Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120808 District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 8, 2008 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: a person stated that because of the break-in after hours at the Courthouse last week, he thinks the Commissioners need to look at a total security package for County buildings including a security system for the perimeter of the Courthouse; a citizen thanked the Board, County Administrator, Elected Officials, and Department Heads for working together to develop a revised 2009 Budget that addresses the current financial down turn; a person stated that he thinks the arguments for the Border Patrol on the Peninsula and liberal environmentalists are very similar because their reasoning is that they are protecting citizens from unknown threats in the future; and a person stated that he thinks it is important that everyone who speaks during the Public Comment Period is treated the same and he asked if there is a policy regarding the Public Comment Period? APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 11-1208-08 re: In the Matter of the Establishment ofa "No Shooting Zone" in Irondale to be Known as the Chimacurn Creek No Shooting Zone 2. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Plan; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Clallam County 3. AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Manage and Provide a Residential Facility for the Proctor House Program; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Kelli Parcher Corporation 4, CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products and Supply of Aggregate Products; Bid will be Accepted Until 9:55 a.m. on Monday, January 12,2009 and Opened and Read Publicly Shortly Thereafter in the Jefferson County Commissioners Chambers 5. LETTER OF SUPPORT; For Grant Applications; Voices for Veterans 6, Advisory Board Resignation; Housing Action Plan Network; Jefferson County Planning Commission Representative Barbara Nightingale Page I Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 1].'.'...'.'..... {:,."""":"~\ .t.:,.;,~....\.;,. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed, Commissioner Sullivan reported: · He attended the instream flow rule presentation by the State Department of Ecology (DOE) last week. The rule establishes a water right in streams that protects "fish" interests and current senior water right users, The proposal limits the Chimacum basin to 109 additional exempt wells but this is not a static number. There are currently several projects that will help expand the availability of water in the basin including the proposed sewage treatment plant, the USGS study to help develop a model, an aquifer recharge study by the PUD, and the possible use of Peterson Lake. · He attended a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) Legislative Outreach Committee meeting in Olympia with several Legislators in attendance. A decision on the Port Townsend/Keystone ferry has not been made yet because of the high bid that was received, Chairman Johnson reported: · The DOE is working on an increased water right for Quilcene. They are also working toward getting fire flow in the area, but the PUD would have to put in a tank. · He will be meeting with the incoming Commissioner of Public Lands this week in Olympia, · He attended the Healthy Youth Coalition meeting last week where three young men from Gray Wolf Ranch gave presentations about their past and their recovery. Commissioner Austin reported: · He is a presenter at the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) New Commissioners Orientation in Olympia this week. · He met with the new Commander at Indian Island about reducing emissions. The Navy wants to reduce their energy footprint to help decrease global wanning. Some of the neighbors at Kala Point had commented to Commissioner Austin about the generator noise from the submarines. The Navy is working to decrease the noise because they want to be good neighbors. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 17,2008 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed and moved to the Superior Courtroom for a public hearing on the 2009 Budget. HEARING re: 2009 Budget: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. County Administrator Philip Morley gave a presentation on the final proposal for the 2009 Budget. He noted that it is anticipated that the final budget will be approved by the Board on December 15. The total budget is approximately $48 million as recommended. The General Fund expenditures total approximately $15 million and the other funds are about $33 million. Expenditures have been reduced 2.6% in the General Fund and revenues are anticipated to increase 3.5% due to the Board's action to take banked capacity and the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act. It is anticipated that there will be a $1,1 million fund balance in the General Fund at the end of this year and a portion of that will be used to balance the budget. There is a $3 million gap between expenditures and revenues in the funds outside the General Fund that will come out of fund balance. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 He stated that the proposed budget is financially responsible and the expenditures have been reduced to meet the anticipated revenues and deal with current economic realities. He cautioned that it is important to save the excess fund balance for flexibility in the future if the County has to respond to situations that arise depending on the economy. This year there hasn't been time to fundamentally change program priorities and the status quo has been retained as much as possible. In future years the Departments will work together to identify systemic changes, The three priorities of government identified in a 2003 survey were law and justice, roads, and public health, In the spring, the Board formally adopted a resolution outlining the goals and objectives for the 2009 budget. These have been guidelines in developing the budget. The preliminary budget in October did not reflect the downturn in the economy and most of the excess fund balance in 2008 would have been depleted to balance the 2009 budget. The budget before the Board today has realigned the expenditures and revenues by cutting approximately $561,000 in expenditures and adding unanticipated revenue, On November 24, the Board set the levy rates for 2009 on the General Fund, Conservation Futures Fund and the Road Fund, Most property owners don't realize that only 25% of their property taxes go to the County. The remainder goes to the State, local school districts, and depending on where a person lives, the City of Port Townsend, Fire Districts and other special districts. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) is charged when a property is sold and it helps fund and make payments on bonds. If the REET funds run short, the General Fund must make up the difference and this is the situation right now. The County Administrator reviewed information on cuts to expenditures and the downturn in revenues. He reviewed the projected annual cost reductions that will have to be made in the next several years ifthe economic slow down continues. He thanked everyone involved for their participation in the budget process. He plans to start working with the Elected Officials and Department Heads on the 2010 Budget at the beginning of 2009 so that there will be time to look at additional cost savings and streamlining or combining programs and projects for increased savings. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing, Joe 0' Amico, Jefferson County, stated that it appears that the County has "put all of its eggs in one basket" and assumed that property taxes and the real estate market would fill the gap. This has nothing to do with encouraging business. It is important that the County promote businesses, The County doesn't require business licenses and there should be some type of small tax for businesses. The County isn't aware of all the businesses out there. What about revenue increases? He suggested that the County encourage start-up businesses instead of cutting costs. He has people lined up from other States to train at his facility but he can't bring them in because of his current situation with the County. The County should think about outsourcing Animal Services. He thinks that the Sheriffs Department is understaffed. Jim HalZan, Cape George, stated that the presentation by the County Administrator was excellent and it focused on several areas he wanted to comment about. He thinks it is important to have a more collaborative working arrangement with the Elected Officials and Department Heads and to anticipate budget challenges as far in advance as possible. During the recent election, the candidates talked about tax Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 cuts and the importance of creating jobs. There are things that the Commissioners can do to create a more business-friendly environment that will raise the County's taxbase. The County will be addressing development regulations in the Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) and these regulations need to allow for uses that will maximize the intended purpose ofthe UGA. The County is working on an industriallandbank analysis that can result in new businesses that accommodate clean industry and provide jobs. The Master Planned Resort in Brinnon will bring in revenue. It is important to look forward. When the economy does turn around, there should be some building blocks in place to take advantage of the economIC recovery. Jim Tracy, Land Use Counsel for Fred Hill Materials, stated that he agrees with Mr. D'Amico's and Mr. Hagan's testimony. He thinks that all budget analysis is subject to projection and assumption. One ofthe most dangerous assumptions in this budget is that things won't get worse in 2009. All the experts are saying that things are going to get worse and a status quo budget may not be appropriate. Priorities need to be reevaluated and revenue possibilities and budget enhancements need to be addressed. The County Administrator came in late to the budget process and he has done a good job. It is important that work on the budget begin in January, He thinks it is important that Elected Officials and Department Heads collaborate on the budget. However, many County residents also have a great deal of expertise in business planning and should be given a chance to give input. When times are economically tough, crimes against property increase and now is not the time to be taking resources away from the Sheriff's Office. The number one priority ofthe residents is law and safety. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County, thanked the County Administrator for addressing his concerns about the computer retention schedule, although he does not agree with everything that was said. In his opinion, if the IT Department is run properly, there is a bulk license for every computer and a whole new replacement copy is not necessary, The same thing is true for the operating system. A person can buy a computer at Costco for $700. Many ofthe employees who use computers don't need a lot of programs, He suggested that another area that could be addressed is to consolidate the different County websites so that they have a unified structure and are maintained by the same staff. This would also improve how citizens view the County. Jack Westerman, County Assessor, stated that when the Board set the levies a few weeks ago, two Veterans spoke about the need to levy for the Veterans Assistance Fund. The proposed budget includes that funding. He has been Assessor for 33 years. Only twice in those years, as expenditures and revenues were being tracked, was it determined that significant changes needed to be made in mid-year. This may have to happen again in 2009, Mike Brasfield, County Sheriff, assured the Board that he is comfortable with reducing one deputy position. The hiring process and the required training would not put a new deputy on the road this year. However, he wants to see that position reinstated at a future date. He noted that the Sheriff s Office workload has not been reduced. Mike Belenski, stated that the Board got raises in 2009 while six valuable employees were laid off and this doesn't make sense to him. Agreements totaling hundreds ofthousands of dollars are approved by the Board each year without any public discussion, and they are not usually put out for bid to get competitive pricing. He thinks it is important for the Board to look closer at the documents and actions that they Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 approve. He asked the Board to look at internet access to make sure that the employees aren't abusing the internet policy during work hours. He said that the County needs to squeeze every little bit out of every public dollar and get rid of the waste that occurs. He doesn't think that refreshments should be paid for with County funds and served at advisory board meetings, Anne Sears, Budget Consultant, stated that the County Administrator did a great job of coming into the budget process late and was able to bring the departments together as a group to work on the budget. He understands the budget and the process and she is very positive about the future. Hearing no further comments, for or against the budget, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Austin stated that he agrees with Anne Sears and is impressed by the collaborative nature that Elected Officials and Department Heads have maintained. It's made a big difference, He thanked all the people involved, Chairman Johnson noted that there has already been discussion about having public meetings early next year to address budget priorities, He is pleased about new replacement schedules for computers, printers, and copiers that will prolong their use. After the hearing, the Board recessed the meeting and reconvened it in the Commissioners Chambers. Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; Representing Commissioner District #2: The Board interviewed Garth McHattie who expressed an interest in being appointed to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Commissioner Sullivan moved to appoint Garth McHattie to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board representing District #2. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mr. McHattie's term will expire on December 8, 2010. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed. · Department of Community Development work program priorities. · Questions and answers on the 2009 Budget. · Beginning work on the 2010 Budget in early 2009 and several issues that need to be addressed in the 2010 Budget. · Proposed State Department of Natural Resources/Pope Resources land exchange in Port Ludlow. · There was a brief discussion about the increased presence of the Border Patrol on the Olympic Peninsula, The meeting was recessed at the close of the County Administrator's Briefing Session and reconvened at 5 p,m, in the Superior Courtroom for deliberations on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 Deliberations and Final Decision on 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket: Approximately 20 interested citizens were present when Chairman Johnson reconvened the meeting in the Superior Courtroom. He explained that the Board will deliberate and take action on each application separately and staff is available to answer any questions that they may have. Director of Community Development Al Scalf noted that the Board may adopt the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions, including the maps, or deliberate and enter their own findings and conclusions. MLA08-32; Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC, Applicant: (Located at the corner (~f Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue in Port Townsend. The property is approximately 14.02 acres. The application is to change from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10 acres to (RR 1: 1 0) to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres (RR: 1 :5.) The DCD staff recommendation is to approve the application. The Planning Commission's recommendation is to approve the application.) Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the application. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullivan noted that he agrees with the Planning Commission's findings. Commissioner Austin stated that he also agrees with the staff recommendations and would like to incorporate those findings found on page 2-9 in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Staff Report. He added that both the Planning Commission's findings and the staffs findings address the Growth Management indicators. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust, Applicant (David Goldsmith; Agent): Located one mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads in Chimacum. The request is to change 80 acres of 116 acres from Commercial Forest zoned 1 residence to 80 acres to (CF 1:80) to Rural Forest 1 residence to 40 acres (RF: 1 :40) and the remaining 36 acres from Commercial Forest zoned 1 residence to 80 acres (CF1:80) to Agricultural Lands zoned 1 residence to 20 acres (AL1:20). The DCD staff recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission's recommendation is to approve with modification. The modification is to recommend a split zone of the parcel to redesignate existing pasture land as Agricultural Land (AL1:20) which would be 19Y: acres and retain the zoning of the Forest Land as Commercial Forest.) Commissioner Austin moved to approve the application with the conditions as noted by the Planning Commission and outlined on the map. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion, Commissioner Austin stated that the aerial photographs taken in 1994 and in 2005 show that the area of the proposed agricultural designation has been agricultural for at least that many years, The staff recommendation notes that if a change was to be made, it should have been made sooner. However, the property owners have always used the property for agricultural purposes, Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 Commissioner Sullivan stated his concern regarding the staff report which states that "while pasture land does exist within the zoned forest land, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits the County from rezoning the forest land to agricultural land." Associate Planner Joel Peterson eXplained that there is a GMA statute that discusses the establishment of resource lands in the Comprehensive Plan. He believes that there is a section in the Unified Development Code that disallows rezoning forest land to agricultural land in order to protect forest resources, Chairman Johnson noted that although it is designated as forest land, in reality it is not. Commissioner Austin stated that he thinks it was mis-designated when the original designation was done. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he thinks the appropriate process is to amend the Comprehensive Plan in general rather than approve this application. He noted that there will be an opportunity for amendment during the next Comprehensive Plan update. He thinks that the County is obligated to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins pointed out that the reasoning behind the staff position about rezoning forest lands is explained on page 2-37 of the staff report and has to do with prohibiting the subdivison of forest lands. Their final conclusion was that rezoning to rural residential would circumvent NRP 4.1 and be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Austin asked what would have happened if there was a typo or an error when originally designating this property? He added that the property is obviously agricultural. Stacie Hoskins replied that a typo or error would be corrected through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, It can't be processed as a correction to the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998. Al Scalf added that there was criteria in the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 that addressed mapping errors and a property owner could contact the County about an error. This was done on three properties and was appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. They said that using a map correction process for errors was non- compliant with the GMA because it prohibited public participation. As a result of the WWGMHB decision and order, the County removed the criteria for map corrections from the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that Commissioner Sullivan's suggestion to revise the Comprehensive Plan during the update would be the proper process to use. However, the Board has legal discretion in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and can approve the amendment ifthey choose. Commissioner Sullivan read NRP 4.1 which states that, "The goal is to minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands." The 4.1 Policy is to "prohibit the subdivision of designated forest lands for residential purposes, allow one dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law," He noted that he thinks this is also addressed in the agricultural lands section of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Austin stated that he prefers to look at the common sense of the amendment. If the Brown's amendment is something that cannot be enacted, DCD staff should have told the applicant when the paperwork was submitted. Al Scalf replied that in past years they have looked at previous amendments and actions by the Board and have advised applicants. However, many ofthe applicants still want to apply because the County Commissioners have the legislative discretion in making the final decision. Commissioner Austin reiterated that the Board still has legislative discretion to approve the amendment with modifications as noted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted 8-0 in favor of the approval. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 Joel Peterson noted that the reference to this rezone is in section AL20 ofthe Comprehensive Plan, agricultural land of local importance. He explained that there is a process with several stipulations available for property owners to petition for this designation. Some of the criteria for the process was discussed. Commissioner Sullivan noted his concerns about the amendment being appealed if it is approved. He added that approval of the amendment will mean one more residence requiring one more exempt well in the Chimacum basin. Chairman Johnson called for a vote on the motion, Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Austin voted for the motion. Commissioner Sullivan voted against the motion, The motion carried, Al Scalf clarified that the motion reflects the findings of the Planning Commission dealing with the split zone parcel, re- designating the existing pasture land as "agricultural land of local significance" and retaining the zoning of forest land for the rest of the parcel. MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George: (Located at 472 South Edwards Road in Port Townsend The application is to change from Rural Residential, I residence to 20 acres to (RRl:20) to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10 acres (RR: I: I 0.) The DCD staff recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission had no recommendation on the application.) Commissioner Austin moved to deny the application. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion, Commissioner Austin asked that the staff analysis be incorporated in the Board's decision. He noted that the staff report stated that if the amendment is approved, it would increase the variety of rural densities, encourage urbanization, and create pressure to increase the density in the parcel to the north. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that one ofthe public comments during the hearing was that there are already many properties zoned Rural Residential in Jefferson County. Commissioner Austin also noted that there was a split vote by the Planning Commission on this amendment. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous, MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC: (Approximately 120 acres located near Chimacum. The application is to change from Commercial Forest, 1 residence to 80 acres to (CF 1 :80) to Rural Residential, 1 residence toIO acres (RR: 1: 1 0.) The DCD staff recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the application. The vote was 5 in favor of denying the application and 3 against.) Commissioner Austin moved to deny the application. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. Commissioner Austin asked that the Planning Commission's findings be incorporated in the Board's decision, and that the staff report be incorporated, particularly their findings on page 2-41. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that on page 2-39, it was noted that the property is currently in a deferred forest tax status. It is located outside a community water system service area and he is concerned that approval of this amendment could lead twelve exempt wells in the Chimacum Basin. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 Commissioner Austin noted that the property was purchased within the past few years as forest land. He is concerned that if this amendment is approved, it would set a precedent for other forest land purchases that would then be rezoned Rural Residential and subdivided. Commissioner Sullivan added that there are currently many Rural Residential properties available in the County. He said that the applicants's comment that the forest land property was poorly managed by previous owners, doesn't mean the designation should be changed, He thinks that there is evidence that the property could be used to produce high quality wood products through state-of-the-art forest management techniques. Chairman Johnson stated that the applicant's letters regarding the class of soils on the property are not clear to him. Commissioner Sullivan noted that if the property was designated incorrectly in the original Comprehensive Plan, the change to the designation should have been brought to the County sooner. The Chair called for a vote on the motion, The motion carriedby unanimous vote. MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR Partnership: (Approximately 38 acres located on Cleveland Street off Oak Bay Road in Chimacum, The application is to change from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 20 acres (RRI:20) to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres (RR:I:5.) The DCD staff recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the application. The vote was 6 in favor of denying the application and 2 against.) Commissioner Sullivan moved to deny the amendment. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion. Commissioner Austin asked that the findings of the Planning Commission and the staff be incorporated in the decision, He noted the comments on pages 2-20, 2-21, 2-23,and 2-24 of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Staff Report. Commissioner Sullivan reiterated that there are enough rural residential lots to meet the growth projections and there is no need to create more. This also would create more parcels that would need water. Commissioner Austin pointed out that this parcel adds to a variety of rural densities as shown on the map. He said that people who buy property expect the zoning to stay consistent. He thinks that property owners adjacent to this property would feel "cheated" somehow if there was an increase in the density. Commissioner Sullivan noted that people want certainty. He thinks it is important to uphold the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Johnson called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, MLA08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources: (Located approximately three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge, immediately north of SRI 04, adjacent to the Shine Quarry, and approximately % mile from the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). It is 142 acres. The application isfor a Mineral Resource Lands Overlay (MRLO) in a Commercial Forest (CF 1 :80) designation, 1 residence to 80 acres. This MRLO designation would allow extraction of mineral resources /yom a hard rock mine. The DCD stqff recommendation is to approve the MRLO with a number of modifications to the application and mitigation measures as conditions of approval. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the application. The vote was 8 infavor of denying the application.) Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 Commissioner Austin moved to deny the application, Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullivan questioned whether it is in the best interest of the public to make a decision on this application at this time. He has a number of concerns. The applicant has not attended any of the public hearings or been available to answer questions. This project is taking several paths, including litigation through the courts and there is an opportunity for settlements between litigants, Also there are other decisions in the future that could influence the Board's decision, Commissioner Austin suggested that the amendment be carried over until next year. Al Scalf stated that although the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and adoption is clearly outlined in the UDC, last year there was an emergency due to bad weather and the hearing and decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments was delayed. In 2006, per an applicant's request, an application was carried over to the next year. Commissioner Sullivan stated that since this is the only amendment dealing with this issue, he doesn't think the cumulative affect in terms of making decisions on all the amendments tonight would be important. Al Scalf answered that it is a judgement call that the Board would need to make. He suggested that the Board could say that this amendment is either the more significant, or least significant, of all the applications in terms of its impacts both environmentally or non-environmentally for the community as a whole. He noted that there is a great deal of public interest. They could table the decision, carry over the decision, or make the decision. Commissioner Sullivan suggested tabling the decision for 30 or 60 days. He said he would hate to make a legislative decision and have the courts contradict it. He also noted that there isn't a timeline for a court decision when there may be appeals involved. Commissioner Austin reviewed some of the elements of the impact analysis. A question on Table 10 on page 2-48 of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket asks whether the proposed amendment reflects widely held values of Jefferson County residents? He noted that approximately 60 comment e-mails and letters have been received and the testimony from citizens indicates that they are vehemently opposed to the MRLO, They have stated that they don't feel the applicant would do what is required to protect their property values and the ambiance of Port Ludlow. These residents also doubt that Iron Mountain would be cooperative neighbors or that they would be cooperative in making sure that mitigation is done for County roads, The staff recommendation is that the MRLO be located at least Y:z mile from the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) but this doesn't guarantee that the rights of the citizens would be protected. Another question is whether the MRLO would create pressure to place overlays on other properties because this is an area that is rich in minerals. He thinks that the density ofthe MPR and resident's property values are concerns. Port Ludlow won't be a resort if it is adjacent to a mine. There has been testimony from Port Ludlow Associates who depend on tourism at the Inn at Port Ludlow and the boat haven. All of this would be at risk. He agreed that the applicant has not been forthcoming in responding to resident's concerns. Commissioner Sullivan stated that Pope Resources, the landowner, and parent corporation for the MPR, stated in their comment letter that they have always intended to mine that area. However, they advocated for the MPR so close to the area. They never challenged the Comprehensive Plan or the follow-ups or the Unified Development Code. When he looks at other MRLOs that have been approved in the past several years, the applicants had public dialog with residents and made every effort to address their concerns. He reiterated that he is in an awkward position trying to make a decision on the amendment right now. Page 10 Commissioners Meetin~ Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 Chairman Johnson agreed that he is concerned about Pope Resources comment that they had always intended to mine the quarry since the 1970s but they didn't mention it until now. The application says that the access to market is less than ten miles away and if the Board approves the application, this should be a requirement. He is concerned about their statement that there will be no incompatible land uses existing or likely within the foreseeable future. He thinks with the doctrine of diminishing assets, it seems that the MRLO could encroach closer to