Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM021092 " ~~ ~ö~ MINUTES WEEK OF FEBRUARY 10, 1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners B. G. Brown and Richard E. Wojt. The Commissioners met in a briefing session with the Planning and Building Department staff and the Director of Community Services. Public Comment Period: Paul W. and Rachel A. Palmer from Chimacum asked what grandfathering is under the Growth Management Act? Chairman Dennison explained that grandfathering means that any activity that exists when new rules and regulations are adopted are grandfathered activities under those rules even though they may not be in compliance with them. Commissioner Brown stated that grandfathering would be defined under each of the ordinances adopted in conjunction with the Growth Management Act. Mr. Palmer presented a copy of a Class III Forest Practice Application which he stated shows a stream that doesn't exist on his property. Chairman Dennison explained that the State Department of Natural Resources has complete authority for the Forest Practices Act. The only time the DNR even contacts the County about an application is if it is for a Class IV permit. The Board explained that none of the Growth Management ordinances for the County have been adopted yet. Anne Savage: Anne Savage said that she has had various County officials come and look at her property and they say they don't see any drainage problem on it. She then presented pictures of her property for the Board to review. Commissioner Brown reported that he has talked with the County Engineer and the Road Maintenance Supervisor about Mrs. Savage's property and they have reported the same thing they did previously, which is that they feel Mrs. Savage needs to install a curtain drain on her property. Mrs. Savage stated her property is too wet and there is severe poison in the soil from all the water that is draining on it. She stated that she feels it is the County Road Department's responsibility to change the drainage from the road to keep it from going on to her land. Chairman Dennison stated that the drainage is not from the road it is from the natural drainage in the area. Mter further discussion of the property and the boundary line between Mrs. Savage and her neighbor, Chairman Dennison advised her that she would have to solve the boundary dispute directly with her neighbor. Kathryn Jenks. Representative of City Tree and BrushinS! Committee and City Councilman Sheila Westerman re: Update on PuS!et Power's VeS!etation ManaS!ement ProS!ram: Kathryn Jenks submitted copies of letters from the City to Puget Power and from Puget Power to the City regarding what will be negotiated in Puget Power's Vegetation Management Program in the City. She reported that the door hangars that are used by Puget Power to notify property owners that they will be cutting were misleading because they 11'-' l,e...,D.,,· ., ¡~L':OO 2:13 .,.'to. .,Ø' .,- , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 2 indicated that only branch cutting would be done, when they actually cut more than that. She asked if the County would like to be involved in the negotiations with Puget Power about their vegetation management program? Chairman Dennison reported that Puget Power had presented a vegetation management program to the County and when that was discussed, they suggested that a mediation meeting be held for all interested parties. Kate Jenks added that Puget Power's funding ($56 million) for their manual vegetation management program runs out at the end of 1992, and they are planning to cut or prune trees that are within a 12 foot radius of the power lines. They will prune trees very drastically so that they will not grow back into the power lines for a 10 to 12 year period. They also have an herbicide element to their drastic vegetation management plan, which would be used in the County more than in the City. The City is requesting that there be a pre-review process before vegetation management is begun in any area. Sheila Westerman reported that the three Puget Power representatives questioned whether Puget Power should take the lead in setting up a work group to review, discuss and negotiate a vegetation management program. The City is going to work with Puget Power immediately on their distribution line program because that is proceeding immediately on a tight time line. Chairman Dennison will check with Puget Power and see what they have planned. Commis- sioner Wojt is willing to work with the City and Puget Power to develop a process for input on vegetation management issues. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Frank Gifford. Facilities Mana2er re: Iron Ran2er and Camp Host Pr02ram Proposal for County Parks: Frank Gifford reported that with the Board's approval the Iron Ranger fee collection system will be implemented for the next summer season at County parks. The Park staff will collect the money from the iron rangers twice a week which will eliminate the need for park attendants. The Parks Ordinance needs to be amended to address the use of Park AttendantsIHosts as part of this new system. Frank Gifford continued by reporting that $21,000 is collected annually in fees from the Oak Bay, Quilcene, Chimacum and Lake Leland parks. The attendants cost approximately $4,700 per year which is 22% of the gross revenues. Clallam County and the State Parks have been using this self registration for years and experienced some losses when it was first implemented. Now that people are more used to this type of registration system in parks throughout the State, the losses should be minimal. Frank Gifford reported that he would like to institute this program in the Oak Bay, Chimacum and Lake Leland Parks. Commissioner Brown asked how the Park Host program will work? Frank Gifford reported that the Park Host would be at the park to be good will ambassadors for the County. These people will be volunteers and will be at the park a month at a time. Commissioner Brown asked that a description of the Park Host's responsibilities be developed, a process for screening the people who will be accepted in the program, and a method for removing them if they do not work out well, before the Host program is implemented and the ordinance is amended. The Board concurred that the iron rangers be installed in the parks as recommended. AUDITOR Mary Gaboury and David Goldsmith re: Staffin2 of Auditor's Office Recordin2 Desk: Auditor Mary Gaboury stated that she is asking to be allowed to replace clerk hire with a full time employee for the recording desk in her office. She submitted alternatives to l VOl ;.18 ;r~.L£ Qo 21." Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 3 the Board which outline how she will be able to do this and stay within her budget. She reported that she and her staff have worked hard to meet the needs of the office by covering this desk with three clerk hire and portion of an Administrative Clerk's time and they have found that it is not working. She reported that part of the funding for the full time position will come from the Auditor's 0 & M Fund. She asked that the Board approve the full time position for the Auditor's Office. Commissioner Brown stated that hard decisions were made during the budget setting process when the Auditor's request for this position was reviewed and not approved. Mary Gaboury reiterated that there is no additional budget impact from this proposal. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels if there is a way to accommodate a solution to the problem without any budget impact, then he is willing to do that. Mter further discussion of the needs of the various sections of the Auditor's Office, David Goldsmith added that the same number of full time positions were in the Auditor's budget until the point that the previous person at the recording desk retired. This proposal would bring the staffing to the same level it was previously. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels if this proposal stays within the original budget then it is a management decision that the Auditor should make. The Board concurred that the Auditor advertise for a full time person to fill this position. PLANNING AND BUILDING Determination of Sisænmcance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS; Mixed Use Residential. Commercial and Recreational Development (SDP91-0017); Inn at Port Ludlow; Pope Resources (See also Minutes of January 13. 1992): Associate Planner Jim Pearson submitted a summary of the comments received from individuals, the Port Ludlow Community Council (PLCC), Mark Beaufait, Attorney representing the PLCC, Fire District #3, the Chimacum School District and the State Department of Ecology. He then reviewed that summary. A. General Comments: Chairman Dennison asked about the assertion made by the PLCC that the area of impervious surface has been mis-calculated by Pope Resources? Jim Pearson reported that he has calculated that approximately six acres of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces. He did not see where the error in calculation was made. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, reported that the impervious surface areas were calculated by a computer aided graphic, drafting program and it is correct. They have calculated it for all parking areas, roofs, sidewalks, etc. He added that they will re-check their figures on all of these items. David Douglas, PLCC, stated that they made their own calculations from the drawings of the development available in the Planning Department. He added that there is a discrepancy of about three acres between the documents available in the Planning Department and the Jefferson County Assessor's maps of the area. David Cunningham reported they will re- check the amount of impervious surface and the total acreage in the site and have those figures to the Planning Department by the end of the week. Chairman Dennison asked how these issues can be resolved? Jim Pearson suggested that the staff meet with both parties to resolve them. David Cunningham reported that they will recheck any of the items that the PLCC feels are a mis-statement of facts. David Douglas added that the PLCC is concerned that any previously developed lots be given first right to be added to the water and sewer systems before these newly created lots are added. Mark Huth reported that there is an impact on both water and sewer services by the development which should be discussed in the programmatic portion of the EIS. Chairman Dennison asked if the priority for the utility services should be part of the County's . VOl 18 ,r~~~ 00 2:15 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 4 concern? Mark Huth advised that utility service priority is not the concern of the County. David Cunningham reported that the water service has already been included in the scope of the EIS. The EIS that was done for the sewage treatment plant included the capacity of the plant to service all of the previous lots as well as the proposed lots and discussed how the allocations will be made. The sewage treatment plant capacity is somewhere between 2,000 and 2,200 total residential units. Jim Pearson referred to the PLCC comment (dated February 5 and signed by Herman Schweizer) which identifies the impervious surfaces on which their calculations were based. They have included a pond (122,000 square feet or 2.8 acres) in their impervious surface calculations, which may explain the difference in the figures. David Douglas noted that they added the pond area in the impervious surface calculation because it was mentioned that way in the environmental checklist. Regarding the sewage issue, Mark Huth reported that the present EIS should incorporate the studies that were done for the EIS on the sewage treatment plant. When the time comes the Board may want to formally adopt that EIS as another environmental document to be considered. B. Additional Impacts: Chairman Dennison then mentioned the PLCC comment (Feb 5, 1992) about the 100 year flood plain. Jim Pearson reported that the PLCC comment included discussion of two alternatives with a justification for their consideration because parts of the development were thought to be in the 100 year flood plain. He suggested that because it is very difficult to interpret the FEMA maps to determine precisely what areas are in the 100 year flood plain, that the project proponent be asked for a precise delineation of the 100 year flood plain on this development site. David