Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM0321054SON w c�\ District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Loma Delaney MINUTES Week of March 21, 2005 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. Discussion of Proposed Resolution re: Adding Representatives from the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area as Voting Members of the Growth Management Steering Committee (Replaces Resolution No. 19-05): County Administrator John Fischbach reviewed a proposed resolution containing new language suggested by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez which clarifies that an individual applying for membership on the Growth Management Steering Committee can live within the Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), or have a business and live within the precincts that are noted. This proposed new language does not change the intent of the original resolution previously approved by the Commissioners. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 20-05 adding representatives from the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area as voting members of the Growth Management Steering Committee, and repealing and replacing Resolution No. 19-05. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of February 28, 2005 as presented, noting that they do not reflect his comments where he pointed out the fact that the paperwork did say "directed by the Board of County Commissioners". The meeting in which he made those comments was recorded, so he does not feel it is necessary to change the minutes. Commissioner Sullivan commented on the discussion item on page six of the minutes "Clarification of Direction re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Placeholder Amendments". He remembers that discussion a little differently, in that the Board said "pending input from the public and the Planning Commission", however, in reading the Planning Commission notes, nothing came forward. The minutes basically reflect the intent and since the tape of that meeting did not get "turned over", there is no record. He is willing to let this stand and approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Industrial Land Banks: John Fischbach stated he met with Lary Crockett of the Port of Port Townsend, Tamer Kirac of the Economic Development Council (EDC), and Al Scalf, Jefferson County's Director of Community Development, to discuss initiating an Industrial Land Bank and Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2005 identifying the costs involved which are estimated to be between $105,000 and $250,000. During their meeting Larry Crockett indicated that he would recommend to the Port Commissioners that they propose $25,000 to match the County's $25,000, and Tamer Kirac suggested the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) also be contacted and asked to match funding in the amount of $25,000. Tamer Kirac stated that good information resulted from that meeting. Much has been learned about the process and timelines from professionals who were involved in similar Industrial Land Bank studies. The EDC Board is very supportive of this project and was told that CTED is willing to provide funding in support of the Industrial Land Bank as long as there is a concerted effort of coordination among the local agencies. He noted that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City, County, and Port will need to be drafted and sent to CTED showing that the local agencies are in agreement. John Fischbach noted the County would be the lead agency for this project and he would be the point of contact. Al Scalf explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) has a provision for Industrial Land Banks which is outlined in RCW 36.78.367. Initially, the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee would hold a meeting on April 19, 2005 with a published agenda announcing that the County is seeking consultation with the City regarding that element of the GMA. The County would engage in a public process over the next two years. The EDC would execute the inventory requirements by conducting an inventory of the land within the UGAs and the available industrial land outside the UGAs. At some point, a list of potential Industrial Land Bank sites throughout the County would be advertised through a formal public process to narrow the list down to the most preferred sites. The list would then be brought to the City, County, Joint Growth Management Steering Committee, and ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners for execution of a final legislative decision no later than December 31, 2007. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the need for an Industrial Land Bank needs to be determined initially. He asked if the cost for the studies are for the inventory only or if other things are included? John Fischbach replied the estimate is the total cost to complete the entire Industrial Land Bank process. Tamer Kirac reported the inventory study and cost benefit analysis may range from $10,996 to $105,000. Al Scalf added that some literature and inventory data is available that can be used as a basis while working in conjunction with the EDC which also has access to some information. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the total cost is dependent on going forward with this process. He asked how many years we are planning for? Tamer Kirac replied 20 to 30 years. Commissioner Rodgers asked what sequence of events have to occur in order to make a decision, and how much time will it take until a decision can be made if the process begins in April? Tamer Kirac said his understanding is that the process will include compiling the data, preparing maps, conducting a local and regional land availability study and use analogies, followed by a cost benefit analysis of developing alternative objectives. He estimates this process will take 3 to 6 months to complete. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2005 4 Al Scalf noted the County -Wide Planning Policies need to be reviewed with the City to insure that they are updated to reflect this legislation. The County can begin the public process by announcing this work. Commissioner Sullivan stated this work has been going on for four years. It started independent of the land bank and was always envisioned as an ongoing database that would be regularly updated and maintained. Not only is there the initial cost for setting it up, but, there would also be ongoing costs as it would need to be done in a way that the data can be maintained. The information would be current for a variety of uses and be a good planning tool for many agencies. Tamer Kirac said the study will commence and part of the work will be used for the land bank, and part of the work will be ongoing. Commissioner Rodgers noted that this project involves the City and County. If it proceeds, the City's information will also need to be put in the database. He asked if the development of a system could be incorporated into the services already being provided through contract by Latimore Co., LLC? Al Scalf replied the that EDC is the lead agency in terms of proceeding with the inventory. The County's interest is with the Industrial Land Bank. Once the City's information is obtained and a system is created, the EDC can proceed with a county -wide inventory of all commercial and industrial land and complete an asset database. One database will be used by the City, County, and other organizations. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the Port of Port Townsend receives requests regularly about land availability, so a database of this type would be a useful reference. He feels the purpose of the Industrial Land Bank needs to be defined. In his mind, the purpose is for major industrial development. While there is a process established for Major Industrial Developments (MIDs), he believes the Industrial Land Bank allows for the designation of property ahead of time for placement of future large developments. If at some point smaller areas are no longer available, then the use of property within the land bank might be considered. Commissioner Rodgers stated it is not only a matter of size, it is also qualitative. For example, there may be an area that is large enough for a specific project, however, the project may not be appropriate for that area. Also, the definition of "industrial" is changing. The design for the future says that the output may be intellectual rather than what has been typically thought of as industrial (i.e. ironing bits, automobiles, and machines). Tamer Kirac added that one of the major benefits of an Industrial Land Bank is to allow agencies to be proactive in identifying the infrastructure needs of an area and the types of businesses they want to attract. The EDC will be meeting with Karin Berkholtz, the Growth Management Act (GMA) Coordinator with the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED), to discuss legal issues and get answers to questions. There needs to be a concerted effort to insure everyone is in agreement in order to avoid potential misunderstandings and appeals. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2005 Commissioner Sullivan asked about the land bank established in Grant County? Tamer Kirac replied that Grant County established an RCW based land bank which is rather large and located in the middle of desert land. He spoke with both the Planning Director and the EDC Director in Grant County and was told that the economic environment and regional location of Jefferson County is very different from Grant County making it difficult to compare the two Counties. Jefferson County has an advantage because of its location and general environment. The effort in Jefferson County may be the first to succeed. In Lewis County there have been appeals which have slowed down the process so it is uncertain when their project will be completed. Commissioner Sullivan stated there is a wide range of estimated costs based on whether or not the process is appealed. Tamer Kirac stated in Lewis County there were 17 appeals which have cost $2-3 million in attorney fees and other expenses. That is why the initial work is so important. Commissioner Sullivan agreed and added that it is important that all of the local agencies work together on projects without controversy in order to receive funding from the State. With the State's current funding crisis, they may be less willing to provide funding if they foresee trouble with a project. The priority is based on whether the community can show that it is united and that this is a joint effort. Chairman Johnson said it is good that this project is going through the Growth Management Steering (GMS) Committee so that all of the local agencies can come together right from the start. Tamer Kirac said the GMS Committee has been quite active. He is optimistic about this project because all of the local agencies are involved and know the difficulties. This project was started on a sound base which will prove beneficial when seeking funding. Commissioner Sullivan said the cost to property owners involved in this process is also important to discuss. It could be looked at