the MPR. Commissioner Austin stated that the Planning Commission did a thorough review of this amendment and voted unanimously 8-0 to deny the amendment. He would like to incorporate the Planning Commission's recommendation, Commissioner Sullivan noted that if the Board denies the application, the applicant could reapply during next year's amendment cycle. Commissioner Sullivan also offered another option which was to postpone their decision for 60 days and give people a chance to come forward with a compromise. The Chair called for a vote on the motion, The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments, Applicant: (Approximately Yz acre located at the intersection of Shine Road and SR104. The application is to change,from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres (RRl:5) to Rural Commercial/Convenience Crossroads. The DCD stalfrecommendation is to approve the application with modification. The mod~ficationis to specifY that the rezone be a Convenience Crossroads. The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve the application. The property has been used since before the Growth Management Act as a commercial area, primarily as a real estate office.) Commissioner Austin moved to approve the application with modification suggested in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion, Commissioner Sullivan stated that this was originally submitted as a rezone to a Neighborhood Visitor Crossroads designation, but staff recommends that the property is more appropriate as a limited area of more intense development (LAMIRD) with a Convenience Crossroads designation, Commissioner Austin noted that this designation is also incorporated in the Planning Commission's map that would be included in the decision, Commissioner Sullivan stated that the proposal is consistent with the criteria for a LAMIRD. Commissioner Austin asked to include the Planning Commission's recommendations and comments in the staff recommendation in the Board's decision. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy, Applicant: (Approximately 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres located on Center Road in Chimacum. The application is for a rezone from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ) to Light Industrial. The 1.2 acres is not included in the request. There is an old sawmill located on the property. The Light Industrial designation would open up alternatives for the use of the property. The DCD staff recommendation is to approve the application with modification. The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve the application.) Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 ~; ~I~i "1.1'H;'~\..~\.l' Commissioner Austin moved to approve the amendment with the condition noted in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. Commissioner Austin stated that he was pleased to see this amendment come forward because right now there it is an abandoned saw mill on the site and he thinks the property could be used productively. The modifications that staff recommended exclude the far northern and far southern part of the parcel. The southern portion is a wetland. He asked to incorporate the staff comments starting on page 2~62 of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Staff Report, Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that the Board did not receive much public comment on this amendment. However, there was one comment by a previous Planning Commission member who stated that he wasn't aware of any parcel zoned as an RBIZ used as the property was intended when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. Al Scalf replied that Allen Logging on the west end is an RBIZ. Commissioner Sullivan added that he thinks making this change is in line with community values. Chairman Johnson called for a vote on the motion, The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Unified Development Code (UDe) Amendment MLA08-389: (Associated UDC amendment MLA08-389 included withMLA08-101 changing the use table to the new zoning.) Stacie Hoskins noted that this is Appendix D in the staff report. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the UDC amendment. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. Al Scalf explained that this revises the use table to allow light industrial uses on the property. Stacie Hoskins added that the change in the zoning is not just reflected in the map but also in the line in/line out revision in the language of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Appendix C. Commissioner Austin clarified that the Board's approval of the amendment changing the zoning requires that the revision also be made in the use table. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance of adoption reflecting the action taken by the Board on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 8, 2008 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:11 p.m. to the next regularly meeting on December 15,2008. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING Ap~OURNED .. -'Il' 1 ~, \J '., _, SEAf", r;,; .~~ ~. :~\i:' c:il<;~~-' ....: I,,' o . ,-, '~'_) '",". "-~' .. . J " A~ 1 ~...,.f / ' Mr.c ".. /' t>- o <~ \>'-."J '* .-' . . .'....... ~ . ~ . ""to 0 ~ , " .. . _ ~ i ~,,,,\ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~~_A -; Crtll Deputy Clerk of the Board ~'--- Phil Johnsonk:~ ~ / 7 ~~/ ~/~ Davi~{W~,~~ J~t~ Page 13 CC-. C~ 11/;5/0<6' JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF 79 Elkins Road !JOlt Hadlock, \V,\ 98B;.m ~i:r ~F;J(j6)~~&~.,.1 _~~~C~F,~XW~o November 5, 2008 ~1n" ~ 5 2008 HEARING RECORD Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator P,O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 J---":JC(N ""..r,!lf'-' _&. c,'\.