Cunningham stated that the delineation was done as part of this application and that information was provided to the County. Chairman Dennison stated that this information should be included in the EIS. Tony Puma, Pope Resources Project Manager, stated that this is a construction issue. Buildings in the flood plain should not be built below a specific elevation. It is important to know the flood plain boundary. He stated that they have raised the floor elevations accordingly of any buildings planned for that area. Mter checking further with the representative of the PLCC, Chairman Dennison noted that it sounds like this issue has been covered. David Cunningham stated that he just noticed in his review of the scoping notice published by the County dated January 14, 1992 the following items need to be clarified: 1) the obstruction of views from existing residences should be clarified, to indicate if it is to be addressed as a site specific impact or a programmatic impact. He feels it was the Board's intent at the last meeting that this issue be addressed on a site specific basis in the EIS. 2) Although the site specific and cumulative impacts have been noted for the capacity of the County road and State highway systems, David Cunningham suggested that this be clarified to indicated that only those roads that adjoin the overall Port Ludlow community will be addressed. They don't want to be reviewing State highways that go to Sequim or Olympia, for example. 3) The cumulative impacts to medical facilities and services. David Cunningham stated that he understood that this review was to be limited to hospital facilities. Emergency medical services are covered by the Fire District. Medical facilities could mean private clinics, etc. Chairman Dennison agreed that the review was to be of impacts to the hospital because it is a public facility. These items were reviewed and resolved by the Board as follows: 1. The Board concurred that view blockage will be addressed as site specific issue rather than on a programmatic basis. 2. Mark Huth stated that with regard to roads the subject has been identified in the scope of the EIS and it need not be made any more specific than it is currently worded. . VOl 18 fArE 00 2:16 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 5 3. Medical facilities, Chairman Dennison said was to deal specifically with the hospital, not other medical facilities. Jim Pearson noted that this issue was stated generally in the scoping notice to find out if there are any other medical impacts. Chairman Dennison stated that since no other medical impacts have been identified, he is satisfied with limiting the scope to impacts to the hospital. C. Alternatives: Mark Huth reported that there is a specific WAC which reference private projects and the alternatives that have to be discussed when a proposal is put forth. It says "they shall be required to evaluate only the no action alternative plus other reasonable alternatives for achieving the proposal's objective on the same site." This WAC has been criticized by commentators on State SEP A law, as pointed out by Mr. Beaufait, under the theory that reasonable alternatives can include off site alternatives if they would fit the objectives of the developer. Because the only case law that discusses reasonable alternatives is Toandos Peninsula versus Jefferson County which says that for a private project the alterna- tives considered can not be off site. He added that he feels it is prudent for the County to go by the case law in this instance and not consider off-site alternatives for this proposal. Chairman Dennison then asked what the site is considered to be? PLCC feels that the site includes everything that Pope Resources owns in Port Ludlow. Mark Huth responded that he interprets the WAC, which says "proposals on a specific site" to mean the proposal site, because the WAC formerly read "or other areas owned by the same developer" which has been deleted from the WAC by amendment. Generally in case law, when something is deleted, it indicates an intent that it not be considered. This is subject to interpretation, but Mark Huth added that he doesn't think the County wants to be the first County to test an opinion. Chairman Dennison asked if the Board could make a decision on what they consider the limits of the site to be, in order to eliminate this issue? Mark Huth stated that the proposed development is the site to be considered for the site specific portion of the EIS. The site is really not an issue in the programmatic EIS since it is a non-project EIS. Jim Pearson added that he feels that the design objectives Pope Resources has presented probably aren't their entire objectives for this project. The alternative that they presented illustrates development of the proposal site that would comply with the County's regulations. His point in the staff report was to ask for a broader view of Pope's objective for this project in order to decide what other alternatives there are to study. David Cunningham stated that he feels Jim Pearson's comments and recommendation on the Pope alternative are close to the mark and he feels they can go back and craft a better alternative. He asked that the Board allow them a couple of weeks to redefine their objectives and come up with more viable alternatives. The Board concurred that this would be acceptable. D. EIS Consultant: Commissioner Brown stated that he feels that the issue of how the consultant is hired should be addressed today in the interest of the amount of time it may take to go through the necessary processes for hiring a consultant. Mark Huth advised that the County will have to advertise a "Request for Qualifications" and go through that process in order to hire a consultant to do this EIS. Mark Huth clarified that either the County can hire the consultant or Pope can hire the consultant, but in either case the County has the responsibility for the development of the EIS. Chairman Dennison asked which method will give the quality of information needed in the most expedient manner? Commissioner Brown stated that as long as the EIS has to satisfy the County, he feels that the information can still be provided by a consultant hired by the proponent. Chairman Dennison added that for all practical purposes the consultant is the expert. The concern is that the information gathering is done as fairly and impartially as possible. David Cunningham stated that they want the adequacy of the EIS to be as foolproof as possible. If the choice is made for the County to go through the process of hiring the consultant, the staff report indicates that it will take about six weeks just to prepare the RFQ. LYOL 18 r~t~ 002:17 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 6 The whole process could take as long a four to six months to complete. Re suggested that an EIS preparation agreement be drawn up between Pope Resources and the County which will allow Pope Resources to hire the consultant and provides that the County will direct the consultant's work. This agreement could be the tool to resolve this issue. Jim Bramaman stated that the community is concerned about who selects the consultant that will do the EIS. Commissioner Brown asked if the County could use another County's list of consultants for doing an EIS? Mark Huth stated that if the County uses another County's list a consulting firm not on the list could argue that they were not given a fair chance because the County didn't prepare their own list. David Cunningham asked that since this issue was raised by the PLCC, that they state their concerns so that they can be resolved. Jim Bramaman, representing the PLCC, stated that who selects and employs the consultant has an influence because of the potential for future employment with the same employer. Chairman Dennison stated the principle issue is one of trust. Mark Ruth suggested another alternative is that Pope Resources hire the consultant and the County hire an Environmental Coordinator for this project. Pope Resources would agree to pay for both as part of the administration costs of the project. This would solve the timing aspect for Pope Resources and the "watchdog" aspect for the PLCC. The option of the County making the selection of a firm to do the EIS from a list of three qualified consultants submitted by Pope Resources, was discussed, but Mark Ruth stated that he didn't think that was a good idea. David Cunningham asked if Mark Ruth thinks that the suggested agreement presented by Pope Resources might bridge the trust problem? Mark Huth answered that he feels this agreement just puts on paper what is already a part of the law. David Cunningham reported that he feels there are parts of the agreement that articulate exactly how the project will be handed over to the County. Mark Ruth added that he feels there are some minor points of the agreement that need adjusting, but added that it does delineate exactly how this project will be handled. After further discussion of the agreement and the environmental coordinator position, David Cunningham stated that he isn't objecting to the County hiring this position. Re just wants it clear that the scope of work for this position will be only this project. Pope Resources would pay the person hired on an hourly basis for the time dedicated to the oversight of their project. They would like to have input on who is hired for this position. Chairman Dennison stated that he thinks there is some merit to the idea of an Environmental Coordinator and he has no problem assuring that this person will work only on this project. David Cunningham stated that he feels this issue can be resolved if the Board is comfortable with making a decision today which would allow: 1) Pope Resources to hire the consultant who will be entirely under the direction of the County, 2) that the County will hire an Environmental Coordinator for the specific overview of the preparation of this EIS for an amount not to exceed $5,000, and 3) the qualifications, the hiring and the hourly rate for the Environmental Coordinator position will be established by Pope Resources and the County Planning Director. Chairman Dennison asked the representatives of the PLCC if that sounds like something they could live with? They indicated it would be. David Cunningham asked if he can execute a contract with a consultant to do the EIS? Mark Ruth suggested that the agreement submitted by Pope Resources be revised to include the environmental coordinator and that the Planning Director review the qualifications of the firms Pope will interview to do the EIS. VOL '18 Ub~ 0021.8 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 7 The issues of the hiring of the consultant to do the EIS and the hiring of an Environmental Coordinator as well as the agreement submitted by Pope for these items will be discussed by the Board on Tuesday February 18, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. The issue of the alternatives will be reviewed again on Wednesday February 26, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. David Douglas (PLCC) reported that they received a notice from the Planning Department stating that the Interim Zoning Ordinance does not apply to this project. He stated that many of their comments and justification for the alternatives that they submitted were based on various sections of that document. He asked how this project is to be assessed if it is not subject to this ordinance? Mark Huth explained that the County's Comprehensive Plan still applies. The Interim Zoning Ordinance was adopted after the Pope Resources application was received. State law says that once a completed application is submitted to a government agency the developer is vested under the then existent rules. Since the Pope Resources application pre-dates the Interim Zoning Ordinance, they are probably vested (or grandfathered) under the previous rules. The County can review this project under the SEP A ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Master Plan. If the County's Development Code is upheld on appeal, then this project would be subject to it because it was in existence at the time the application for this project was made. David Cunningham reported that Pope Resources is not willingly submitting to the new Interim Zoning Ordinance. They made full application under the Development Code that was in effect at that time. They feel that SEP A, the Subdivision Ordinance, and Shoreline Management Master Program are adequate review and regulation for this project. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. 91-0018; Two Floatin2 Shellfish Cultivation Lon2 Lines; Dabob Bav; Tavlor United. Inc.: Planning and Building Department Permit Technician Michelle Grewell reported that this proposal is for the placement of two 360 foot floating shellfish cultivation long lines in Dabob Bay. They would be located between 300 and 500 feet offshore in waters 40 to 60 feet deep. She then reviewed the staff report including proposed findings of fact, site conditions, existing uses, other permits required, notices, applicable Shoreline Management Master Program policies, recommended conditions for the project. The Planning and Building Department recommends issuance of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with the following conditions: 1. The permittee shall repair, replace, or remove any facility authorized under this permit that is damaged, breaks away, or otherwise becomes unsuitable for the permittee's intended purpose. Any facilities abandoned shall be immediately removed from the water. 2. The permittee shall submit to the Planning and Building Department copies of the baseline and annual monitoring reports submitted to the State Department of Fisheries. 3. The applicant shall abide by the terms, restrictions and conditions of the Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the State Department of Fisheries. Commissioner Brown moved to approve this shoreline permit (#SDP91-0018) with the findings of fact and conditions as proposed. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Plannin2 Commission Recommendation for Adoption of Administrative Rules for the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: Assistant Planner Eric Toews reported that Section 13 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator (Director of the Planning and Building Department) to draft administrative rules which are effective immediately on their enactment, but the ordinance stipulates that the Planning Commission must review and the Commissioners must approve such rules within 30 days after their enactment. These rules were enacted by the Planning Director on January 13, 1992. vut 18r~tE 00 2:19 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 He then reviewed the Planning Commission's recommended changes: Page: 8 · Page 4, Subsection 4(a): The Planning Commission suggested that the section on Screening and Buffering be expanded to note that newly planted vegetative buffers have to grow sufficiently to mitigate any visual impacts within two years of their planting. · Page 5, Subsection 9: The terminology was made consistent with the terminology used under the Growth Management Act to say geologically hazardous areas, rather than unstabl~ geological areas. The preceding subsection on steep slopes includes this terminology change also. · Bottom of Page 6: The off street parking dimensional table refers to a parking space design graphic which depicts the proper angles for parking spaces. The Planning Commission recommended that the dimensional table and the design graphic have been combined as Attachment A. · Page 7, Subsection 12: The Planning Commission asked that the language be changed to indicate that access points have to be located in a manner consistent with standards adopted by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. · Page 16, Subsection 13: The Planning Commission modified the height restrictions on community signs. They lowered the height limit from 18 feet down to 8 feet. · Page 16, Subsection 14: The Planning Commission changed the size limit for personal signs from 48 square feet to 16 square feet. · Page 17, Subsection 17: The maximum height (distance off the ground) allowed for planned residential community signs is eight feet instead of 18 feet. The Board members questioned if visibility from roads will be impaired by lowering the height of these signs? Eric Toews reported that the Planning Commission considered the height to be the problem. Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that this is a standard and a variance can be applied for in a specific situation. · Page 18: The original draft of these rules referenced that the Public Works Highway Functional Classifications be used to determine the classification of roads in Jefferson County. The Planning Commission noted that in addition to those classifications they would add Oak Bay Road (from Flagler Road to the Beaver Valley Road) and the Four Corners Road (from Airport Cutoff to Highway 20) as arterial roads. Prior County practice identified these roads as arterial. Mary Phillips asked if properties on these roads will now be considered commercial? Craig Ward reported that applications for commercial designation must use the definitions and provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and the Community plans. He added that there will be a continual process of applying these rules and making changes to improve them. All changes will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review. Chairman Dennison asked how to proceed with this matter? The Board will review these rules and will consider adoption on the February 18 agenda. Discussion ensued regarding the process of the Planning Commission's review. Mary Phillips and Roger Short reported that they were told that the last Planning Commission meeting was cancelled. The Board directed that the record be reviewed to make sure that the Planning Commission procedures were correct. A report will be made at the Board's next meeting. _ yot 18 rA{'~ 00 220 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 9 Discussion of State Department of Community Development Letter re: March 1 Deadline for Growth Manasæement: Craig Ward summarized the letter dated January 31, 1992 from the State Department of Community Development (DCD) which states that the March 1 deadline for adoption of interim growth management regulations to assure the conservation of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands, and the protection of critical areas, is the limit of extension period that the State can grant. The Board directed that Craig Ward advise the DCD that the County is working as hard as possible on developing the