Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM031692 , .1 ..,'" c..t~ 'V" ~Ò~ MINUTES WEEK OF MARCH 16, 1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt. Mter discussion of a personnel matter with Mark Huth the following business was conducted. ~ Native American Remains Discovered at Port Ludlow: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that remains have been found on a lot in Port Ludlow owned by Mr. Durkan. When it was determined that they were indian remains, the Port Gamble and Jamestown Klallam Tribes were called. They have visited the site twice. Mike Ajax, County Building Inspector, Del Gilbow a Forensic Anthropologist representing the Jefferson County Sheriff, and Robert Whitlam from the State Office of Archeological and Historic Preservation (part of the State Department of Community Development) were present at the second visit to the site. More bones were found in other areas which has led Mr. Whitlam to ask that the County issue stop work orders on any building permits in this area until he can meet with the Tribal Councils (scheduled for March 25, 1992) to decide if an archaeological survey of the area is necessary. The County has placed these stop work orders on three building permits. Mark Ruth stated that he feels it is better to err on the side of caution and not allow the work to go forward so that nothing more may possibly be disturbed. Chairman Dennison asked what authority the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation has over this matter? Mark Ruth reported that there is a State statute that disallows anyone from digging on private or public lands where archeological or historic resources exist (except for indian graves). The County doesn't have anyone with the expertise to determine if a site is or isn't an archaeologic or historic site. Mike Ajax reported that the tribal chiefs are meeting on the 25th to determine how to replace the remains (on-site or off site) and to discuss the possible need for an archaeological survey. Mark Huth added that if it is determined that a survey is needed the next step would be to determine the scope and extent of the survey, who would perform the survey, and who must pay for it. , Commissioner Brown asked if the tribal chiefs could meet on this sooner than the 25th to accommodate the needs of the people who are building on these sites? Mark Huth reported that he has not talked with the tribes about moving up the date of their meeting. Craig Jones, Attorney for Pope Resources, stated that there are two statutes in the State that govern the preservation of archaeological objects and indian remains: RCW 27.53 and 27.44. RCW 27.44 deals with indian graves and that statutes says that if you inadvertently discover indian remains on your property, the property owner must contact the indian tribe and under their supervision have the remains reinterred at State expense. RCW 27.53 governs archaeological digs. This statute requires that a permit be granted from the State 18 . . ~,~. , r"Ci, On v :140 .' r -t-... Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 2 Department of Community Development. There is an extensive review process for this permit including a SEP A checklist. The work is closely supervised to make sure it is handled scientifically. This statute has a specific exemption for indian graves. He added that nothing has been found on these sites but the remains of a male and female indian. This is an indian grave and the Tribes have been contacted about removing and reinterring the remains. There are no County or State regulations that give the County the authority to place stop work orders on properties, significantly away from where this isolated grave was found (Mr. Durkan's property). The State has no authority to authorize an ar- chaeological survey. If artifacts, other than bones, are discovered then the permit process must be started through DCD. No other artifacts have been found on this site, and there is no authority for any further survey of the properties. Commissioner Wojt asked if Mike Ajax visited the site with the State? Mike Ajax reported that he was with the State representatives when they were at the site last Thursday and found artifacts (other than bones) on the site. Mark Huth reported that the State instructed members of the media present not to identify what was found on this site or where it was found. He added that he feels it is not appropriate to discuss what was found on the site. There were things other than bones found and that is why an ar- chaeological survey may be necessary. Delbert Gilbow, Archeologist who works with Counties as an anthropologist on skeletal remains, reported that he was the person who identified the fragmented skull as that of a native american. He was also present on the site on Thursday with the State and County representatives. On Mr. Durkan's and Mr. Newsome's property no artifacts have been found. He suggested that the County not continue with the stop work orders on these properties since the intent of the law is to encourage voluntary reporting of bone finds to protect remains so they are not destroyed and the scientific data lost. Mr. Durkan and Mr. Newsome have retained him because they are concerned. He will be on site when any ground disturbing activity takes place. If anything is uncovered he will be there to assure that it is properly identified and taken care of as required by State law. