Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081808 ~'\ co~_ ~~~, ~A~~ oc;.'\ &!fJ ~ ~\ (...... ~ I!l -<, . .) ! \~ ~J ~lJ.J.~ District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin Interim County Administrator: Dennis Richards Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of Angust 18, 2008 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: a citizen explained that his interpretation of the State law regarding vesting allows a property owner to choose which regulations they want to be vested under if the regulations change while the project is under review; a spokesperson for the Jefferson County Association of Realtors stated that a majority of the Realtors in the County endorse the current sign ordinance which has an exemption for real estate signs; a Port Ludlow resident agreed with the suggestion that the speed limit through Port Ludlow should be 30 mph instead of 40 mph in order to make the road safer for people who bicycle and walk; several people made suggestions about how to increase revenues in the County, including encouraging businesses to relocate here and making it easier for current businesses to expand; a citizen stated that he thinks the County will need to cut services in order to make up for decreases in revenue; a person reviewed some of his insights on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding critical areas and shorelines master plan regulations and how it will affect the work the County is currently doing to update these regulations; and a citizen suggested that the County would save money if all permanent documents were stored electronically. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 57-08 re: Amend the Development Agreement with Land Owned by Port Ludlow Associates per Section 4,6, Exhibit A ofthe Port Ludlow Development Agreement Resolution No. 42-00 2. RESOLUTION NO. 58-08 re: Temporary Closure of McInnis Road, County Road No. 336109 3. RESOLUTION NO. 59-08 re: Creating a County Project Designated as CR1809; Improvements to East Quilcene Road, County Road No. 327508 4. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Use of the Jefferson County Small Works Roster For Public Works Projects; Jefferson County Conservation District 5. AGREEMENT re: Data Use for Child Death Review; Jefferson County Public Health; Michigan Public Health Institute Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 18,2008 6. AGREEMENTS (2) reo Public Infrastructure Funding Projects; 1) Water Street Infrastructure; and 2) Sims Way/SR 20 Improvements; City of Port Townsend 7. Rural Arterial Program Prospectuses (4) re: I) Paradise Bay Road; 2) South Discovery Road; 3) Dabob Road; and 4) Chimacum Road; Jefferson County Public Works; County Road Administration Board (CRAB) 8. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated August 11, 2008 Totaling $747,685.49 and Dated August 13, 2008 Totaling $3,972.48 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the minutes of July 28 and August 4, 2008 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Austin noted that the Public Comment section of the August II, 2008 minutes should be amended to read ...,be reducedfrom 40 mph to 30 mph. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 2008 with the amendment. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed, . Chairman Johnson visited a property owner on Chimacum Creek where there is a huge canary grass and blackberry problem. It appears that there are also plugged culverts in the area. . Commissioner Austin hiked in to the site for the proposed Dosewallips Road into the Olympic National Park. There are some old growth trees near the route that he thinks could be avoided when the road is built. . Commissioner Austin attended the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce meeting where representatives from the Statesman Group gave an update on the Master Planned Resort project. . Commissioner Sullivan noted that he is traveling to the West End this week for a WRlA 20 meeting where they will be voting on the watershed plan. . Commissioner Austin reported on the Puget Sound Partnership Straits Committee meeting last week. . The Board discussed the need for the State to address GMA regulations that don't allow construction of a sewer system in rural populated communities near the saltwater because sewers are considered an urban level of service, . Commissioner Sullivan briefed the other Board members on a statewide meeting he attended on County fiscal health. Community Development re: Code Interpretation Regarding I8.22 JCC, Critical Area Ordinance (CAO), and 18.25 JCC, Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Jurisdictions, with Regard to July 31,2008 State Supreme Court Decision Futurewise vs. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB): Director of Community Development AI Scalf reviewed the history and time1ines for the Planning Enabling Act (PEA), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Grov"ih Management Act (GMA) and how these acts affected the development of regulations in Jefferson County, Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 18,2008 The County is currently drafting an updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is scheduled to be adopted by the County in 2009, After it is adopted by the County, the SMP will need to be reviewed and approved by the State Department of Ecology. Al Scalf stated that the Supreme Court decision on July 31 directed that critical areas within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) be governed by the SMA, Critical Areas outside the jurisdiction of the SMA shall be governed by the GMA He noted that staff has drafted a code interpretation to implement the Supreme Court's decision. Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez explained that the Courts have begun to interpret the intention of the GMA in several court cases. A recent case dealt with an update of the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and whether revisions open up the entire plan for public review and appeal. The Court ruled that the only thing that could be appealed is something that was affected by a legislative change in the GMA since the previous Comprehensive Plan was adopted, This establishes parameters for the GMA process which were decided by the Growth Management Hearings Boards in the past. The Courts want the Legislature to clarifY the GMA and not the Growth Management Hearings Boards. Commissioner Sullivan stated that it would seem that both the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) would need to be revised at the same time in order to have consistent regulations since the goal of both documents is to protect critical areas. Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner, stated that Whatcom County recently did both their CAO and SMP updates in tandem. Al Scalf reviewed several scenarios on how the critical areas regulations were applied prior to the Court decision. There was a discussion about the SMA jurisdiction which is 200 feet on a horizontal plane from the shoreline at ordinary high water. If the mean annual flow of a river is 20 cubic feet per second or more, the river and associated wetlands are covered under the jurisdiction, Lakes that are 20 acres or larger are also included, The appeal process was discussed. Al Scalf reviewed the 4 options to address the change due to the Court decision: 1) An emergency interim control through the Planning Enabling Act to establish CAO-equivalent protection standards in the SMA jurisdiction by amending JCC 18.25. This amendment would have to be approved by the State Department of Ecology. 2) An emergency interim control to change JCC 18.22 to eliminate applicability to the shoreline jurisdiction. 3) An administrative directive or internal memo to DCD staff to regulate the shoreline jurisdiction via the SMAlSMP (JCC 18.25) and to regulate critical areas via the GMAlCAO (JCC 18.22) 4) A code interpretation regarding the relationship between the GMA and the SMA jurisdiction, To issue a code interpretation, DCD does not need direction from the Board. Al Scalf noted that the Board does not need to take action on this issue at this time. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 18, 2008 Central Services Director Allen Sartin re: Electronic Storage of Records: Allen Sartin explained that the Central Services Department is custodian of the data in the County but the Elected Officials and Department Heads make the decision on how they want to store their records. The State allows the County to use paper for retention of permanent records and the County's current records retention policy specifies paper. In order to change over to an electronic means of storage, the County would need to go through an application process involving several requirements by the State Auditor, the State and Local Records Committees, and the State Archivist. These requirements include: · an indexing system · an extensive back-up system · a complete plan and the ability to transfer the information from one media to another depending on the shelf life of the media · a disaster recovery plan · documentation of the system and how it is used by each department · a desk manual for the end user If the Board chooses to move forward with this proposal, a consultant will need to be hired to look at all the issues, identify the desk manuals needed, and prepare them. Central Services staff would have to evaluate processing and make sure the backup and offsite storage requirements could be met. All application and operating software would need to be kept and specialized equipment may need to be maintained. This would need to be an organization-wide project. Several departments use Laserfische for some projects, but the County is still required to keep the paper originals. The retention schedule on each document also needs to be considered. Allen Sartin added that the process with the State is an "all or nothing" thing. There will be labor and hardware costs. The current backup process would have to be changed. If the County goes to Laserfische, access by citizens who use dial up or low speed DSL may not be as good. The County has looked into upgrading the connection between the network and the internet but vendors aren't interested in expanding the capacity in a rural county. The County recently switched over to a dedicated line instead of a shared system and this has increased the response time. There was a discussion about whose responsibility it would be to research records of historical significance that may need to be kept in paper form. The documents that would be kept electronically would probably be determined by individual employees using the State retention schedule for their department. Issues involving Public Records Requests were also mentioned. Allen Sartin reiterated that it is important that electronic storage be done uniformly throughout the County. The system must be approved by the State and in place in order to begin scanning documents. In addition, documents received prior to setting up the system would also need to be scanned depending on their retention schedule. This is a policy decision that would need to be communicated throughout the organization. Currently, it is voluntary, but all of the Elected Officials would need to be involved in the decision. The Board met from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Executive Session with the Interim County Administrator and Prothman Consulting Group regarding personnel; an exemption as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act RCW 42.30.110 (g) Hiring/Discipline/Performance. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 18,2008 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed. · Resolution regarding Elected Officials salaries · Budget update · Code Enforcement Chairman Johnson left at 3:45 p.m. to go to a Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN) meeting. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:09 p.m. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4" ..-. ("f),~,)~ ~-~ ~ ~ I ".'71\,'.' ! +' .F .. -' / ,,~ , '" . / , "., ../~"'.#. ~ Phil Johnson, Chair Da~i!!~ ~ ~:!~C~L Deputy Clerk of the Board Austin, Member Page 5