Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081991 ---¡ , , ... ~ MINUTES WEEK OF AUGUST 19, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth met in Executive Session with the Board members regarding potential litigation. BUS~NESS FROM OOUNìJY DElPAR1M!ENìJ'S PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: Vacation of a County Road Riaht-of-way and Lot Une: Portion of Clover Street·, and of Jensen Street. Captain Tibbals Lake Park Addition: Nora Petrich and James Maupin. Petitioners: Eileen Simon, Public Works Administrative Assistant, reviewed this request to vacate a 290 foot (60 feet wide) portion of Clover Street and 550 feet of Jensen Street (20 feet wide), located 1/4 mile west of the Port Townsend City limits. The petitioner is requesting this vacation in order to tie their properties together. She then reviewed the agencies responses, department and Planning Commission findings and recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends that the request be approved with the exception of Jensen Street which should be preserved for future use as access to other platted property in this vicinity. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing for comments for or against this proposed vacation. Carl Schmidt: Carl Schmidt stated that he is only opposed to the vacation of Jensen Street. He feels that Clover street is fine. Nora Petrich, Petitioner: Nora Petrich stated that the Planning Commission did not recommend the vacation of Jensen Street and if Jensen Street is not vacated then they would ask that the lot lines not be vacated. Eileen Simon reported that the lots lines in blocks 17 and 18 Oots 1 through 5 in each block) that front on Belle Street, which is not part of this plat, must be vacated. Chairman Dennison restated that if Jensen Street is not vacated the request is being changed to vacate Lot lines for Lots 1 through 5 in both blocks 17 and 18. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to vacate Clover Street, lot lines and the alley as recommended by the Public Works Department and to leave the lot lines on lots 6 through 10 in Blocks 17 and 18 and Lots 4 and 5 in Block 25. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. \ I,n~ , . tJ-¡;,¡, Ai 1"'"1 '00 . . 11 f~~;'~ . 98,. , , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 2 HEARING re: Changing the Name of McMinn Road Located in the Cape George Area: Bob Henderson, 911 System Coordinator, reported that this petition is to change the name of McMinn Road from the point where it intersects Porter Road, to Puma Bluff Road. The Public Works Department does not feel that changing a road name in the middle of a road is a change for the better and recommends that this road name change be denied. Bob Henderson then reported that Fire District 6 and the Sheriff's Department commented that the name should remain McMinn Road. Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing for comments for or against this proposed name change. Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman stated that it is obvious ·that the road changes at this point of intersection with Porter Road, and that she views this road (Porter Road) as a cross street. She added that Pete Langley of Fire District #6 feels there is no problem, because the Sheriff's Department Dispatch has to give a cross street. Bob Henderson noted that he discussed this with Kathy Langley at the Fire District. Chairman Dennison asked if changing the name would require address changes all along the re-named portion of the road? Bob Henderson answered that it would, and the County has paid for address changes of this sort in the past. Ed McMinn: Ed McMinn stated that he has heard from several residents in that area and they are very much against this road name change. He presented four letters from property owners and then pointed out on a map other properties (which cover about 600 feet of the road) whose owners have indicated that they are against this name change. These people can't see any reason to change the name and feel the change would be confusing, Mr. McMinn added, and then noted that these property owners could not afford to miss work to be here today. Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman clarified that the request is not to change the name of the portion of McMinn Road that is adjacent to Ed McMinn's property. She pointed to several other properties along the road which she knows are in favor of this road name change. Commissioner Brown asked if there are any advantages to the County and the addressing system to make this change? Bob Henderson reported that he doesn't see any advantages. If the road name is changed then the point where it changes will become the zero point and all of the addresses would have to be changed to Puma Bluff Road addresses. He stated there is not a distinct intersection where this name change is proposed to begin. Ed McMinn: Mr. McMinn stated that there is only 900 feet of County Road and the rest of it is private road. Pete Lanalev. Fire District #6: Pete Langley stated that the Fire District would like consistency in the road naming in the area. Chairman Dennison asked what works best for emergencies? Mr. Langley stated that many people, even dispatchers, don't realize that Porter Lane is even there. Another problem is that the people put their 911 address numbers on one telephone pole. Chairman Dennison added that it sounds as if this request would make things more confusing. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to deny the petition to change the name of McMinn Road as requested, since there is no advantage in making this change. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Revising a County Road Proiect Designated as CR0812: This resolution is to change the budget amounts on the original contract for the Oak Bay Road project. Commis- sioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 83-91 to revise this County Road project as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ~ VOL 17 fAG€ 00 981 , , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 3, FACiliTIES MANAGEMENT BID OPENING re: SupplvlnG an AutoCad Computer Workstation: No bids received by the time set for the bid opening. Tuesdav - Auaust 20. 1991: After reviewing with the Prosecuting Attorney the receipt of one' bid after the time set for the bid opening, Bruce Laurie recommended that the Board waive the bidding formalities and open the bid. Commissioner Wojt moved to waive the bid formalities and that the one bid received be opened. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bruce Laurie then opened the bid. Robert McNeil Associates, Seattle $19,585.00 ($21,190.97 including tax) Engineer's Estimate 19,680.00 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. Discussion of Construction Options for Beausite Lake Caretakers House Chimney: Project Manager AI Scalf reported that the fireplace in the caretakers residence at Beausite Lake is the sole source of heat for the house. He then presented two cost estimates for options proposed to repair the chimney. Commissioner Brown stated that it has not been determined that the County will have the Beausite Lake property in the future. He noted that he would like an indication of this before a decision .is made on this repair. Chairman Dennison asked that more information be provided about the. repairs that have been done to this house, the repairs that still need to be done, what the caretakers provide for their free rent and how all of that relates to the proposed future ownership of the property. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Decision on Appeal of MitiGated Determination of Non-SIGnificance: larGe Lot Subdivision and Class IV General Forest Practices Permit: Captain Vancouver Estates: Haines Street Trust. Tom Beavers. Trustee: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reminded the Board that they are to consider retaining, modifying or withdrawing the mitigated determination of non significance that was issued on this project. If the Board determines to withdraw the MDNS and issue a determination of significance a process to scope the issues to be addressed in the environmental impact statement will be started. Chairman Dennison reported that he has gone through the entire record since the appeal hearing. He has questions about the adequacy of the information provided which was used as a basis for the mitigation on the project. He referred tô the diverse opinions of the Wildlife Biologists which he feels raise doubts about the mitigation. Commissioner Brown asked what information Chairman Dennison feels is inadequate? Chairman "Dennison stated that the information on wildlife studies and the information on the character of the forest. Commissioner Wojt státed that he questions if the County has adequate information on the nature of the forest and what can be done to protect it? Mark Huth answered that if there are impacts identified by the EIS that can not be mitigated, then the Board could deny the project. Commissioner Brown asked Chairman Dennison if mitigation could be proposed that would satisfy his concerns about the wildlife? . Chairman Dennison answered that the questions he has raised ... are those presented in the testimony of Tim Rymer and Mike Reed. They both spoke to the unique nature of the forest area itself as wildlife habitat, and he doesn't see that 1:' , , . , ' , . ~ VOl 17 rA~ 00. \988 I,; -T.¡jc1Kœ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 4 any mitigative measures proposed address that issue. He added that he doesn't feel there is adequate information to know what mitigation should be proposed. Mark Huth stated that if the Board considers negotiating additional mitigation on these issues all of the parties, including the Friends of Middlepoint, should be included in those negotiations. Commissioner Brown stated that the proponent of the project has provided studies to provide information on wildlife and slope stability. He then asked what more needs to be done to have those issues addressed? Chairman Dennison stated that he would ask for more information on what makes that area a unique wildlife habitat. After more discussion of the SEPA process, Commissioner Wojt asked if the information presented for a scoped environmental impact statement would be any more adequate than what has been presented? Mark Huth responded that the people that submit the information are doing so on a voluntary basis and they may not provide any more adequate information. Mark Huth then reviewed the process if the Board determined that a scoped EIS is necessary. He noted that at least six months would be necessary to go through that process. Commissioner Brown stated that if the Board determines that the MONS is to be withdrawn and a determination of significance issued, findings of fact must be developed. Mark Huth reviewed WAC 193.11.300 and noted that if the responsible official doesn't have reasonably sufficient information