Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012291MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 22, 1991 The meeting called to Order by Chairman Lary W. Dennison at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: County Road Vacation Petition; A portion or Moore street and Various Lot Lines in the Plat of Irondale No. 3: Public Works Administrative Secretary Eileen Simon reported that this request is to vacate a portion of Moore Street in Irondale (75 feet long by 50 feet wide) as well as all lot lines in Blocks 84 and 85. The principal petitioners are requesting this vacation to meet setback requirements to build in an area where no trees are standing. This will allow them to leave the natural landscaping in place. The following agencies commented on this proposed vacation: Public Works - This road is a platted, unopened street. The area requested for vacation is not required for future traffic circulation. The vacation of the lines of lots adjoining Moore Street is mandatory if the vacation is approved. Assessor - Compensation for vacated area (at 50% of the assessed value) is $1,987.50. Planning and Building - The area is designated as residential by the Tri Area Community Development Plan. The right-of-way is not within any trail corridor and the department has no objection to the request. Parks Advisory Board - The Advisory Board's intent is to preserve Chimacum Creek and they request that any portion of the petitioners' lots lying within 50 feet of the creek bed be dedicated as a Conservation Easement to a public trust organization. The Planning Commission recommends that it would be desireable for a conservation easement to be granted along Chimacum Creek. They found that the vacation request met the provisions of the road vacation ordinance and recommend that it be approved with any portion of Block 85 lying 25 feet in width on each side of the bank, average water line of Chimacum Creek, donated to the County or a public land trust agreeable to the land owner, in the form of a conservation easement and if that is done it be allowed as alternative compensation for the area vacated. Chairman Dennison then opened the Public hearing.If t Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 22, 1991 Page: 2 Colleen Pullen: Colleen Pullen stated that she and her husband attended the Planning Commission hearing and they are willing to do a Conservation Easement. Hearing no further comments for or against this requested vacation, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning Commission recommendation is that this conservation easement is to serve as alternate compensation, and if so, if it is expected to replace the total amount of compensation? Eileen Simon reported that was correct, but they did not indicate that it was to be considered payment in full. Commissioner Brown responded that information is needed to find out what the value the land involved in the conservation easement is in relation to the amount of compensation required for the portion of right-of-way to be vacated. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the vacation as conditioned and to allow the use of the value of the property placed in a Conservation Easement toward the amount of compensation for the right-of-way being vacated. Commissioner Wop seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: An Ordinance Establishing Fees for the Solid Waste Division: Four interested area residents were present when Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that the proposed rates for the Solid Waste Division are based on the projected costs of the programs approved in the 1991 budget. The 1991 budget included costs for closing the existing landfill cell in accordance with the State's minimum functional standards, and costs for completion of a new landfill cell. These projects have been delayed due to completion of the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan and long haul study. He then reported that the revenues generated do not support the costs of the recycling program. A 20% surcharge has been proposed to pay for recycling costs. The Solid Waste Management Plan calls for increased recycling, management of hazardous waste and increased education. The 1991 budget includes increases in staff to carry out this program. The rate for dumping at the landfill is currently $45.00 per ton with the proposed increase to $56.00 per ton. The rate for dumping septage is currently stated as $.06 per gallon. The proposed rate of $15.00 per ton does not represent an increase, it is just a change in the way the rate is calculated. The dumping rate at the transfer stations will be $2.00 per garbage can. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing. Agness Walker, Olympic Disposal: Agness Walker stated that the 4.6% tax that is being applied to the fee for dumping septic wastes is a 3.6% solid waste tax and a 1% collection tax. Neither of these taxes apply to dumping septic wastes. The only tax that should be applied to dumping septic wastes is the 7.8% sales tax. She also stated that she would like to see the increased fee at the landfill properly labeled as a recycling surcharge. The public should be aware of what the charges are being used for. If this ordinance is passed, Mrs. Walker asked that the effective date be set to allow her a 60 day period to ask for a rate increase from the UTC. She added that an April 1, 1991 effective date would help. Commissioner Brown stated that he doesn't understand what would be gained by separating the 20% surcharge for recycling. Gary Rowe stated that if the surcharge is identified in this way, the implication may become that the recycling program expenditures have to be set to the level of the revenues. Commissioner Brown added that he feels it is fair that the public know that a 20% increase in the tipping fee is for the recycling program, but changing the whole system of bookkeeping to track it may not make sense. A statement could be added to the ordinance indicating that a 20% surcharge has been added to the tipping fees to cover the costs of the recycling program. The discussion then turned to the variables that impact the costs and revenues of the recycling program. Kirsten Badger: IGrsten Badger asked if the these rate increases? Chairman Dennison selling bonds. VOL closing costs of the current cell are included in explained that the closing costs will be paid by qac =9 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 22, 1991 Page: 3 AI Boucher: Al Boucher stated that he uses the Hadlock transfer station and when he saw that the proposed fee would be increased by 30%, he was concerned. The 1991 total budget of $770,000 is a 52% increase over the 1989 budget. About $320,000 of the 1991 expenditures are for direct hire employees. This is 41% over the 1989 budget. The recycling program not only shows a deficit this year but the long term plan shows a deficit for the next 20 years. The expenditures for 1991 are estimated at $300,000 of which $220,000 is for the Bayshore contract. 