Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112486 I. I .' ,< 1m. III _I 1_ _I 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I _ 1111 1_ _I District No. 1 Commissioner: Larry W. Dennison, Chairman I _ -I District No. 2 Commissioner: B.G. Brown, Member I ~ ~I District No. 3 Commissioner: George C. Brown, Member 1_ _I 1_ ~I Clerk of the Board: 3erdine C. Bragg I ~ ~I Public Works Director: Gary A. Rowe 1 _ _I I_ .. - M I NUT E S Week of November 24, 1986 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order in the ~resence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner George C. Brown. i I , Ken Kohler, Interface, Inc. re: Washington State Labor and ]ndustrv Retrospective Rating Proaram: Public Works Director Gary Rowe ~nd Cheri Lundgren of the Auditor's Office were present when the Chairman introduced Mr. Kohler to explain and clarify the Retrospective Rating Program and the services the County has contracted with Interface to provide. Mr. Kohler provided a copy of a rough draft safety manual for the County to review and consider for adoption. Mr. Kohler continued by noting that two things are required for the retrospective rating program to be successful: 1) A good safety program which will help avoid as many industrial insurance claims as possible and 2) Managing the claims that are filed.' Chairman Dennison reported that the Public Works Department is developing, through the help of a "Safety Team", a County Safety Manual. Commissioner B.G. Brown added that when the County enrolled in this program, it was intended to be for the Public Works Department as well as the Current Expense Departments of the County but it has come to the Boards' attention that the enrollment only included the Current Expense Departments because Public Works is listed with the Department of Labor and Industries under a separate account number. Mr. Kohler advised that he doesn't know what the status is regarding the inclusion of the Public Works Department in this program. Gary Rowe read from a letter received from Michael Brame of Interface, which indicated that they are willing to work toward enrolling the Public Works Department into the Retrospective Rating Program and will service all of the County's claims for the contracted amount. Mr. Kohler added that this same situation occurred with another client and Interface was successful in enrolling all of their operation in the program. The County will save money in this program in two ways, Mr. Kohler further explained: 1) Through the reduction of the County's "experience modification factor" (all claim costs are charged to the County's account and are then run through a formula which results in a modification factor that is applied to the manual industrial insurance rate for County governments). The reduction of this factor is the largest savings that Interface can generate for its' clients because that cost is applied, to each workman hour: and 2) The Retrospective Rating Program involves the upcoming year and gives cash refunds of premiums already paid. The County forwards all industrial insurance claims ~o Interface. The claims are evaluated for validity, classified in one of four classifications: "A" laim - straightforward claim with no problems expected to be open a out five months:"B" Claim - Question about future ~~Qt 12 rAr,~OO s -" ~~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24, "1986 Page: 2 problems with claim; "C" Claim - Definitely have some kind of problem and "D" Claim - Older claim which has gone past period where costs of that claim will be applied to the Experience Modification Factor) and finally the claims are monitored and managed through their life. Interface will also provide safety training for county employees in areas, such as first aid and hazardous communication, that are required by law. A County Safety Committee, Mr. Kohler reported, cannot have. more employees than employer representatives as members, and he recommended that the committee composition be: a Public Works Department representative (could be an employee); Sheriff's Office representative (could be an employee); Maintenance representative (could be an employee): and a representative with authority to order work done. Interface would be glad to have a representative serve on this committee. Mr. Kohler suggested that a letter be sent to all departments advising them that a contract has been signed with Interface and that all industrial insurance claims will be processed by them in the future. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Leslie Aicken, Solid Waste Advisory Committee re: Update of Activities: Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, reported that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has been discussing ideas for general improvements that could be made in the operation of the County landfill. Mr. Rowe then introduced Leslie Aicken, a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, to give a report on their activities. Ms. Aicken reported that the main thing that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has to report is that it is up and running and will be more active in the future. Two matters that are being researched are the procedures for handling ferrous metals (white goods and heavy metals) and the dumping of recyclable materials. The Advisory Committee will develop proposals for the Board's consideration on these matters. Letter from 30hn Pfeffer re: Sunshine Drive: Gary Rowe reported that Fire District No. 5 would like to have the County do some grading work on Sunshine Drive in Gardiner so that it is traversable by emergency equipment. This road is a private road and is not being maintained by the County or anyone else. The Fire District uses the road as a shortcut to the Rondelay Acres development. Mr. Pfeffer has give written permission to the County to grade the road, but he would like signs installed at both ends of the road that indicate that the road is private and that through traffic is not allowed. Gary Rowe reported that the road could be made passable for emergency equipment by the County. on a one time basis, if the Board determines that an emergency situation exists, but the road can not be upgraded and maintained by the County because it is a private road. Commissioner Brown directed the Public Works Department to write to the Fire District #5 Commissioners and advise them about the status of this road and their request and ask them to work with Mr. Pfeffer regarding his stipulation on the installation of signs. Garbaae Collection Service for New 3ail Facility: There is not any garbage collection service for the new jail facility, Gary Rowe reported and asked if cans are provided for the facility, would the Parks Department maintenance person be able to pick them up and take them to the drop box site? The Board asked that information on the volume of garbage that must be dealt with and how much OlYmPic Disposal would charge for pick up, be provided. ,VOL 1'1 O,n -- 4810 , f;iI. rAGE U .. " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24, 1986 Page: 3 Claim for Damaaes: Mr. &: Mrs. 3. W. Kamp: After discussing the claim with the Prosecuting Attorney, that the closure of Beaver Valley Road had an adverse impact on their bus.iness made by Mr. & Mrs. 3. W. Kamp, owners of the Beaver Valley Store, Gary Rowe drafted a letter to the Kamp's informing that their claim is being denied. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve and sign,the letter to Mr. & Mrs. 3.W. Kamp. Commissioner Geo. Brown seconded the motion. PLANNING Setback'Variance ReQUest: Four Corners Road: Mike Reaan: Senior Planner, 'Rachel Nathanson, reported that Mr. Regan is proposing to construct a tetrahedral sculpture (16 feet on edge, 14 feet across a face and 13 feet high) on a site located at Four Corners Road, across from the Four Corners Store. This structure requires a building permit and must meet the prescribed setbacks. The setback of the structure is not clear because Mr. Regan moved it after he was informed that it would require a building permit. The sculpture was originally setback four feet from the County road right-of-way. The Public Works department inspected the site and felt that the sculpture might be a traffic hazard. Mr. Regan advised that the sculpture is now located eight feet back from the right-of-way and would require a twelve foot variance to stay where it is currently located. Mr. Regan added that if the structure is moved back any further it would not be as obvious from the road and it is meant to attract attention for businesses near the site. There will not be any signs on the structure. It does not need to be visible from SR20, Mr. Regan noted, but should be visible from the Four Corners Store. After more discussion of the dimensions of the sculpture; its' purpose: the purpose of the setback requirements: and the definition of the sculpture as a sign or a structure, Commissioner B. G. Brown asked for more information from the Public Works Department regarding the impact that this sculpture will have on traffic. Information on what hardship would be created for Mr. Regan if the required setback was imposed should also be provided, as well as a possible compromise location. SR20 Corridor PolicY: Letter from the Economic Development Council: A letter was received from Bart Phillips, Director of the Economic Development Council, asking that the Board take a position concerning the SR20 Corridor Policy, in light of the number of contacts they have had from business people wanting to build in the Glen Cove area, Planning Department Director, David Goldsmith reported. Chairman Dennison stated that action on the SR20 Corridor Policy has been delayed because 1) the policy as drafted did not clearly satisfy the concerns noted regarding buffering along the Highway or the impacts of the proposed industrial area expansion: and 2) the work needed on the draft policy to address these concerns would require a excessive amount of the planning department's time. CommissionerB.G. Brown added that he feels that definitions of "light" and "heavyll industrial uses need to be developed before any action is taken on this draft policy, as well as how much area would be available for each of these designations in this corridor. David Goldsmith stated that an attempt needs to be made to address the questions that Mr. Phillips has raised. Chairman Dennison advised that he will respond to the Ec.onomic Development Council and update Mr. Phillips on the problems that the County faces in the development of this policy and outline some reasonable alternatives that could be given to people who contact the EDC regarding locating businesses in commercial or industrial areas of the County. Commissioner B.G. Brown agreed that Mr. Phillips needs to be informed that the County will not be changing the SR20 Corridor policy from what it has been in the past, since the draft policy needs more work than ~ Voc. 12 fACE 00' .4B11 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24, 1986 Page: 4 there is staff or time available to accomplish in a reasonable length of time. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SH15-86: Discovery Bay Yacht and Racquet Club: Bob Duffy, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff findings, testimony, conditions and Shoreline Commission recommendation for this application to redevelop and expand the Discovery Bay Lodge complex located on the western shore of Discovery Bay, southwest of Mill Point. The redevelopment would include construction of 52 condominium units, a swimming pool, tennis courts, and a community building with associated parking, utilities and landscaping. A trailer and boat storage area would be developed. The existing boat launch on the site would no longer be available for public use. This project would be done in three phases: Phase I: (Essentially completed already) 7 condominium units, development of the sewage disposal and water systems and renovation of the restaurant. Phase II: Finish the shore~side development with an additional 7 condominiums including sewage disposal and water systems. Phase III: 38 condominium units and completion of the various recreational amenities. This Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application was necessitated because the two previous applications (SH38-76 and SH2-81) expired after five years, however no additional environmental review was conducted because a Declaration of Non-significance was issued on 3une 16, 1981. The mitigative measures attached to the 1981 application were updated to reflect current regulations. The Shoreline Commission recommends approval of the proposal subject to the amended conditions, Mr. Duffy reported. A variance has been requested to the new shoreline setback regulations for residential structures that was enacted since the last shoreline permit was approved. The Shoreline Commission did not make a recommendation on this variance request because that comes under the purview of the Board. Condominium units 8 through 14 proposed for construction along the shoreline cannot meet the 30 foot setback required if built as proposed. However the topographic and access limitations of the structure as proposed would mean that it can not be moved. A smaller structure could possibly meet the setback requirements. Mr. Louie Torres representing the applicant was available to answer the Board's questions regarding the placement of the condominium units. Mr. Torres advised that the b~ilding housing units 8 through 14 is setback an average of 11 feet. The minimum setback is five feet from the high water mark at unit 14. There is no way to meet the thirty foot setback requirement for the units along the waterfront after the access and easement requirements are met. The setback for the existing building housing units 1 through 7 ranges from 5 feet to 20 feet and averages 14 feet, however, this building was constructed under the previous regulations, which did not require the 30 foot setback. Mr. Torres added that if the setback variance is not granted the six or seven waterfront condominiums would be elimination, and this would represent an enormous financial consequence for, this development. Bob Duffy reported that the residential setback requirement was adopted for the following reasons: Aesthetics - to many residences right on the waterfront changes the aesthetic character of an area; and Public safety - lessens wave impact, high tide and wind damage. Commissioner B. G. Brown noted that since there is no chance for proliferation of residences up the beach from. this site and because of the configuration of the property being such that the limitations on it mean that the project site cannot be made any larger than it currently is, then the environmental impacts will not change much if there is one condominium unit or seven. For this particular project, Commissioner B.G. Brown VOL 12 f~r,~ 00- 4812 <# . . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24, 1986 Page: 5 continued, in this particular location, he does not see a great need to have the thirty foot setback. Mr. Duffy added that there is a provision in the regulation for averaging setbacks. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved that a 12 foot variance be granted. Commissioner Geo. Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SH15~86 with the amended conditions as recommended by the Shoreline Commission. Commissioner Geo. Brown seconded the motion. * >Ie * The meeting was recessed Monday evening after discussion of cost accounting for the Parks/Recreation Department with Director, Warren Steurer. All Board members were present when the meeting was reconvened on Tuesday morning. Elmer Assman & Veterans Oraanization Service Officers re: Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Six representatives from local Veterans Organizations were present when Mr. Assman reported on their response to the Board proposals for changes in the way the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Funds are handled by the County. Mr. Assman presented the follow comments on the proposal items (See letter date 3uly 24, 1986 from the Board): Item #1: The veterans agree with having the Auditor handle the Relief fund vouchers. Item #2: The new draft application form, Mr. Assman stated, is fine except that all sources of income should be deleted and only a total family income per month (not broken down) should be shown. Chairman Dennison noted that this fund is set up to deal with veterans who have an immediate emergency. The Veterans Resource Center would direct them to other agencies that are set up to take care of long term needs. This form was developed to give the information that is necessary to help determine the veterans need. Sianatures on the form: Mr. Assman then stated that the under the law governing the S & S Fund, only the signatures of the Commander, Adjutant/Quartermaster and/or Service Officer are required for approval of an application. Commissioner B.G. Brown stated that the Veterans and the Board interpret this law in a different ways. The discussion continued regarding the law and the Attorney General's Opinion on the law. The Board advised that they would ask the County Prosecuting Attorney for an opinion on R.C.W. 73.08.010 (County Aid to Indigent Veterans and Families), to determine whether the County can relinquish authority for approving applications for Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Funds to the veterans organizations. Item #3: Veterans still request that the levy rate be increased to $.05 per thousand. Item #4: Delete A The limit is now $500, Mr. Assman stated, so this is a moot point. B can be left as is. C Delete this item. Item #5: All S & S Relief Funds are already being judged on needs of the veteran. This is redundant. Item #6: County policy for veterans preference in job applications: Mr. Assman asked that a 5 point . VOl 19 r~r,~ 00 - 4813 , . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24, 1986 Page: 6 preference be given on job applications for Veterans, Widows of veterans and war orphans and 10 points for disabled veterans. Item #7 and #8: Leave as stated. The Bylaws for the Service Officers were provid~d from the national regulations governing all VFW organizations. Discussion continued regarding the limit set by the County for a yearly request per Veteran and the cost of goods and services that the funds are used for by the veterans. Commissioner B.G. Brown stated that the issue boils down to either spreading the funds available among a larger number of veterans or giving a larger amount to a smaller number of veterans, because there is a finite amount of money in this fund. Mr. Assman responded that the veterans need more funding, and its' important that the tax levy be increased because these funds are needed. This fund, Chairman Dennison noted, was set up to help veterans in a dire emergency get help, until other forms or aid can be acquired. There are cases of veterans who have been back year after year or two or more times in one year. What is being done to help these people through the normal social service system? There are programs that are set up, even though they are being cut back, to help these people on a longer term basis. This fund is set up to get people from the emergency situation to the point where they can get assistance from the longer term programs. Mr. ~ssman responded that the $500 limit per year does reflect the emergency situation and agreed that each veteran applying should be limited to that amount except in extreme emergencies. The need for this funding has increased. A discussion ensued regarding emplOYment in the area, veterans training programs, hiring practices by local employers and the problems of the Viet Nam era veterans. The Board advised that now they have a response from the veterans they will consider their requests and make a determination on the request for the additional tax levy for this fund during the County's budget process. Agplication of Assistance from the, Soldiers' and,Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner B.G.Brown moved to approve the application for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund as submitted for William Bdgley in the amount of $150.00. Commissioner Geo. Brown seconded the motion. MEETING ADJOU~,~~ , 'r- ~ ~{JIJ, _._ !If ""'~~/ fd .W.. " or ~ ~.~ :~..., .. ~4 '"d" " ,j,~ ~\~.:\ :} c. :. ,. " ',\~/;~ t..~ l ~\,,, ~ 10,,_ ~ '1".::0 :. ~ ~l~-~~~ l': ;-..~ II; . Ur"', :~ ~T;,:--''/, .. II ..- ..' :.\'~.: .." I' 4'" l.\..::.' ');... ~ ' ..... de /: '~"~..J.. ~, SEAL . t . e ,~.', /': S a If c t\ U ~ / '/ 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - Chairman ~) B.G. Brown, Member ~7~~w.;,~ ~ VOl 12 t'~C~ 0.0:-481.4