to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposal, then more information can be requested. Commissioner Brown added that what he is hearing is that the wildlife concerns and the information already submitted are in question. Additional information can be provided. Commissioner Wojt added that he feels the scoping process, if an EIS is required, would allow the questions to be developed to address the concerns. Mark Huth asked if the Board has enough information to identify probable significant environmental impacts? Chairman Dennison stated he feels there is enough information assuming that this property is a unique wildlife habitat. The impact would be that the project could break up the continuity of the property with respect to its habitat value. Commissioner Wojt said that it is his feeling that the Board should declare that this project has a significant environmental impact based on the information provided by Tim Rymer which says that the area is unique and the total ecology of the area must be taken into considera- tion and the comment from Mike Reid that the area is unique and that uniqueness must be explored. Commissioner Wojt moved that the mitigated determination of non-significance be withdrawn and that a determination of significance be issued based on the information received from Tim Rymer and Mike Reid as well as the testimony presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion and stated that he is not sure that an EIS is needed for the Board to request more information on these issues. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Dennison and Commissioner Wojt voted in favor of the motion and Commissioner Brown voted against the motion. The motion carried. Mark Huth will draft the Determination of Significance for the Board to sign. This draft will be ready by next Monday. Final Russell Short Plat: Subdivision of Two Lots: Anderson Lake Road In Chimacum: Shawn Russell: Planning Department Permit Technician Michelle Grewel reported that this final short plat has been reviewed by the Health, Public Works and Planning Departments who have approved it. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the final Russell short plat as presented and Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Final Binding Site Plan: 30 Acres and 186 Units for RVs on Anderson Lake Road in Chimacum: Evergreen Coho Escapee Retreat Camper Club: Planning Department Director Craig Ward reported that all of the conditions of this final binding site plan have been met. The Planning Commission has reviewed the final site plan and recommends approval. t VOL 17 UttÐQ. 989 , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 5 Sam Swanson, Planning Commission, reported that he felt when this proposal was first reviewed this park was to be for the official use of the lot owners only, and not for campers who purchased a membership but are not lot owners. Commissioner Brown asked that the staff research the Planning Commission records and see what the intent was for the use of these lots. Request for a Variance: From Road Rlaht-of-Wav Construction Standards. Includlna a Variance from' a Condition. of Summary Approval to Implement an Erosion Control Plan: Mats Mats Area Frontlna Oak Bay Road and Jefferson Avenue: Ken Thompson and Ellen Thiesen. Applicants (tabled Julv 15. 1991): Bruce Laurie, Road Project Manager, reported that a 12 foot road with suitable turn around spaces is referred to as a local service road in the Policy of the American Association of State Highway 8'nd Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A local service road is defined as one that serves isolated areas that have little or no potential for further development. This type of road would not serve the area of this proposed plat if it was developed to its full comprehensive plan density designation. The question is if the Board members want to apply the local service. road designation. Mark Huth stated that the Public Works Department is concerned that if the road is designated as a local service road it will not be brought up to the standards as required in the subdivision ordinance. The current width of the right-of-way is 30 feet. Craig Jones, Attorney for the project proponents stated that 30 feet has been dedicated from their plat for road right-of-way. Commissioner Brown moved to bring the request for variance off the table for consideration. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth reported that the' public Works Department reports ·that to bring the road to the local service road requirements will cost $38,500.00, and 5% of that amount is $1,925.00. The applicants are willing to come to a voluntary agreement to set that amount of money aside for a five year period for road improvements. Commissioner Brown moved to grant the variance as requested on the condition that the applicants enter into a voluntary agreement to place 5% of the estimated cost of road improvements for Jefferson Avenue into an account. CommissionerWojt seconded the motion. Public Works Planning and Program Manager, Carter Breskin, stated concern that the uniform fire code requirement for a 20 foot wide road is not being met. A letter from Fire District #3 was presented stating that they don't have a problem with the width of the road. The Public Works Department staff is concerned about the possibility of a precedent being set if this request is approved. Craig Jones· reminded the Board that he presented a memorandum at the last meeting that indicated that there is no statutory requirement that the project proponents must upgrade the whole length of this access road.