._, :;¡; ,,c'" ',' 't ,"'; }' ! .-.........\.....\... '.. ...'............ ..' ..;.. I \. ..,'~. ~".,.t.....; ..\. \. . ,..,. j,' ,,~/ \.~:'&:... ,. \ ..- !. ,1M, ~'t. 1'/ \~ . ' ,.,''i'JI ~ .. ~ ~,¡ "~....~....¡..~.......'.... ~ /J , ",,"_~_, ,_ -.. , ",,,,/1' ,. f' J ' " .... "." MEETING ADJOURNED ATTEST: .VOl 19 fAG~577