~. ,. ....) ;,j Ii Dear Mr. Morley, I would like to take this opportunity to formally comment on the proposed 2009 budget as it pertains to the Sheriffs Office. First, I want to convey my Office's appreciation for the financial support provided to the Sheriffs Office over my term of office since 2003. At the same time, the Sheriffs Office has accepted new andlor transferred duties since 2003, totaling 5.2 FTE's. These include Animal Services, Work Crew, Code Enforcement, and the remaining half of Courthouse Security, Some of them included existing personnel. In one case (Animal Services), there has been a reduction in overall staffing and funding support. These additional duties have been accepted willingly. We feel that we have provided improvement in the overall operation of those responsibilities. The operation of these programs has been taken on within the context of existing supervisory staff. We often hear of the tremendous financial burden that law enforcement places on the general fund, The reality is far different. A sample home assessed in 2005 at $355,720 produced a property tax bill of $4,037.58, Of that, $614,06 went to the County general fund and only $46.05 was taken from the general fund for the Sheriffs Office, Approximately 1/3 ($16) of that went to operation of the jail, leaving about $30 as the sample homeowner's general fund contribution to basic law enforcement. By any measure, be it productivity, work load, efficiency, doing more with less, etc, , the Sheriffs Office will continue to work to maintain an efficient and effective operation. Our 2009 budget submittal did not have any requests for new equipment or personnel. The only increase was for mandated increases in personnel costs and county charged equipment rental and replacement fees. With that said, and more to the point of your request of November 3'., I would like to present several items for your consideration. . Our jail, like all jails across the country, is experiencing significant medical expenses. There is no way to anticipate who will be in our jail population at any given time, or what their medical needs will be. We placed $150,000 into the proposed 2009 budget for medical expenses, As of the 3'. quarter of 2008 our medical expenses have been $60,000. At that rate, our expenses at the end of the year will be approximately $80,000. While there is no guarantee that next year will be the same, a budget balancing measure for consideration would be the to replace the requested $150,000 with $80,000. This would provide $70,000 in reductions. It is important to keep in mind W\','W, ieffersonsheri ff. org .." ~... - that while it would reduce the overall budget for 2009, it might require an upward adjustment if medical expenses climb to a higher level. . The previous Central Services Director cut $79,000 out of the Sheriffs Office proposed 2009 capital budget. I have already conveyed my concern that the $79,000 was misidentified as "new" requests when in actuality they were ongoing base budget items that had been placed into more appropriate line items. . In the majority of Counties in Washington State, the Emergency Management function operates under the Sheriffs Office. There are a number of operational and budgetary advantages to this. For reasons of personal preference by a previous County Administrator and a previous Sheriff, that function was removed from the Sheriffs Office. I believe that there are real financial advantages to transfer this function back to the Sheriffs Office. . Another area of discussion would center on Animal Services. The operating budget for that non-mandated function is $234,000. However the revenue generated through licenses, fines, fees, and contractual services makes the net cost to the general fund approximately $109,000. However, if the County did not provide Animal Services the actual cost would be considerably more. On duty uniformed deputies would be required to handle the calls for service (an inappropriate use of their time), and overhead fees paid to the County for equipment rental and replacement, facilities, etc. would also be lost. There are significant community and political considerations that would have to be addressed. The community is already working to establish a long term financial plan to eventually take this function over. . I believe that the County and the City should seriously consider entering into a discussion of having the City contract for police services with the Sheriffs Office, There are significant cost savings available to both entities. . We will be providing an ordinance request that will provide a modest increase in fees for Civil Processes, A copy is attached, and we will also send a copy to Anne Sears, . Updated year-end balances and 4th quarter 2008 appropriation information, Because of the size and complexity of our budget, this can't be provided by close of business today. My staff will have it to you by close of business tomorrow, It should be noted that previous County administrations have acknowledged the failure to fully fund overtime, and that is historically a significant cost center for 4th quarter appropriation requests. This overall appropriation request may be as high as $150,000. I look forward to working with you and the Commissioners on finding ways to maximize our existing resources and identify cost efficiencies, Sincerely, ~"",~-:i<~~23 Michael D. Brasfield Jefferson County Sheriff