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, said that they want to be respectful and practical about this matter. He feels that a practical approach is to allow the work to proceed on properties where no remains have been found so long as during the excavation for foundations and utilities, a competent, qualified archaeologist is on site to assure that nothing is disturbed. Chairman Dennison and Commissioner Brown asked the Prosecuting Attorney to review the RCW and check with the State to determine what authority the State has to ask the County to place stop work orders on these properties. 10:30 a.m.: Mark Huth reported that he called Mr. Whitlam and Mary Thompson at the State Office of Archaeology and Historical Preservation. They would like the County to coordinate with the tribes before anything is done. He then talked with Mike Reed, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe who confirmed that the Tribal Chiefs will be meeting on this matter on March 25. They will try to move that meeting to an earlier date. They feel that because of the number of bones found this is more than just a casual use site. The permit (for an archaeological site) decision is made by the State in conjunction with the Indian Tribes. Commissioner Brown asked what basis the County has to place stop work orders on these lots? Mark Huth clarified that the issue is whether this area an ar- chaeological site or only a grave site. Commissioner Brown added that he still needs more information regarding how a determination on the use of this site is made and how the County can keep a stop work order in force with the amount of information available and under what authority the County can enforce the stop work orders to allow time for information gathering. Chairman Dennison stated that this discussion will be continued at 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m.: Chairman Dennison asked what the County's liability is for placing these stop work orders on properties as requested by a State Agency? Mark Huth reported that RCW 27.53 defines an archaeological resource as "all sites, objects, structures, artifacts, ..VOL 18 tÂLt 00 341 ,I ," Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 3 implements, and locations of prehistorical or archaeological interest, whether previously recorded or still unrecognized. . ." Whether on private or public lands, any person, firm, corporation, agency or institution of the State or political subdivision of the State (meaning Counties) digging into such a site (except an Indian grave site) without a permit is subject to being charged with a Class C felony. The County's Shoreline Program applies to the lots in this area. Lots 16 and 19 are within 200 feet of the shoreline while Lot 10 may not be. It states that no development shall be undertaken on a site that has probable archaeologic significance until an evaluation of the site has been made by an authority judged competent is such matters. Mark Ruth further reported that he has talked with Mr. Durkan's daughter and she stated that her father is willing to wait until the Indian Tribes meet and discuss his property. The other lot has a building permit, but actual building will not be ready to begin for a couple of months. The only stop work order at issue at this point is Mr. Newsome's and Mark Ruth suggested that if Del Gilbow is hired to do a survey of the property and to be present during excavation on the site, that the stop work order be lifted. Mr. Gilbow reported that he has surveyed Mr. Durkan's lot and it is his understanding that they are almost done with the excavation of it, except for the driveway. Chairman Dennison reported that he has discussed this matter with a representative of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and they are concerned that a survey be done. Commissioner Brown moved that the stop work order be lifted on Lot 10, Mr. Newsome's lot, on the condition that the archaeologist be present on site when any excavation is done. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Brown stated that he thinks that someone should contact the property owners in that area to see if they would be willing to participate in a survey of the whole area as soon as possible. Craig Jones asked how this survey would be funded? The Board stated that they don't know how such a project would be funded. Craig Jones asked if a person came in for a building permit on a lot in the same area would the conditions placed on Mr. Newsome also be applied to them? Chairman Dennison said that seems reasonable, but the Tribal leaders must be consulted. Mark Ruth added that with regard to the scoping of the Port Ludlow Inn Project, he found in doing research for this issue that the site of the Port Ludlow Inn is designated as an archaeological site. Re suggested that this be addressed in the EIS being done on this project. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Public comments covered the public's involvement at Planning Commission meetings, the flood work being done on the Big Quilcene River by Dan Newman and how the cost for this work can be funded by the County, State and/or federal government, and concerns about the Growth Management Act ordinances to protect critical and resource lands. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS BID OPENING re: One (1). Used. 3 Axle Truck: Public Works Director Gary Rowe opened and read the bid received as follows: BIDDER: BID TOTAL: Farwest Truck Sales, Inc. 1984 Kenworth C510 (Sales Tax included) $35,152.50 LVOl 18r;(&~ 00 342 .' '...' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 4 Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department check the bid for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Sale of County Property on Dabob Bay to the State Department of Natural Resources: Carter Breskin reported that an agreement has been drafted to sell a piece of property the County received from H.J. Carroll to the State Department of Natural Resources because it is located adjacent to a nature preserve they own on Dabob Bay. H.J. Carroll has agreed to remove the "for park purposes" stipulation a condition is added to the agreement that the money received from the sale of this property be put into a special fund for improvements to County owned amateur athletic fields or for improve- ments to the property where athletic events are held. The property will be sold to the State Department of Natural Resources for the appraised value of $268,200. The Prosecut- ing Attorney will review this agreement before it is brought back to the Board for approval. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Janet Camp. Housin2 Director. ClaUam Jefferson Community Action Council re: County Property for Self Sufficiency Project: Janet Camp, Housing Director for Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council submitted a draft lease option agreement for the County property being considered for the CAC self sufficiency project. The Washing- ton State Housing Finance Commission needs information on the land to be used for this project immediately because they are going to publish legal notices regarding the project. She asked if the Board could agree to the suggested option parcels which are off of West Valley Road near Rhody Drive. Chairman Dennison noted that this project has moved along very fast which he feels hasn't allowed enough time for the County to answer questions regarding the land use designa- tions in this area and legal questions regarding the transfer of this property. Commissioner Brown asked what commitment the County would be making? Janet Camp reported that the CAC already has the grant and other funding sources to do this 16 unit project. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth added that he just received this draft document and has not had time to review it. He added that this document should just state that the County is willing to lease to CAC through the public bidding process. This will be put on the agenda for March 23, 1992 at 11:00 a.m. for further discussion. PLANNING AND BUILDING HEARING re: Chan2e in Hearin2 Examiner Recommendation: Convert a Previouslv Approved Six Unit Sin2le-Family Residential Condominium Into a Six Lot Sin21e Family Residential Subdivision: The La200n at Kala Point #LP03-91: La200n Associates (Continued from March 9, 1992): Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the Hearing Examiner recommended preliminary plat approval of this plat with several conditions. One condition was that an easement be allowed for access and another condition was to address building setbacks on these lots. He reported that a letter was received from Fire District #6 indicating that they have inspected the cuI de sac on the plat and found that is meets their requirement as long as no parking is allowed. He reported that if the Board changes the recommended conditions of the Hearing Examiner, they will have to develop their own findings of fact. Jerry Smith then reported that he has a letter from Bill Lindeman of Kala Point Development Company stating that they will grant an eight foot utility easement along the south side of the right-of-way of Kala Lagoon Road. The final issue is the setbacks for future residences on lots 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. There is presently a residence on Lot 3. LVOl 18 rA~,£ 00 343 '..' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Chairman DennisOIFÖp~ned the public hearing. Renate Wheeler stated that the easement has been granted on both sides of the road. Mark Huth asked if the easement on the north side of the road changes to five feet at Lot 6? Renate Wheeler answered that it does. She added that this was necessary because of the steepness of that lot. . Page: 5 Fred Grove. Architect for the project, stated that the steepness of the site is the problem on this plat. The. garages can not be setback 20 feet from the cui de sac on ,Lots 1, 4, 5 and 6 because of the elevation drop of the lots. There isn't room on the lots to change the elevation of the g'Prages. They must be at the elevation of the cuI. de sac. The garages would have to be two story structures and they would crowd the space for the house on the site ifthêy had to be set back 20 feet.