required regulations, but that the deadline will probably not be met. They asked that the DCD be contacted to see if they can provide assistance as offered in this letter. Craig Ward added that an annual report is currently being developed for submission as required by the grant funding for this work. Roger Short reported that he discussed this letter with Kathy Lindquist of DCD and she indicated that the letter means what it says. He added that the next to last paragraph which indicates that taxes could be withheld effects the residents of the County. Ed Squillace asked what date the Commissioner's Office received this letter? The Clerk reported that it was date stamped in the office on February 4, 1992. He asked that this type of information be provided to the public when it is received. He also asked to be notified if the DCD comes to address the County on this issue. Craig Ward reported that whether the County considers changing its SEPA ordinance or drafting new ordinances, the legal requirements must be met for publication, hearings, and SEP A review of these ordinances. Robert Greenway, Planning Commission Member, reported that there is public confusion around the term "interim" ordinances, because there is fear that once they are in place, they will always be in place. Ed Squillace asked if the Board has contacted other County Commissioners regarding this letter? Chairman Dennison stated that he has not. Mr. Squillace suggested that, since Counties with less than 100,000 population are all having problems with this, they col- lectively write the legislature or the Governor to explain their problems and ask for an extension of time. * * * APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Land Acquisition, Relocation and Related (Right-of-Way) Services for the Public Works Department; State Department of Transportation 2. Approved Posting a Comparative Bid Purchase; Labor and Equipment for Moving the Health Department to a New Facility 3. Approved Purchase of a Stack Feeder for a Laserjet Printer by the Jefferson County Equipment Renting and Revolving Fund; For the Planning Department 4. CONTRACT re: Professional Services for the Health Department; Clallam-Jefferson Counties Family Planning Services 5. CONTRACT #2490-084305(3) re: Developmental Disabilities, Human Services Department; State Department of Social and Health Services vGt. l' 8 ',r:~,r,'" 00, ',' 2'''~1 rMÚ~ ;(j, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 10 The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday, February 11, 1992 at the Tri Area Community Center. Chairman Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt. JOINT COUNTY/CITY HEARING re: Tourism Development. Mana2ement and Marketin2 Plan: Approximately 30 interested residents were present when Chairman Dennison introduced the members of the Board, City Council Members Norma Owsley, Sheila Westerman, Cindy Wolpin, Bob Sokol, Julie McCulloch, Mayor John Clise and Economic Development Council Director Bart Phillips. Bart Phillips, who acted as the Project Manager for the development of this tourism plan, then explained the background, and development process used in its preparation. The process was to evaluate and assess the current tourism industry, develop a strategy to optimize the benefits of this industry county-wide, and develop a marketing strategy for the public sector funds (including the Hotel/Motel Taxes from the City and the County) that go toward tourism marketing and development. The steering committee set goals and objectives in the second stage of this process. Those goals include: extend the benefits of the industry county-wide, enhance cooperation among various communities and business organizations involved in tourism marketing, look at developing a "hubs and spokes" approach to tourism marketing with Port Townsend as the hub and the other communities in the County as the spokes, enhance existing physical and program resources, develop a target marketing tourism program, enhance and improve tourist information services, maximize the dollars spent by tourist, and dévelop strategies to maximize low impact, sustainable tourism. Bart Phillips continued by explaining that the plan also includes discreet strategies on how to meet these goals, the specific tourist markets to focus on, the opportunities and threats to the industry and an overall management strategy of the numerous groups that have an interest in public sector marketing. This plan is a draft document. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing. Bill Medlicott. Port Townsend stated that he and his wife own the Holly Hill House Bed and Breakfast. He stated that he objects to the whole concept behind this plan. He doesn't feel a marketing plan has been presented. He doesn't think another level of bureaucracy is needed and he asked why a convention bureau is needed with the few facilities available to handle small conventions? Tourism provides $200,000 in bed tax money to the City and County per year. The RCW's are clear on what this money can be used for. Without tourists that $200,000 vanishes. He questioned how much of this money in 1990 and 1991 was actually spent on tourism promotion. It's not just accommodations that benefit from tourists. Restaurants and retailers also benefit from tourism. The Port Townsend Visitor Information Center has a world wide reputation for its efficiency, thoroughness, courtesy, etc. He asked why they would want to change something that is already working great? Randv Maag clarified that his signature on the plan was to symbolize the Chamber's willingness to work with the plan and to insure Chamber participation. Further endorsement from him, will depend on how the TCC is put together and how it is financed. Bob Sokol ~tated that he is commenting as a participant in the process, not as a City Council member. He reported that when the committee was put together to work on this plan, the notification letters indicated who was appointed to represent the Chamber as well as the alternate. He had a difficult time getting his foot in the door. He then reported on the process used to develop this plan, and presented a letter to explain why he would not sign the transmittal letter for the plan. He added that