as a site-specific amendment where the property owners pay the cost "up front" because they want their property included. Or, it could be viewed as the community asking that this land be set aside for an undetermined amount of time for the future benefit of the community. The property of individual landowners could be unusable for a long period of time. Tamer Kirac replied that one of the requirements in establishing an Industrial Land Bank is to conduct an environmental study. Rather than attempting to piecemeal development and studies, there will be a complete legal and administrative process which will make it easier to finalize. Commissioner Rodgers moved that the County commit $25,000 to match the Port of Port Townsend's funding and proceed with seeking additional funding from the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to complete an inventory of available land and determine the feasibility of an Industrial Land Bank. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the funding is in the County's budget? County Administrator John Fischbach replied that it is not in the County's budget, but, there is adequate reserve funding to cover the amount. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The 17 Industrial Land Bank appeals in Lewis County are related to agriculture issues not Industrial Land Bank issues; Concern whether the Industrial Land Bank inventory will relate only to land within the two County UGAs or will other parcels outside the UGAs be included as well? (The County Administrator noted that the County is doing an inventory of all areas within the County, not just within the two UGAs.); Language in the Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2005 4, County -Wide Planning Policies needs to be updated regarding Major Industrial Developments (MIDs) and Industrial Land Banks; If the County is going to proceed with the Industrial Land Bank inventory then it should rollback all of the industrial zoning in the City, LAMIRDS, and the Port Hadlock UGA and then set up a method to revenue share with the City. (Commissioner Sullivan noted that revenue sharing is addressed in the statute relating to Industrial Land Banks, and will be a topic for discussion); There needs to be an evaluation of actual costs versus revenue for permit fees and an accounting to insure that they are issued reasonably and cost effectively (The County Administrator stated that he has information available regarding this issue); The Little Quilcene River Estuary Restoration Project must move forward to help the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, and the County needs to look into why preliminary engineering work on this project has stopped; There may be County employees who have a vested monetary interest in the Little Quilcene River Estuary Restoration Project and are keeping it from moving forward; There needs to be fundamental policy discussions and the County needs to determine the size and scale of the Industrial Land Bank that will meet the needs of the community, before it funds any studies; Commendation for dedicating funds to the Industrial Land Bank to try to meet the commercial needs of the community and promote family wage jobs; Update on fire danger signs and request for a Resolution authorizing Fire Wise brochures; There needs to be commercial kitchens available to individuals (for a fee) which would allow them to meet health regulations and prepare food items for resale locally; Industrial areas were not needed in the past, however, they are needed now so that our children can have the opportunity to find employment in the area where they grew up; and it is nice to see that individuals get answers to their questions when they come here, however, all of the individuals (not just some) who ask questions during the public comment period deserve the respect to be answered. (Chairman Johnson noted that the "Public Comment Period" is for the public to make comments and County staff tries not to respond or to respond very briefly to the questions in order to allow the public ample time to speak.) APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 21-05 re: Vacation of a Portion of the Alley in Block 123 Irondale No. 5; Jascha Kozelisky, Petitioner 2. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, Appendix "A" re: Education Programs, Extension Agent/Chair, 4-H Agent, Technical Support, and Water Quality Agent; Jefferson County/WSU Extension; Washington State University (WSU) 3. AGREEMENT NO. G0500236, Amendment No. 1 re: Northwest Straits Project, Marine Resources Committee Year 5 Grant; Amending Special Terms and Conditions; Jefferson County Extension-WSU; Washington State Department of Ecology 4. AGREEMENT re: Permit Process Improvement Review Phase II; Jefferson County Community Development; Latimore Co., LLC 5. Request to Open Right of Way; Berner Nelson Road Located in Quilcene; Jefferson County Public Works; Ray Culver, Applicant 6. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Tourism Coordinating Council; Evelyn Howton 7. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Library District Board of Trustees; Patience Rogge 8. Advisory Board Appointment; Jefferson County Library District Board of Trustees; Marilyn Mitchell Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2005 hi The Board held a workshop with Tom Robinson, Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Timber Coordinator regarding federal funding for counties and the Timber Counties Program. MEETT4d*p,URNED ry • AT a v r E Lundg Deputy Clerk of the Board COUNTY L David Sullivan, Member a . o gers, Member Page 6