· Chairman Dennison a~ked if a five foot utility easement is adequate since eight feet was recommended? Mr. Grove reported that the utilities are already installed on these lots. Jerry Smith reported that the Sub- division Ordinance stâtes that five feet is the minimum width for a utility easement. Carter Breskin, Public Works Department, reported that the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 60 foot wide road right-of-way and that has been reduced to 24 feet for the road bed with two eight foot4tility easements for a total of 40 feet. Five feet is an acceptable utility easement. Commissioner Brown asked about the setback for the· garages. Fred Grove answered thát. the garages need to be allowed to come up to the easement line. This is also necessary due to the steepness of the lots. The discussion turned to the need for the variances requested and the original plat of this site as a condominium and the changes required for it to become a subdivision. Renate Wheeler repoited that the declarations on the plat have been revised to indicate that there is no parking . allowed on the road. She added that the landscaping and upkeep of these properties are· the same as they were for the condominium project and will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Kay Goodhue. Admiralty Audubon Society stated concern about the paths from the homes to the lagoon and how wide they will be. Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Shoreline Permit allows for one beach access trail no larger than 10 feet wide. She then asked if there will bea buffer along the lagoon? He reported there is a 40 foot area back from the ordinary· high water mark in which no clearing can be done except for a beach access trail. Kay. Goodhue added that their main concern is the protection 'of the water quality of the lagoon and the protection of wildlife habitat. They are also concerned that fertilizers and pesticidëS not be used on the lawns. Renate Wheeler stated that the Homeowners Association will do the upkeep of the landscaping in order to 'control the use of fertilizers. There will not be any lawns, and the area will be kept natu~é(\l. " " ' Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Dennison closed the hearing. ,'.. ::.. , Commissioner BrowI1 moved to modify recommended condition #6 pertaining to the front yard setbacks for thê'garages on lots 1 though 6 and to grant preliminary approval as recommended by the Hearing Examiner and directed staff to prepare findings and con- clusions to support that action. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous:vote. Discussion of Final Selection Process for Consultant; Preparation of an Environmental Impåct. Statement for the "Draft" Development Code: . Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that they have advertised and received proposals from three JÍnns to do the EIS on the draft development code. Assistant Planner Eric Toews reviewed' the three proposals for the Board. lVOl 18 fAffE 00 ~4:4 .. .-..' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 6 John Mauk, Seattle, proposes a very "bare bones" approach. He states that he will review the development code (performance based), a standard zoning alternative and a no action alternative for $14,400 or a little less. He would develop the draft and final EIS. Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., Kirkland proposes to review only the develop- ment code and a no action alternative. Their proposal would only prepare a "draft" EIS. Their proposed cost is approximately $20,000.00 David Evans and Associates, Inc., would prepare an EIS covering the development code (performance based), standard zoning approach and the no action alternative. They have included $3,000 in their proposal for legal review of the environmental documentation and the document itself. Their proposal is based on preparation of a draft EIS for $45,500.00. Craig Ward reported that Mr. Mauk's proposal looks very attractive because he is willing to do the draft EIS as well as the final EIS. The budget for this work is $10,000 and all of these proposals will require a budget amendment. After discussion of the merits of each of the proposals, the Board concurred that the Planning Department proceed to negotiate with Mr. Mauk for this work. Request for Clarification; Plannin2 Commission Review of Interim Critical Areas/Resource Lands Protection Ordinance: Craig Ward reported the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal presented last week to the Board regarding how their review of the draft ordinances will proceed. Senior Planner James Holland added that the Planning Commission chose the eight week timeline for their review of these draft ordinances, however they will be going beyond that date because they have already spent the first two scheduled meetings on review of the critical areas ordinance and they are only half way through that review. James Holland noted that the Planning Commission approach has been to treat these ordinances as the Board's ordinances. Craig Ward stated that time is being spent on wordsmithing the ordinance, which would be appropriate if it was the Planning Commis- sion's ordinance, but not if it is the Board's ordinance on which the Planning Commission will be making a report to the Board. Fred Grove reported that the Planning Commission has spent a lot of time discussing details which is really not the intent of the Board. They are now reviewing the ordinance to make a report to the Board. He stated that his position is that the Planning Commis- sion will attempt to get their review back on track. He added that he is comfortable with the Planning Commission's role of reporting to the Board on these ordinances. Commis- sioner Brown stated that he felt that the Board had given the direction that the Planning Commission would review draft ordinances and report back to the Commissioners. Chairman