there are a lot of good ideas in the plan. He then outlined the problems he sees with the plan: . VOl 18 fAÇE 00 222 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 11 Bob Sokol - Continued Page 8, Goals: There is nothing in the goals about Port Townsend. If tourism is going to be spread county wide, it will be done at the expense of Port Townsend and he wants the plan to reflect that this is not its objective. He proposed Objective lA which says that Port Townsend and the tourism industry in Port Townsend still be considered a growth industry. Page 10, Primary Tourist Markets: This plan indicates that only certain people from certain areas are to be targeted. He feels that if the target market is limited to the immediate Puget Sound area only 40% of the people who come here now would be targeted. Page 11, Other Potential Markets: This says that other areas of the Northwest will be targeted only when the primary and secondary target market goals have been met. He feels that it will be impossible to say when those goals are met. Pages 17-19, Marketing Communications Strategies: This is a 30 page plan with only two pages of strategies. Pages 20 and 21, Tourism Marketing Management: Bob Sokol stated that he feels this is the single most important part of the plan. As a marketing plan it is important that it sell. This plan suggests establishing additional organizations. The idea of a Visitor and Convention Bureau (VCB) hasn't been developed or evolved, it is just stated in this plan as the desired tourism management organization for Jefferson County. An interim Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC) is suggested by the plan as a short term transitional organization. Nine thirteenths (9/13th) of this group is proposed to be government and non-profit organizations which don't represent the business interests of the City or the County. Page 23, Tourism Management and Market Budgeting: This plan states that the first priority for budgeting is for start up funding for the new tourism management structure. He doesn't feel this is necessary. He concluded by noting that a tourism promotion marketing management plan of any kind should recognize that tourism is a vital and important part of our economy. Millions of dollars are brought into this area and left here. These dollars provide jobs, stay in the local economy, and provide tax revenues. This plan should sell, but there is nothing in it about selling. He urged that the plan to create a Port Townsend/Jefferson County Visitor and Convention Bureau not be approved. Barbara Bo~art read and submitted her comments on this plan. She made the following comments and suggestions: 1) The Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC) should have board membership from different geographic and background areas. She feels this Council would aid in developing budgets in the existing Chambers of Commerce, coordinate the requests for bed tax funding, coordinate the interchange of information for mailings, and facilitate educational tours for better understanding of county-wide attractions. 2) Good customer service is the best marketing plan. 3) Use State publications to advertise. 4) Since short winter days are not conduci~ to dI1v1ng here during mid-week, she suggested that it may be best to not att.mpt to stretch the tourism season for Port Townsend. 5) She doesn't feel that a VCB would attract the right tourists. In conclusion Barbara Bogart stated that the attraction of Port Townsend and Jefferson County is the people and their friendliness and sincerity. She urged that tourism promotion not get too far from that and become too professional. Jov Goodrich stated that after reviewing the Tourism Management, Marketing Plan her first impression is that Jefferson County doesn't need it and is not ready for it. She then made the following statement as President of the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce objecting to VOL 18 fAf.£ 00 223 · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 12 the makeup of the Tourism Coordinating Council: "We feel the proposed makeup is heavily weighed with government and non-profit representation and is not representative enough of the businesses affecting and affected by the tourism industry." Dan Y oura stated that even though he has been involved in tourism in the Port Ludlow area, he has worked for years with the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce to get more promotion of the County, including Port Ludlow, Port Hadlock, and Quilcene. The Chamber's philosophy over that time that they have been receiving bed tax funds from the City as well as the County, is to promote Port Townsend and as a result, they feel the benefits will spill over into the County. He feels if the money generated from the County had been used to promote Port Ludlow, there would be greater awareness of Port Ludlow. He reported (and submitted a written report) that the total amount of taxes collected from accommodations in the County from 1984 to 1991 (excluding Port Townsend) amounts to $486,751.96. Of that amount approximately 45% was generated by the Resort at Port Ludlow, with another 30 to 35% generated by the Kalaloch Lodge in the West End. He then read the following resolution of the Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce "We support the formation of a Jefferson County Tourism Committee comprised of diverse representation from all areas of the County with interests including, but not limited to, the tax revenue producers and users." He stressed the importance of getting the benefits of the Hotel/Motel Tax money back to the areas that are generating the money. He added that he would like to see more cooperation between the public and the private groups on this issue. He suggested that the Visitor Guide be supported by advertising and added that he would like to see the evolution of a Tourism Coordinating Committee that has a strong business representation. This effort to involve a marketing effort on the basis of public money is weak and should have a private money component to it. Brent Shirley said that he feels that this plan recognizes that tourism is an important industry in the community. This is a draft plan. There have been attempts to involve