Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120505 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: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 5, 2005 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Sullivan noted 2 corrections to the minutes of November 21,2005. (Page 7, line 2 to change their position to their mission, and page 8, in the second to the last paragraph to read Commissioner Sullivan reiterated the water system service area arguments made in the discussion of MLA05-59.) He moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of November 28, 2005 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming December 9, 2005 as "A Day to Remember the Lives of Jefferson County Residents Who Have Passed On": Chairman Johnson read the proclamation designating December 9,2005 as "A Day to Remember the Lives of Jefferson County Residents Who Have Passed On." In addition, Home Health and Hospice of Jefferson County has scheduled a service of remembrance for all County residents and hospice patients. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the proclamation. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The new regional representative for Sprint asked the Board to keep the company in mind when considering projects or partnerships, and the intent of the section on junk vehicles in the Solid Waste Ordinance passed by the Board of Health needs to be clarified. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5,2005 -'~""\"'" ~ ...\.....::; '\;l;~ ~',. ~'-~... APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CANCELLATION NOTICE re: County Commissioner Regular Meeting; Scheduled for Tuesday, December 27,2005 2. HEARING NOTICE re: 2006 Jefferson County Budget; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 12,2005 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 3. HEARING NOTICE re: Setting the 2006 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for Levy in 2005 and Collection in 2006; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 12,2005 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 4. AGREEMENT re: Individual Supported Employment; Jefferson County Public Health; Skookum Corporation 5. AGREEMENT re: Group Supported Employment; Jefferson County Public Health; Skookum Corporation 6. AGREEMENT re: PrevocationallSpecialized Industries; Jefferson County Public Health; Skookum Corporation 7. AGREEMENT re: Individual Supported Employment; Jefferson County Public Health; Morningside 8. AGREEMENT NO. G0600094 re: Hood Canal Septic System Survey Project; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 9. AGREEMENT Interlocal re: One-to-One Mentoring Program; Jefferson County Public Health; Big Brothers/Big Sisters of King and Pierce County 10. AGREEMENT re: Functional Family Therapist; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Elsa Golts 11. AGREEMENT re: Administer Surcharge Funds Generated by ESSHB 2163 to Establish a Homeless Shelter; Olympic Community Action (OlyCAP) and City of Port Townsend 12. AGREEMENT NO. KC-392-03 Amendment ere: Continuation of Homeland Security Grant; Jefferson County Emergency Management; Kitsap County Emergency Management 13. AGREEMENT re: Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) Sewer Facility Plan; Jefferson County Public Works; Tetra Tech/KCM 14. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Salary Study for Exempt Positions; Braun Consulting 15. Letter of Agreement; Deferred Compensation Program; Jefferson County Sheriffs Office and JeffCom; Teamsters Local Union No. 589 ofthe International Brotherhood of Teamsters 16. Funding Approval for Design Services; Castle Hill Annex Renovation Project 2006-141 A (1); Jefferson County Central Services; Washington State Department of General Administration Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5, 2005 ;,",... "", i;;/.~ ,- HEARING re: Proposed Supplemental Budget Extensions/Appropriationsfor Various County Departments: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Central Services Director Allen Sartin noted that the hearing notice was published in the newspaper on November 23 and 30. Sheriff Brasfield explained that the 3 primary areas in the Sheriffs budget that required extensions were: medical costs at the jail, overtime for Deputies and Corrections Officers due to several vacant positions that have recently been filled, and salaries and benefits as the employee population grows. The proposed 2006 budget will be more realistic about inmate health costs. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the budget appropriations, the Chair closed the hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 72-05, approving the supplemental budget appropriations. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application 2006 Public Service Grant; and Close Out of the 2005 Public Service Grant: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Tim Hockett, Acting Executive Director for Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP) requested that the Board approve the submittal of a CDBG grant for public service funding for 2006. This grant provides discretionary funding for community action agencies. He submitted a summary of outcomes for approximately 90 programs that they administer throughout Clallamand Jefferson Counties. A relatively new program is the Dental Clinic at the OlyCAP office in Port Angeles for low income residents. They recently passed an accreditation review from the American Dental Association to train dental hygienists at the clinic. A few of their other programs include: Headstart, emergency shelter, transitional housing, senior programs, homecare, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program and partnerships with the American Red Cross, Public Health, the Housing Authority, and Olympic Area Agency on Aging. He stated that OlyCAP provides leadership and innovation in dealing with the poor and other vulnerable populations and this grant funding is used to help support their programs. Currently they are facing financial struggles because of budget cuts at the federal and state level. OlyCAP also contracts with the County to run the Tri Area Community Center, the Qui1cene Community Center, and the Brinnon Community Center and they appreciate the Board's support in this area. Regarding the 2005 grant, Tim Hockett explained that they review where their programs are weak or can't support their administrative costs and this is where they use the CDBG funding. OlyCAP uses 9.8% of the funding they receive for administration which is less than any other community action agency in the State. They use the discretionary income to bring in other funding sources by leveraging the money. , Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5,2005 Ej'"'''' -"., '\', ~', "","",,41,:; \\/I'J'~''''''''''- Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the CDBG Grant proposal for public services or the closeout of the 2005 CDBG Grant, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to have the Board approve the submittal of the application for the 2006 CDBG grant and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 73-05, regarding the certification of compliance for the CDBG Public Services Grant. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion with Possible Adoption re: Proposed Ordinance 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Chairman Johnson suggested that the Board discuss MLA05-60, the amendment that they did not make a decision on at their November 21 meeting. The Commissioners agreed that their decisions to approve the other five amendments are accurately described in the draft ordinance. Josh Peters, Senior Planner, explained that the Board's packet contains a memo dated November 30 from staff with options for findings for MLA05-60 based on the Board's discussion on November 21. There are also some maps included. A letter, dated November 29, from Olympic Property Group (OPG) to Al Scalf, Director of Community Development, prompted a meeting with them last week. He also gave the Board a letter from OPG, dated December 5, that outlines their response to the November 30 memo with a detailed alternative to findings on the water issue. Commissioner Rodgers noted that there are 2 issues that the Board wants to address: buffer and water. He thinks that the staff recommendation is consistent with the applicant's suggestion regarding the buffer. Josh Peters pointed out that the staff recommendation was to deny the amendment and the Board had requested the additional information. Commissioner Rodgers stated that conditioning the approval ofthe amendment on a Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) will provide 65% open space and utilize the buffer. The location on the property and size of the buffer was discussed. Chairman Johnson asked if the staffs buffer area is based on a tax parcel? Josh Peters replied that it is. He added that the OPG buffer area is based on section lines and other factors described in their letter. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez stated that buffers around a UGA are 1 dwelling per 20 acres in order to provide space for future expansion of the UGA. He feels that the same applies to an MPR. Commissioner Rodgers noted that there is a buffer inside the Port Ludlow MPR and the additional buffer on this property acts as a second buffer. He feels that this satisfies the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sullivan asked why staff is still recommending denial ofthe amendment? Josh Peters stated that the Director of the DCD isn't present to give his perspective ofthe Department's position. However, in their meeting with OPG, they reiterated that the Department's basic stance with a neutral read ofthe Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5,2005 ;"... 1 ~ ,',">. .. f,llfr ~,.~~' Comprehensive Plan and, for other reasons, was to recommend denial. He added that the decision on the amendment is clearly within legislative discretion. David Alvarez pointed out that the legal test is whether rural densities are still provided and there is a sufficient inventory ofRR 1 :5, RR 1: 1 0, and RR 1 :20. He explained that when the Chevy Chase upzone amendment was appealed, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decided that the County Commissioners, as legislative officials, have the right to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County was found to be GMA compliant because the decision to upzone the Chevy Chase property resulted in a variety of rural densities. Commissioner Sullivan noted that his primary concern with the amendment is the water issue. The Board read the letter from OPG dated December 5, 2005 (see permanent record) listing suggested modifications to the draft findings/conditions ofthe approval ofMLA05-60. Commissioner Sullivan stated that, according to the letter, OPG is proposing that no individual wells will be built and they will either use an existing well or drill a new well for the project. Ifthey drill a new well, a feasibility study will be done involving interested property owners who live adjacent to the property. Commissioner Sullivan's concern is to protect the wells ofthe existing property owners from saltwater intrusion or decreased flows because increasing the density could have an impact. Josh Peters stated that when DCD met with OPG last week, they discussed the need for a positive response from the current property owners who want to hook up to the new water system. They were discussing a feasibility study for 40 new connections. There are approximately 200 potential hookups on the peninsula. A feasibility study would be done to determine the costs involved and how the water system would be administered. The study results would be shared with the landowners on the peninsula in order to see how many would want to participate. Any water system serving more than 6 households is a "Class A" system which requires monitoring and testing. Commissioner Sullivan quoted from the letter, "The applicant shall either utilize the existing well with sufficient water rights to serve the subject proposal or shall drill a new well and apply for new water rights. If a new well is to be installed, then the applicant shall do the following....." He asked whether the conditions listed for the new well would be done ifthe existing well is used? Jon Rose, OPG, answered that their #1 goal is not to harm existing water users. Ifthere is an existing well that has water rights and has been approved for the withdrawal by DOE, they will have done no harm. Ifthey apply for a new water right, they will ask if neighbors want to participate in the new water system. If they have to drill a well, do pump tests, and monitor wells that are on the shoreline when they do the pump test, it is about the same amount of work whether it is 50 or 200 lots. If they pay for further studies, there will be more of a benefit to the neighborhood to hook up to the system if they process the water right. This is not the case if only a few current landowners want to hook up to the water system. The well would be located off the peninsula and away from the waterfront. They are willing to provide the opportunity for all the property owners to be part of a bigger water system to ensure potable, clean water for the next 50 years. Protection includes protecting the flow. If 65% of the property is in open space, there won't be a lot of impervious surface. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5,2005 Commissioner Rodgers asked if a larger pipe could be installed in the ground to accommodate the neighbors in the future if a new well is drilled? Jon Rose stated that it is a possibility, but the storage tank size depends on the number of people who will be participating. Commissioner Sullivan noted that a large well would also have an impact out ofthe area. Jon Rose answered that if the well was to serve 250 property owners, the property owners who currently have private wells would abandon them. Commissioner Sullivan stated that a condition should be that people who hook up to the water system should be required to abandon their private wells. Jon Rose added that the DOE looks at all well applications to make sure senior water rights aren't endangered. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he hasn't heard from any of the property owners on the peninsula and he wonders ifthey are aware ofthe amendment. Jon Rose answered that the County Administrator put an article in the Port Ludlow Voice about it. Commissioner Sullivan asked staff once more if they are still recommending denial ofthe amendment after reading OPG's December 5 letter? Josh Peters said that he had a chance to read the letter only this morning, but he and the DCD Director discussed the alternatives with OPG last week. He said that staff is comfortable with the scenario regarding the water issue. The transition of a RR 1 :20 buffer for an MPR needs to be clarified in a future Comprehensive Plan amendment. As Commissioner Rodgers and OPG suggest, the Board would choose a specific time frame for the preclusion of vicinity rural residential rezones. Regarding the buffer, the referenced parcel would remain at RR 1 :20. The only other issue is whether the remainder ofthe property would be RR 1:5 or RR 1: 10. Commissioner Sullivan asked ifthese changes would require a new public comment period? Commissioner Rodgers stated that this is the result of a public process. Josh Peters added that the original proposal was RR 1:5 and this was mitigated. The issues before the Board were raised at the public hearings and during the public comment period. This solution is in response to the comments. David Alvarez added that he does not feel another public hearing is required because this is a lesser proposal than the original and fits within the "sideboards" of what was originally proposed. . Chairman Johnson questioned the theory about the transition lands around a UGA or MPR? Jon Rose stated that Port Ludlow residents made it clear that development would have a cap when the development agreement was done. They don't want the MPR to get bigger. The RR 1 :20 areas were to be used as transition areas, not reserve areas. Commissioner Rodgers stated that RR 1 :20 applies to UGAs and it isn't clear in the Comprehensive Plan that it also applies to MPRs. Chairman Johnson suggested that when an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is done, the RR 1 :20 buffers around UGAs should be called "reserve areas" rather than "transition areas." Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5,2005 .......' q....... r~~/t Commissioner Sullivan asked Jon Rose ifhe has talked to the PUD about the possibility of a water system? Jon Rose answered that he recently inquired about their closest water system to the peninsula. Paradise Bay has their own water system, but they would not be interested in providing water. He also spoke with Port Ludlow, but he doesn't know ifthey want to add to their system. The new water system could be a PUD public water system or it can be a private water system. Commissioner Sullivan asked ifthere is a well? Jon Rose stated that they thought Port Ludlow may have an extra well, but it appears that they don't. Commissioner Sullivan commented that the reviews by DOE and DOH should provide adequate protection. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve MLA05-60 with the changes suggested by the applicant in their letter dated December 5, 2005 specifically dealing with the 33 acre buffer zone, the water system proposal, and no increased density in the area for 20 years. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Alvarez stated that the Board can approve the draft ordinance with the 5 amendments today or approve an ordinance that includes all 6 amendments next week. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that they approve the ordinance to include MLA05-60. Commissioner Sullivan asked if there is an advantage to having 2 ordinances? David Alvarez stated that in 2002 they wrote 5 or 6 ordinances by category of amendment, but this year it may be simpler to do one ordinance. Josh Peters suggested that DCD staff can include the findings and decision for MLA05-60 in the draft ordinance and have it on the Board's Consent Agenda next week. Commissioner Sullivan asked that the language in finding #32 on page 5 of the ordinance be clarified. David Alvarez stated that the purpose of the finding is to show that the individual amendments have been reviewed and approval does not set a precedent for the upzoning of other rural residential lots in the future. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve for adoption the draft ordinance approving the 5 Comprehensive Plan amendments and the alternative findings and conditions for the sixth amendment as agreed upon by the Board today. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (The final ordinance will be given an ordinance number when it is on the Consent Agenda on December 12,2005.) The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday at 10:00 a..m. All 3 Commissioners were present. The Board met in Executive Session from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Senior Planner regarding actual litigation. They came out of Executive Session and took the following action. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 5,2005 Direction to Staffre: Washington Environmental Council Settlement Agreement: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez explained that the Executive Session concerned a settlement agreement with the Washington Environmental Council. With respect to the proposed Second Settlement Agreement with the WEC, Commissioner Rodgers moved to direct staff to have Section 4.1 emphasize that the implementation of the plan would be a legislative action by the County Commissioners and that Section 4.2 address the funding and the schedule. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEET~~~~ , . '} -r:-' -- ., \. SEiV:"((..'\~ \\ . .: : '\ ~!..) : ~ ~ .. (~.. f' # 11 , 1. .,.. I ATT~~';:>' ~~ '".' .:..&~..I . . . --.. . If so", Co \ ./' ." l~:~~~' (lmC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS /] .^' ~' , ., / "./~' )~. _/ ~'Y I,' '// v , "" .,,' t .c/' ., o!.,!~_ Davi~~.-<gllllivan, em er Page 8