Dennison agreed that it was the Board's intent to have these ordinances reviewed by the Planning Commission. Craig Ward reported that the Planning Commission is to have their report to the Board on these ordinances by April 10. Once that report is received by the Board and any changes they feel necessary are made to the draft ordinance, then the Board will hold public hearings on the draft ordinances. Robert Greenway, Planning Commission Member, reported that he supports this approach. He stated that one of the sources of confusion is that it appeared that the Board was backing off of their June 1 deadline. Chairman Dennison stated that the Board's position is that they will try to meet the deadlines that have been set, but that is not the single most important concern. The development of ordinances that won't create more problems than they solve is the primary concern. .VOL 18 fA~ 00 345 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 7 Glenn Huntingford asked if these deadlines mean that input won't be taken from the audience at the Planning Commission meetings? Chairman Dennison stated that he has not discussed this with Fred Grove, Chairman of the Planning Commission. He noted that a process has to be developed that will allow the Planning Commission to do their work. Fred Grove reported that at previous meetings they would allow public comment anytime during the meeting as long as it was brief and pertinent and to the point. He stated that when the timeline was set, the Planning Commission felt that they needed time to do their work and that meant they would allow the public input at the end of the meeting. The discussion continued regarding the public input at Planning Commission meetings, how the Planning Commission's review process is different in a Planning Agency approach and a Board approach, and how the Planning Commission should handle public comments. Review Summary of Issues and Guidance on Draftin2 Resource Land and Critical Area Ordinances for Growth Mana2ement (Continued from March 9, 1992): Craig Ward continued the review of his memo of March 2, 1992 regarding the issues left for policy direction from the Board on drafting of the ordinance for protection of forest and agricultural resource lands. The use of the soil type "prime" for agricultural land designation and having a certain percentage of that soil type before a parcel could be designated was discussed. Craig Ward suggested that if soil types are used as a basis for the designation, a variance, waiver or opt-out provision needs to be developed to make corrections because of possible errors in the maps that indicate soil types. AI Latham of the Soil Conservation District reviewed two maps to illustrate what is being discussed. He stated that the soil survey is generally good on the 1/20,000 scale, but taking it down to a 1/300 scale makes it less reliable. He noted that all of the prime agricultural soils are good for farming if they are drained and protected from flooding. The "prime" agricultural soil designation, however, also excludes many soils that are good for farming. Craig Ward reported that the Assessor uses capability classes to determine if parcels can be included in the Open Space agriculture tax program. All of the large farms in the County are in this program. Craig Ward suggested that the minimum provided for in the ordinance could be to allow an opt in provision with the "right to farm" incentives instead of designating agricultural lands. This would, however, preclude some options for designating these lands in the future. Glenn Hunting:ford stated that the designations are to protect lands of "long term commer- cial significance" which still has to be defined. Craig Ward then presented a draft definition of "long term commercial significance." James Holland then reviewed the draft. Long Term: James Holland reported economists consider anything longer than seven years to be "long term." The GMA requires that the County review the boundaries of urban growth areas every ten years and the minimum duration of the comprehensive planning period is 20 years, so either of these time frames could be considered long term. Commercial Significance: To be commercially significant a tract of land of sufficient size with terrain, climate, wildlife population and soil series capable of supporting the economic production or harvesting of needed crop, livestock, or mineral types through the planning period. Economic: When income produced by the tract of land exceeds expenses associated with producing or harvesting the crop, livestock or mineral. The discussion turned back to the designation of agricultural lands. Craig Ward reported that the work group proposal is still a workable system for designating agricultural lands. _VOL 18 fA~£ 00346 - ,- Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 8 Glen Huntingford suggested that the County adopt the "right to farm" incentives in the ordinance which he suggested may be more than adequate to provide assistance and protection for the farms that are already operating in the County. AI Latham stated that he doesn't feel that the commercial farms that are here now are probably going to stay here. Craig Ward reported that many of the farms in the Chimacum Valley are already desig- nated as resource lands (with five acre minimum parcel size) on the Optimum Land Use Map. The discussion turned to density on