the public in discussions of the plan ançl this is the best group and discussion that has been held so far. He stated that he agrees and disagrees with things that have been said, but the point is that everyone is together talking about tourism. The plan was implemented partially because of the perspective that Dan Y oura mentioned, regarding what is being done for the County. He added that he respects the City Council's position in representing the citizens of Port Townsend and its bed tax, but he believes that everyone would benefit if some of these monies were shifted for use county-wide. The VCB idea, he feels, is a good one which could be a coordinating effort that would allow a toll free number to come into the area and help locate people in facilities that are in Port Townsend and also in the County. These discussions should continue. He clarified that the government entities, such as the Forest Service, were included in the membership of the TCC to provide representation of as many groups as possible that are impacted by tourism. Phil Broms said that he believes the bed tax dollars should be used to sell tourism and not a lot of ancillary activities. As far as the VCB, he is in favor of it, but what he sees is a centrally located coordinating visitor center. Patti Sullivan asked if this plan will require an environmental reVIew and threshold determination? Barbara Bogart reported that the businesses listed in the Visitor's Guide are basically listed just to help visitors find accommodations, restaurants, etc. The reason that advertising was kept out of this Guide, was to keep it from looking like a hard sell publication. Bill Medlicott reported that there are legal questions involved, since tax money is used to put out the Visitor's Guide, he doesn't think that paid advertising can be mixed with it. Jim Dornan said that he feels this plan is a lot of words to accomplish one thing. He asked what consideration was given to implementation costs in the development of this plan? Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and Chimacum already have Visitor Information Centers. Chairman ~Gl 18r~\)~ 00 224 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 13 Dennison responded that he thinks that the plan was developed with the idea that the Hotel/Motel Tax would be a source of funding. Bob Sokol added that the sources of funding is listed on pages 23 and 24 of the plan and includes local, State, federal government, and private funds. Don De V os stated that traditionally a marketing plan is one which addresses how to increase the size of the pot. If the pie gets larger, all of the participants benefit. From what he has heard tonight, it sounds as if this plan is not promoting, selling or discussing how to grow the size of the pot. If bed tax is going to be the source of funding for this plan, he feels the number of beds sold must increase. This plan is talking about adding more bureaucratic layers with no more money. The discussion turned to funding sources that may be available to a Visitor and Convention Bureau, and if the bed taxes from the County and City can be combined. Adeen Hokins commented that she felt that the plan didn't put enough emphasis on the need to go after conference business. The plan talks about the need to go after tourism during non-peak times (off-season), which she feels could be accomplished by going after conference business. Conference business can be small groups that take over a bed and breakfast for a private retreat. Another suggestion is to design off-season special events to bring tourists to the County. Joy Goodrich said that she realizes that the governments are the ones that allot the tax money, but she doesn't feel they have to be part of the Coordinating Council that decides how best to spend tourism dollars. The Council should be able to make those decisions. Chairman Dennison added that among the organizations suggested to be members of the TCC are some non-profit and government organizations (Centrum and Fort Worden) because they are heavily involved in the tourism industry in the community. Joy Goodrich added that there are nine government or non-profit organizations and four business organizations and she doesn't feel that is right. Phil Broms added that he feels that business needs more representation on the TCC because the people who raise the money should have more to say about where the dollars go. He doesn't feel that this year a lot of the dollars are being spent to really sell tourism. City Councilman Sheila Westerman reported that she gets many people commenting to her about tourism. She feels strongly that the politicians need to be involved to represent the ordinary citizen. She sees the community as including inn keepers, services providers and all the other citizens in the community and they all need to be represented. Mter more discussion of the make up of the TCC, Dave Grove, City Clerk!freasurer clarified that Fort Worden is the largest single contributor to the City's bed tax. He then explained how this tax, officially known as a Stadium Tax, came into being, what it can be used for and that the City and County have both pledged using a portion of this tax for the next twenty years to pay for a portion of the cost of the construction of the McCurdy Pavilion at Fort Worden. Joanna Jackson asked when the actual setup of the TCC will be determined? She asked when these issues will be resolved? Chairman Dennison stated that there is a lot of work to do on this plan yet. City Councilman Julie McCulloch added that this hearing on the plan is part of a process and there are still opportunities to make the plan be what is right for the City and the County. Cindy Wolpin reported that the City Council will be holding its own hearing on this plan and they welcome public comment at that hearing as well as written comments. Chairman Dennison added that the County Commissioners will also accept written comments on this plan. . VOL 18 rAŒ 00 225 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 10, 1992 Page: 14 Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for coming. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: cI~ :J Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ... '.Vßl 18rAiç¡£ 60 ?26