1991 recycling revenues are estimated by Mr. Boucher to be $120,000 which leaves a deficit of $180,000. According to Al Boucher in 1989 the County processed 1,408 tons of recycled materials at a cost $213.00 per ton. Recycling sales revenues were $85.06:, per ton. The difference of $128.00 is charged to the disposal fee. In the 1991 budget, forl,the first time, this is shown as a recycling surcharge. While the State Department of Ecology imposes a number of mandates on the County, operating the recycling center at a loss is not one of them. AI Boucher further stated that the present proposal fixes the bi se rate on capital costs for closing the cell at $650,000. Since the Solid Waste Program is',an enterprise fund, it is ap- propriate to finance it by Revenue Bonds with a five year amortization. The debt service charge on these bonds would be $154,000 in 1992, which would)raise the tipping fee of $56 per ton to $67 or $68 per ton. If a new cell was installed next year the rate would be raised to over $90 per ton. It's time that the Board be very careful in', evaluating the Solid Waste program and think in terms of cost containment. He then suggested that the Board suspend this hearing and, instruct the Public Works Department to review the Solid Waste budget again and find a way to delete $120,000 from it. The challenge is how to balance the recycling program. Mr.' Boucher concluded that he feels that the recycling program should be examined on its merit and not be taken for granted. Hearing no further public comment Chairman Dennison closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown asked Gary Rowe if there is merit to the suggestion thajt the recycling program be reduced? Gary Rowe stated that the Department is doing some things to reduce recycling costs, but he has not had a chance to review the figures that Mr. Boucher just presented. The cost of disposing of the garbage from the transfer stations is about $125.00 per ton which is not totally offset by the revenue generated from the fees collected at those sites. Commissioner Brown moved to take the testimony presented today under advisement and have the Public Works Department check the figures and come back with a recommendation. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Dennison asked if the Solid Waste Advisory Committee 'had reviewed this proposed ordinance? Gary Rowe reported that they had. The members expressed concern regarding the future plans for Solid Waste disposal and what future rate increases may be necessary. Chairman Dennison asked what the State requires the County ';to do for recycling? Gary Rowe reported that from a service standpoint the County is required to provide drop box services and to update the waste reduction/recycling portion of the Solid Waste Management Plan by 1992. Currently the County has adopted a minimum recycling goal of 50%. The County Solid Waste Advisory Committee has set a goal of 30%, which is not yet being met. AGIREEMENT re: Temporary Help; Molly Collins: Molly Collins will be working in a temporary position for the Parks, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner Brown move to approve the temporary help agreement for Molly Collins as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous', vote. VOL 17 w ng JLJLO Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 22, 1991 Page: 4 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. CR0816-1 re: Rhody Drive, Four Corners Road, Airport Cut -Off Road Intersection Improvement; Right of Way and Construction Responsibilities, Parcel No. 001343017; David P. Johnson and Karen R. Johnson: This agreement is for the acquisition of right-of-way on the Airport Cut-off Road intersection project, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the agreement with David P. and Karen R. Johnson as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT #6-5-89 SUPPLEMENT #1, re: CRO528, Point Whitney Road -Bee Mill Road; Northwestern Territories, Inc.: This agreement is for an extension of time to do the surveying work on the Point Whitney -Bee Mill Road project, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner Brown moved to approve supplement #1 to the agreement with Northwestern Territories, Inc. as presented. Commissioner Wop seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CALL FOR BIDS; Liquid Propane: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the call for bids for supplying liquid propane to the County and to set the bid opening for 10:30 a.m. on February 11, 1991. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Claim #C-16-90; Ronald Harrell, Jr.: This claim submitted on behalf of Ronald Harrell, Jr. � is for $25,000. Mr. Harrell's claim is that he was improperly arrested, Gary Rowe reported. It has been reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney and he recommends that. it be rejected. Commissioner Brown moved to reject the claim submitted for Ronald Harrell, Jr. as recommended by the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Rate Increase; Part Time Employees: Gary Rowe reviewed the proposed rate increases for the part time employees in the Public Works Department. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the part time employee rate increases as proposed. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board then met in, Executive Session with Assessor Jack Westerman to discuss a personnel matter. PLANNING AND BUILDING State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination; Proposed Revisions (Aquaculture) to the Shoreline Management Master Program: Associate Planner Jim Pearson explained that this SEPA review is not on a specific project it is on the regulatory decision making process. The Shoreline Commission developed these amendments to the Shoreline program and recommends their adoption by the Board. The Board is reviewing these proposed amendments to determine if their adoption would result in a probable, significant, adverse, environmental impact. SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) define probable as "reasonably likely as opposed to possible, but speculative or remote". Significant means an environmental impact that is more than moderate. Jim Pearson then reviewed the environmental checklist and read portions of the additional information that applied to the various sections. He noted that the proposed amendments deal with more than just salmon net pens. They deal with all aquaculture developments and other related activities and related sections of the Shoreline Management Master program. SQL 17 wF n0llil Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 22, 1991 Page: 5 Commissioner Wojt