parcels, and the soil maps were then reviewed. Commissioner Brown stated that the whole point of the interim ordinances is to keep the resource lands from being developed until the updated Comprehensive Plan is approved. The question is, are these agricultural lands being threatened? Craig Ward reported that there is property with prime agricultural soils in the Four Corners area that are likely to convert to development because of their proximity to services. These properties are not currently used for agricultural purposes, however. Craig Ward reiterated that if the Board uses the suggestion Glen Huntingford has made it would mean that no agricultural lands would be designated in the County, but people would be allowed to opt-in to the "right to farm" provisions of the designation. Commis- sioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt agreed that this would be a good starting point for the ordinance drafting. Craig Ward reported that properties can be classified, but not designated as agriculture lands. The buffers for designated resources lands and the required title notices for properties within 300 feet were then discussed. These protection5 would not be provided if the property is not designated, and they may not be given to the properties that opt-in to the program. Whether there would be a density requirement for opt-in parcels was then discussed and the criteria for property to be given the "right to farm" protection. Craig Ward reported that the Planning staff will look into "right to farm" incentives more and report back to the Board at a later date. Leave of Absence Request by Employee in Prosecutinsæ Attorney's Office: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that in reviewing the impact that this requested leave of absence would have on the office, he and the Office Supervisor feel that it would cause a problem for the rest of the staff to cover the workload in the office. Mark Huth recommended that the leave not be granted. Commissioner Wojt moved to deny the request for leave of absence. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanim ous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Com- missioner Brown moved to delete items 13 and 14 on the consent agenda and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 19-92 re: In the Matter of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Interim Grievance Procedure 2. Bid Award: Oil Furnace Replacement for the Clearwater Annex: Price Aire, Inc. for their bid of $3,449.60 3. Bid Award: Installation of a concrete floor and retaining walls; Jefferson County Recycling Center; Sukert Construction for their bid of $3,483.02 4. Bid Award: South Apartment Deck Replacement at Bayshore Motel in Brinnon; To Brinnon Builders for their Bid of $1,097.65 5. RESOLUTION NO. 20-92 re: In the Matter of a Loan for the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund from Jefferson County Current Expense 6. AGREEMENT re: Services for 1992 Funding; Jefferson County Conservation District 7. Approval of Notice of Completion of Day Labor Project; CR0984 Surfacing Various County Gravel Roads 'VOl 18 rAl;f 0034:7 ~ , '. , ~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 16, 1992 Page: 9 8. Call for Bids; One (1) New Electronic "Sam" Asphalt Distributor; Setting Bid Opening for April 6, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 9. Letter to L.D. Fairleigh, Chief, Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation re: Tsetsibus Acquisition, Project Number 91-0478A; Notification of Withdrawal from Grant Project 10. Letter to L.D. Fairleigh, Chief, Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation re: Olympic Discovery Trail, Project Number 91-050 (City Limits to Nelson's Landing Road); Request for Additional Time to Complete Project l1.PUBLIC NOTICE re: Workshops on Growth Management Act; Tuesday March 24, 1992; Noon at Barlow's Art Studio, Oil City Road and 7:00 p.m. at the Clearwater Annex 12. Letter of Support; Wetlands Creation Project, PIE Grant Application; Whitaker's Wetland 13. Delete Item Letter to William H. Hamilton, Assistant Secretary for Aeronautics, State Department of Transportation re: Ordinance No. 5-90 14. Delete Item Call for Bids: One (1) New Medium Duty Ramp Trailer; Setting Bid Opening for April 6, 1992 at 10:45 a.m. Appointments to the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Board: Commissioner Brown moved to appoint the following people to serve on the Port Town- send Community Center Advisory for the terms as indicated. Harriet J. Small Citizen at Large Harold Gruver Senior Citizen Representative Tanna Johnson Youth Representative Yuko Umeda Recreation Advocate 2 Year Term (expires March 16, 1994) 2 Year Term (expires March 16, 1994) 2 Year Term (expires March 16, 1994) 2 Year Term (expires March 16, 1994) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request to Pay Partial Travel Expenses for Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers to Attend GAL Conference: Juvenile and Family Court Services: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the request from the Juvenile and Family Court Services Department to pay partial travel expenses for two Guardian Ad Litem program volunteers to attend a GAL Conference. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED " .. ~ ~tC~OJ~ Lorna L. De aney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .VOl 18 fA~£ 00 348