· He added that the Fire Chief has presented a lettér stating that the road is adequate for emergency vehicles. He suggested that the County adopt a local transportation policy (RCW 82.02) which would then allow the County to charge an impact fee on projects for road improvements. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried ,by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth stated that he will create a variance document and the agreement for the applicants to sign. Review of Traffic Information Provided bv the Public Works. Department: Bicvcle Hostel and Bed & Breakfast Proiects. Gardiner: William and Patricia Goldfoos: The Board reviewed the traffic information presented by the Public Works Department for the Gardiner area. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth suggested that since th~re are two proposals that were' each reviewed in a separate hearing, they be handled separately. Certificate of Compliance and Conditional Use for the Conversion of an Existina Barn as a Bicvcle Hostel: Located adjacent to Gardiner Beach Road in Gardiner: This project is a conditional use under the Development Code, Mark Huth reported, because the Development Code and the Community Development Plan have no specific requirements for a bicycle ~Vßl 17 fAtt 00 990 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 6 hostel. He reported that in order to deny a conditional use, the proposal must do one of the following: 1. Will materially endanger the public's health, safety, or general welfare, or generate unacceptable impacts beyond the property boundaries; or 2. Will substantially impact the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding properties; or 3. Will be contrary to the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan or community plan. The following findings must be made in the affirmative in order to grant a conditional use: 1. A specific circumstance exists which justify special consideration as a conditional use. 2. The specific condition is unique to this property and is not shared by other properties in the area. 3. The cumulative effect of approving this and similar requests will not cause an erosion to the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, applicable community plan, or designated use of surrounding properties. 4. The character of the use is in reasonable harmony with the surrounding area. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is any distinction made between "for profit II and "non- proflt" businesses? Mark Huth answered that under the Gardiner Community Development Plan, Policy 19, says that transient visitor facilities should locate in the commercially desig- nated area. Since this is a non-profit organization, it is not a commercial venture. Chairman Dennison asked if commercial is defined as "for profit II specifically? Mark Huth reported that the Community Plan does not make that definition specifically. Carter Breskin, Planning and Program Manager for the Public Works Department, reported that the Planning Commission had asked for information about trip generation by similar projects. Four average daily trips (ADl) per day are generated for a rural inn at Langley. Bruce Laurie, Public Works Road Project Manager, stated that none of the roads in this area would meet the criteria for Design D (Class IV Bikeway - shared roadway with no designation) in the information provided to the Board. He then reviewed his recollection of the right-of-way widths of the roads in the Gardiner area. Chairman Dennison questioned the design manual which says that on a "minor residential street II it is inappropriate to designate a roadway as a bicycle corridor. Bruce Laurie responded that this means that a bicycle route would not generally be routed on a minor residential street. Commissioner Wojt asked if the current traffic in this area is considered heavy use? Bruce Laurie stated the Rondelay Road (14 feet wide) and the Gardiner Beach Road (also 14 feet wide), Old Gardiner Road and Schoolhouse Road are all substandard for vehicular traffic. For anything up to 100 ADT the standard road width is 24 feet Oncluding the shoulders) and for roads with 100 to 200 ADT the standard road width is 28 feet. Mark Huth reported that the only bicycle trail in the area is Highway 101. Chairman Dennison asked if the applicant has submitted a plan for how bicycle safety will be improved in the area? Carter Breskin reported it has not been submitted yet. Mark Huth then asked if any of the roads (north of Highway 101 in Gardiner) meet the requirements for a bicycle route? Bruce Laurie reported that they do not. Chairman Dennison stated that with respect to the traffic data it has been reported that there are substandard roads for traffic and bicycle traffic. He added that he has concern with the growth of traffic in the area by sightseers as a result of these properties. The limits of the road designs are being pushed, and there is a safety issue. Mark Huth then reviewed the goals in the Development Code and the Gardiner Community Development Plan which apply to the request. Each goal and how this project would relate to it was discussed. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels that the information provided by Public Works brings up the question about the number of bicycles using the road causing a safety problem. Commissioner Brown stated that the testimony from the residents of the area indicated that one of their concerns was the impact to surrounding properties from this project. Mark Huth reported that if the need for a plan for bicycle safety is the main concern of the Board, Mr. Goldfoos could be asked to provide such a plan. The safety problems for bicycles as well as vehicles and the lack of street lights in the area were then discussed. LVGL 17 rArÆ 00 991 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 7 Commissioner Wojt moved to ask that the applicant address the traffic and bicycle safety concerns because there is a need for more information on the impact to safety in the area. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison stated that the questions that the applicant must address need to be defined. Commissioner Wojt suggested that the following be asked: 1) How much traffic will be generated, and 2) is there an alternate route for the bicycles to take? Chairman Dennison added that he feels a question should be asked about what will happen in the future as the motor vehicle trips increase. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Certificate of Compliance; Conversion of an Existina Residence into a Six (6) Bedroom Bed and Breakfast: Gardiner Beach Road. Gardiner: Mark Huth reviewed the process to date on this certificate of compliance for the conversion of an existing residence into a bed and breakfast. There is a conflict, Mark Huth added, because a bed and breakfast establish- ment is considered a Home Business in the Development Code which allows it to locate in a residential area. In the Gardiner Community Plan, bed and breakfast establishments are not specifically identified, but the plan does say that transient accommodations should locate in the commercial area. The Planning Commission held a hearing, but because of ap- pearance of fairness questions the Commissioners held their own hearing on this proposal also. Mark Huth reported that Section 5.410 of the Development Code lists the review criteria for this project. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels the same issues must be applied to this project, that were noted for the bicycle hostel, because of the traffic safety problems that have already been identified. 24 vehicle trips per day have been identified for this project. Mark Huth then lead a discussion where each of the applicable criteria from the Development Code and the Community Plan were reviewed for this proposal. Commissioner Brown stated that a bed and breakfast is considered an extension of the use of this residence. The Goldfoos application and testimony indicates that they will live at the residence. Mark Huth reported that the permit for the bed and breakfast would require that anyone who purchased the property from the Goldfoos' in the future would have to live in the home in order to use it as abed and breakfast. Commissioner Brown reported that the Health Department will have to approve the septic system for the additional bedrooms being proposed for this project. The signs for the property were discussed and Chairman Dennison reminded the other Board members that Mr. Goldfoos could place signs as allowed by the Development Code unless a condition was added to limit the number and size of signs. Mark Huth reported that when there is a conflict between the policies of the Community Plan and the Development Code, the Development Code will take precedence. He then reviewed the criteria for home businesses in the Development Code. He stated that Policy #19 in the Gardiner Community Development Plan is in the greatest conflict with the Development Code goals. The rest of the goals and policies are almost identical in the Community Plan and the Development Code. Mark Huth explained that the Board should not rely on only one policy from the community plan as the basis for denial of the project. The Development Code is the regulatory document while the community plan is the policy. He then reviewed the planning department and planning commission's suggested conditions for approval of this certificate of compliance. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the certificate of compliance for a six unit bed and breakfast with the conditions as proposed by the Planning staff and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Chairman Dennison voted against the motion. The motion carried. *** lVGl 17 fAtt 00 ~ 993 b, I: '. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August. 19, 1991 Page: 8 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Renovation of Masonry Boiler Flue; Multi Services Building; AM Masonry Restoration, Brier <Awarded July 22, 1991) 2. CONTRACT No. 1460- re: Computer for Input to Olympia; Substance Abuse; State Department of Social and Health Services 3. Recommendation of Appointment to Jefferson County Local Emergency Planning Committee to the State Department of Community Development; Earl Wells; Public Works Representative 4. AGREEMENT re: Lease of Suite IICII of Chandlers Restaurant property for Use,. by Health and Human Services Departments; Victorian Properties Inc. 5. Request for Payment; Payment of Half of the Cost of the Tourism Marketing Study; Economic Development Council 6. Report of Planning Commission Recommendation and Request to Set Review for September 3, 1991; Request for Variance from Road Construction Standards for a Short Subdivision; Hilda Street, East of Rhody Drive; Randy Hathaway, Applicant F APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve'the Minutes of the July 8 meeting as read and the Minutes of the July 15, 1991 meeting as corrected. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Tuesday with all Board members present. After the Health Board meeting and the Transit Meeting, the Board conducted the following business: ReQuest From Wild Olympic Salmon to Post a Sian Advertisina Their Festival at the Tri Areå County Park: After discussion of this request from the Wild Olympic Salmon Festival to place a sign in the Tri Area County Park, the Board concurred that the sign may be put up as requested if it is removed as soon as the festival is over. ., Adoption of Temporary Residential Structure Policy For Familv Emeraency: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reviewed a proposed policy to allow a temporary second residential structure on a piece of property that would not be large enough to divide (because of the density standards in the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property), when there is a bona fide family member that has an emergency need, established by hardship due to health or age. This would be for a limited time. An example would be if a mother is ill and needs a place to live. The second residence could not be used for any other purpose. The property would have to be large enough for two structures by Health De.partmentstandards. The structure must meet the following standards: 1. The temporary residence is not permanently attached to a foundation or any other structure, and 2. The temporary structure meets all the set back, set up, building and sanitary codes for residential occupancy, and 3. The property owner agrees to a contract addressing such issues as but not limited to, the nature of the occupancy, removal of the structure, annual inspection, and breach of conditions, and 4. A IINotice to Trtlell is placed on the property indicating the temporary nature of the second residence and that the property is not approved for two dwelling units except for the limited situation prescribed in the agreement. The Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed this proposed policy and the agreement that would go with an application and feels that it is enforceable, David Goldsmith reported. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the Temporary Residential Structure Policy for Family Emergency as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. I ¡ ;"<~ ì~b,Ä,.. tvol 17 fArrt 00 993 -¥~ _'i_, , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 19, 1991 Page: 9 Ron Olsen and Bob Sokol. Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce re: Destination Washinaton: Ron Olsen and Bob Sokol of the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce came before the Board to discuss the Chamber's funding needs for advertising in the Destination Washington magazine. Ron Olsen reviewed the tourism marketing plan developed for 1992. He reported that the Port Townsend Visitor Information Center funding request has been increased from $40,000 to $45,000.00 which in turn increases the request for funding from the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. Chairman Dennison asked how effective the Destination Washington magazine is? Bob Sokol reported that the State advertises a toll free telephone number in national magazines and the people that call that number are sent a copy of this magazine. He added that his experience is that this magazine has been the best source of reservations for his business this year. Commissioner Brown explained that he feels the County isn't very well represented in the magazine advertisement. The individual advertisements for businesses will cost $1,160.00 for next year's magazine. The banner on the top of the advertisement is equivalent to a 1/2 page advertisement and costs approximately $6,000.00. Ron Olsen reported that the larger portion of the production costs for the advertisement were paid last year. He suggested that a caption could be added below each picture in the banner to identify the locality of the picture. Bob Sokol suggested that the other tourism groups in the County be invited to make suggestions for changes in this advertisement. The Visitors Guide was then discussed. Last year not all of the costs for printing and distribution of the Visitor's Guide were known at the time of the budget hearings. Commissioner Brown stated that he doesn't know how much benefit the County receives from the Visitor Information Center in Port Townsend which the County has been funding for years. Ron Olsen reported that all the accommodations in the County are listed at the Center and information is provided to visitors making inquiries. There is also literature from the other County organizations and services. The discussion then turned to the tourism marketing plan that was presented and how that will fit in with the tourism plan being developed through the Economic Development Council. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Sokol asked that the Board consider their request for funding for the Visitor's Guide and the Destination Washington advertisement before the end of September. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS '" 'If f' f- . ~.I: , .' '~.. if." . r Ii:," ... ,_ '~ ,_,\,,~...'~ l . '1'., _......,^ SEAt:(\ ~ 'f ~ /' J- ", ~~;..r___ La . nnison, Chairman . . , , , \ ~ ; " ~ .;~, '\ -i? ." ~ -: ~. ~-".-""..". ¢ f l' ;- i ~. I ~':.,I / ~. ...... "~,/. @~/ B. G. Brown, Member ;), . ATTEST: ~. l VGt 17 rAtf 00 994