asked what "ambient light" means? Jim Pearson explained that ambient light is the light that is striking any place at any period of time, which can include natural and artificial sources. The proposed amendments include Performance Standard 16 which deals with light and states "reflected glare or direct light generated by aquaculture developments, other than that produced by navigational aids, shall produce no measurable increase in the intensity of the ambient light levels on adjacent uplands. Glare (reflected light) that is visible from adjacent water areas shall be minimized." This Performance Standard takes care of any potential adverse environmental impact from the proposed amendments in the area of light and glare, Jim Pearson noted. Dave Woodruff: Dave Woodruff asked what the ground rules will be for submitting testimony at the public hearing on February 11, 1991? Jim Pearson reported that at the Shoreline Commission hearings on these proposed changes the public testimony was limited to five minutes per person. Everyone had a chance to speak and since there was time left, people were able to speak more than once. Chairman Dennison stated that his main concern in the public hearing is that everyone that desires to, has a chance to speak, and a rotation method would probably work best. The Chairman urged people to make their statements as concise as possible. Dave Woodruff asked how the approval process goes after today? Chairman Dennison stated that after a threshold determination is made, there is a fifteen day comment period. Jim Pearson explained that since the Board is the lead agency for this proposed document and it is their own action, he recommended that the comment period on the threshold deter- mination be kept open until after the public hearing is held. Commissioner Brown moved to issue a determination of non -significance and lead agency status on the proposed revisions to the Jefferson County -Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program revisions, with the comment period being left open until February 15, 1991. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Craig Ward, Senior Planner re: Growth Management Task Forces: Senior Planner Craig Ward reported that he will have a full summary of the comments received at the public forum held last week to present to the Board later this week. He then discussed some of the recommendations made at that workshop. The major comments can be boiled down to the need to have the process be more open. There were concerns expressed about the formation of Task Forces, such as: what will they do; who will they report to; how will their recommendation be implemented; who gets to sit on the Task Force; how will their decisions be made, etc. If the process is constructed in such a way that anyone who wants to show up can have input and hear what's going on in the process, they can possibly provide some guidance in the process before its' gone so far that choices have been eliminated. Craig Ward added that he has had concern since the beginning for getting technical expertise to address the technical issues, such as the data base information and how to implement the private forest land grades in the field. Craig Ward stated that rather than structure task forces and specific advisory committees to go through this controversial, time consuming and risk laden process, he recommended that the public be included at specific places in the process. Commissioner Dennison asked why he feels the task force process is risk laden? Craig Ward explained that the process would be time consuming and there has been nothing budgeted for facilitators fees and travel expenses. He considers the process risk laden because each stage builds on the assumptions of the previous stage and the further along you get in the process the more risk is involved if someone challenges the assumptions made previously. Commissioner Brown asked if the idea of the Task Forces is being dropped? Craig Ward stated that he is trying to provide alternative processes for the Board to consider which comply with the comments that have been received from the public. He added that he will schedule time to discuss this further next week. VOL 1 �l �Af 00 442 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 22, 1991 Page: 6 Ron Olsen, Bob Sokol and dim Broughton, Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce re: Destination Washington Advertisement Funding: Bob Sokol, President; Ron Olsen, Executive Director; and Jim Broughton, Member of the Chamber of Commerce came before the Board to discuss their request for payment of $5,306.00 for the 1990 Destination Washington advertisement. The original advertisement was estimated to cost $9,000.00, but it was pared down and the final cost was $5,306.00. The Chamber of Commerce assumed that this advertisement would be paid for by an appropriation from 1989 County Hotel/Motel tax fund. Chairman Dennison stated that he remembers discussing the advertisement, but it was his understanding that the payment was to be made from the Chamber's yearly Hotel/Motel Fund allocation. Chairman Dennison explained that the 1991 Hotel/Motel Fund budget includes a promotion fund. This funding will be used for paying for individual promotional items on a request basis. After further discussion of how the payment of this advertising bill was handled in the past, the Clerk advised that she would check into this and report back later. ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Com- missioner B. G. 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. Acceptance of Letter of Resignation of Mark McCrary and Appointment of Replacement Port Townsend Paper Representative Kirsten Badger; Solid Waste Advisory Committee 2. Acceptance of Letter of Resignation of Mark McCrary; Local Emergency Planning Committee 3. Appointment to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Board: Lynda Clark 4. Application for Assistance from Soldiers and Sailors Relief Fund; Mary E. Gibbons, $500; Randy Jay Herb, $500; Tim Hartzell, $280 Auplications for Assistance From the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief _Fund: The applications for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund for the following veterans were approved by motion of Commissioner B. G. Brown, seconded by Commissioner Wojt. Herschel Atkinson $50.00; Alfred James Monroe $260.00 Dominic Gosk $500.00 and Paul Anderson $50.00. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The Board then met in Executive Session with Planning Director David Goldsmith and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding potential litigation. ATTEST: Lorna L. Delaney, 12 Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �rolni, airman 4, sAlk ATTEST: Lorna L. Delaney, 12 Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �rolni, airman