Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120709 ~~ COMAlk_ ~~~, S7/~ 06\ c::s i~ ..' ~\ =IIJ;I .\;..>.. I...... ~ t!l -<I \ ./ i \ / :' \~ -?:;i '~~~ District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Snllivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Anstin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of Decemher 7, 2009 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Sullivan at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens in attendance at the meeting: a citizen expressed his appreciation for the work being done on the budget and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP); two citizens commented that the adoption of the proposed SMP will result in many lawsuits against the County; a citizen commented on the airport rezone proposed by the Port of Port Townsend; four citizens expressed concern about any possible discontinuation ofthe "Public Comment Period" and one citizen expressed support of it being discontinued; a citizen stated there is a need for economic development planning; a citizen feels the County is not doing the Yarr family justice with regard to the funding being provided for the defense in the Pierce trial, or for the rebuilding of the home which burned; a citizen stated that he feels more needs to be done to inform residents about what public services are available. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 75-09 re: Vacation ofa Portion of Platted Turner Street; Alfred and Susan Latham, Petitioners 2. CANCELLATION NOTICE re: County Commissioner Regular Meeting; Scheduled for Monday, December 28, 2009 3. AGREEMENT re: Design of Storage Facility Footings and Accessability; Jefferson County Public Works; Kirk Boike, Architect 4. AGREEMENT re: Collective Bargaining and Welfare Trust Subscription; January 2009 through December 2014; Jefferson County Sheriff (Commissioned Command Staff); Teamsters Local Union #589 5. AGREEMENT NO. C14950, Amendment No. 20 re: 2007-2011 Consolidated Contract; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 6. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Local Source Control to Provide Pro-Active Technical Assistance to Businesses that Potentially Generate Dangerous and/or Hazardous Waste; Jefferson County Public Health; Kitsap Health District and Clallam County Health Department 7. AGREEMENT re: Provide Assessment, Intervention, Education and Specialized Therapy for Birth to Three (3) Years Suspected of Having Developmental Delay or Disabilities; Jefferson County Public Health; Port TO'WTIsend School District Page I Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 8. AGREEMENT re: Group Supported Employment; Jefferson County Public Health; Skookum Corporation 9. Recommendation from Jefferson County Board of Health and Jefferson County Mental Health Chemical Dependency Committee re: Re-Allocation of Funding; Nurse Family Partnership Program through the 1/10'h of 1 % Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund ($40,000) 10. Final Plat Alteration Approval re: #SUB07-00022/MLA07-00341; Alteration To Reduce Drainage Easement Located within the Ludlow Cove Division One Phase Two Subdivision (Paradise Bay Road and Ebb Tide Court), Port Ludlow; Dean & Marcia Erickson, Applicants 11. Advisory Board Reappointment; Jefferson County Civil Service Commission (CSC); Six (6) Year Retroactive Term Expiring April 21, 2009; James Hill 12. Advisory Board Resignations (2); Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A); Chuck Sherred and Ian Napier 13. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 23, 2009 Totaling $1,056,994.35 and Dated November 24,2009 Totaling 3,787.46 14. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 20,2009 Totaling $91,559.96 and AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 20,2009 Totaling $16,078.10 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners and the County Administrator each reported as follows: Commissioner Austin: . Reported that he met with Kiwanis Camp officials who stated that DNR will not conduct timber harvests while the camp is operating. Commissioner Johnson: . Discussed the need for County Park volunteers. Commissioner Sullivan: . Reported on the project coordination efforts of the PRTPO and watershed planning projects which are at risk of losing funding. County Administrator Philip Morley: . Stated that the "Public Comment Period" is important and he would like to find ways to broaden participation. HEARING re: Re-Establishing a Moratorium on Adult Businesses; Community Development: Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins explained that on November 9, 2009 the Board adopted Ordinance No. 08-1109-09 enacting a moratorium against the issuance of permits or approvals pertaining to adult businesses. This public hearing will satisfY the requirement that the Board hold a public hearing within 60 days of adopting a moratorium. No action is required by the Board unless changes to the moratorium are deemed necessary. She added that the Department of Community Development (DCD) will be developing final regulations governing adult businesses as part of their 20 II work plan and will begin working on the regulations in the ]" quarter of2010. No proposals for adult businesses have been received by the County or the City which recently enacted regulations on adult businesses. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7,2009 Chairman Sullivan opened the hearing for public testimony. Hearing no comments for or against re- establishing a moratorium on adult businesses, Chairman Sullivan closed the hearing. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application 2010 Public Service Grant and Close Out of the 2009 Public Services Grant; Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP): Olympic Community Action Executive Director Tim Hockett explained that OlyCAP provides services to residents in both Clallam County and Jefferson County. Each year Jefferson County applies for a CDBG grant from the State for public service funding. The amount of the grant for 2010 is $142,948. Jefferson County receives $3,000 for grant administration costs. The amount of funding OlyCAP receives is used to leverage more funding. OlyCAP provides programs such as Head Start and Meals-on-Wheels. This has been a tough year because revenues have declined due to the poor economy. When the economy is down, people who have less are impacted more making it difficult for low-income individuals. The Low- income Home Energy Assistance Program served more individuals than ever this year. Many low-income families live in substandard housing which are not well insulated thereby causing higher heating bills. The weatherization program creates a long term solution that will save federal funding by reducing power bills. Approximately 12,000 individuals in Clallam and Jefferson Counties fall below the poverty level. OlyCAP provides services to approximately 9,000 of those individuals. The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. Bill Miller. 2023 E. Sims Wav. Port TO'WTIsend stated that these are tough times and he supports this grant application. He has watched the Board deliberate on other things and he would appreciate the Board's approval to participate in this block grant to the maximum extent possible. Hearing no further comments for or against the close out of the 2009 public services grant and the 2010 grant application, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. Commissioner Austin moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 76-09 certifYing compliance for the CDBG Public Services Grant for 2010. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The resolution also designates County Administrator Philip Morley as Authorized Chief Administrative Official regarding the grant. Tim Hockett commented that CDBG funding awards may become more competitive and he advised that there is a need for the County to support maintaining public service funding awards as a formula based award system rather than a system of competition. Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board send a letter of support to retain these public service funds on a formula based award system. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 Final Review and Approval of Resolution of Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Supporting Documents, Submittal to Washington State Department of Ecology for SMP Comprehensive Update (MLA08-00475): Associate Planner Michelle McConnell reviewed the draft SMP and supporting documentation. All three Commissioners stated they reviewed the document and found the revisions were made. In response to a question from Commissioner Austin she noted that the adoption date will be inserted on page 6-3 of the SMP upon final approval ofthe Shoreline Restoration Plan (Exhibit F) by the Board. Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins noted that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) is required to hold a public hearing on the SMP in Jefferson County. Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez presented a chart that outlines the adoption process and three options of DOE which include I) Approve the SMP as submitted; 2) Recommend changes to the SMP; or 3) deny the SMP. After DOE has approved the SMP, the County must adopt it by ordinance to be included in the development regulations found in Title 18 ofthe Jefferson County Code. Commissioner Austin stated that Article 6, title 1, section D, subsection 7 states "The County shall recognize and apply a buffer or setback established by an existing plat or a development agreement that is consistent with RCW 36.70B." For purposes of this document, he asked if a Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SP AAD) is considered an agreement? David Alvarez answered, no. Stacie Hoskins read item # 147 in the Resolution which states "In light of the recent Abbey Road decision from the State Supreme Court, the BOCC hereby restates its intention that an approved Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) vests the application to the then existing Shoreline Master Program. The BOCC further finds that it has expressed this intent in the Locally Approved SMP (LA-SMP) Article 2 definition of a SP AAD but may opt to additionally express this intent in the regulations found in the proposed LA-SMP at Article 6.I.D.7." SPAADs are vested under the SMP in place at the time they were approved. Philip Morley suggested bringing this to the attention ofthe DOE to get their approval of that vesting provision. After stating that the title "Old Fort Townsend State Park" noted on Map #3 - Glen Cove, needs to be changed to read "Fort Townsend State Park" since the word "Old" has officially been removed recently from its title, Commissioner Austin moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 77-09 to locally approve the SMP and supporting documents creating a new Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.27, a Shoreline Master Program and replacing Jefferson County Code 18.25, Shoreline Master Program. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Johnson moved to direct DCD to prepare and forward a complete submittal package to DOE for the final review and adoption process. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 11 :30 a.m. to 11 :55 a.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Outside Legal Counsel, Community Development Director and Planning Manager regarding Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. At the conclusion of the Executive Session the Board resumed the regular meeting and took the following action: Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 ""rtiS:zc. 1::1 ~.. \~_\ \' ,-;'! '0# Commissioncr Austin moved to reject thc scttlement offer made by Security Scrvices Northwest in a letter dated November 25, 2009 and that outside legal counsel Attorney Mark Johnsen notify Security Services Northwest of the Board's decision. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous votc. The Board met in Executive Session from 12:02 p.m. to 12:35 p.m. with the County Administrator. Deputy Prosecuting Attorncy and Clerk of the Board regarding Actual Litigation undcr exemption RCW 42.30.llO(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. At the conclusion ofthe Executive Session the Board resumed the regular meeting and concurred to continue the Executive Session at 3:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. The Board met in Executive Session from 12:35 p.m. to I :00 p.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Planning Manager and Associate Planner regarding Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.lI0(l)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Mcetings Act. At the conclusion of the Executive Session the Board resumed the regular meeting and took no action. HEARING re: Port of Port Townsend Rezone; MLA09-00077: Associate Planner David Wayne Johnson reviewed the staffreport on an application (MLA09-00077) submitted by the Port of Port Townsend to rezone 24 acres of land from "Rural Residential" to "Airport Essential Public Facility" and amend the Unified Development Codc (eDe) to create an Airport Overlay III to allow non-aviation related light industrial manufacturing. One of the economic development policics is to support efforts of the Port of Port Townsend to identify the Jefferson County International Airport UClA) as a self-supporting esscntial public facility. This may include, but not be limitcd to, the siting of appropriately scalcd aviation and non- aviation related industrial manufacturing activities in the airport essential public facilities district. That is exactly what is being proposed. The Port is simply following through with the Comprehensive Plan amendments that were adopted in 2004. The amendments were never challenged and therefore, are valid upon adoption. Approval of the application is not approval of project developmcnt. Any future projects will require permit applications and further review and approval by the County. Specifically, a binding site plan that involves environmental and SEP A review and approval will be required as well as building permits that involve additional rcview and approval. The SEPA addendum which was done for the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued in 1998 was deemed adequate for this initial non-project level review. Based on comments received, the Department of Community Development (DCD) determined that there will be no adverse probable enviromnental impacts as a result of this proposal. There has becn an issue with non-aviation related uses. however, there is no prohibition under the Growth Management Act (GMA) for those uses in an essential public facility, and the County's policies clearly state the intention to allow those uses. Further, this proposal is not an urban level development that would Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 !J""" r".._.<:_j~ ~;~;,";~:\'1':- require urban level services such as those in Urban Growth Areas (UGA's). In fact, there is some land within the County that is zoned light industrial that is not part of a UGA, Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) or Major Industrial Development (MID) and are governed by rural development standards for industrial development as outlined in section 18.20.220 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). This proposal will need to comply with those regulations. The Planning Commission held deliberations on the application and originally voted 5-2 to approve it. Later, a member who had originally voted for the application, made a motion to rescind his vote for approval, but, the motion did not pass by a vote of 6-3. The members who voted against the proposal were concerned with water availability. The Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 has clearly indicated to DCD that they have available water (see e-mail to Jim Pivarnik from Bill Graham in permanent record). There is also a Washington State Department Health Water Inventory Form that shows there are over 700 available water connections. The issue of transportation is reviewed by both the County Public Works Department and the State Department of Transportation (DOT). Initially, it was determined that there needed to be more review, so a study was conducted by the consulting firm Transpo Group as part of the Public Works Department Transportation Study. The study concluded that this proposal will not result in any adverse environmental or transportation impacts, There is also an issue with access. The proposal identifies access to the site from Four Corners Road because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will not allow access from the adjacent airport property. However, there is an issue with who has rights to use the existing 32' easement off of Four Corners Road. An adjacent property owner is claiming exclusive rights to the easement, while the Port claims it is not exclusive. Regardless, the Port is going to need 60' of unencumbered access to the site for development to be approved. That issue should not inhibit or require denial of the proposal at this stage. In summary, the proposal is consistent with State law, statutes and the GMA. It is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan economic development and essential public facilities elements that specifically apply to the proposal. The SEP A addendum is adequate for non-project level action. The request is not likely to create probable significant adverse environmental impacts or demands that cannot be mitigated on infrastructure or services. It is consistent with the Jefferson County International Airport Master Plan and promotes economic development within the County which in turn provides the Port of Port Townsend with a way to support itself as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The airport is an ideal place to site rural small scale light industrial manufacturing which will be subject to UDC standards. The request does not prevent or prohibit the City from its own economic development or industrial manufacturing business growth. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend approval of the application. The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7,2009 Eric Toewes, Cascadia Community Planning Services Consulting stated that he is representing the Port of Port Townsend. He corrected and apologized for a factual inaccuracy contained in the Port's response letter dated October 5, 2009 addressing concerns of the City of Port Townsend, In the letter the Port stated that during its own strategic planning process, City staff participating in the process, through the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), never raised objection to the substance of the rezone proposal which is now before the County. That statement was inaccurate. In fact, the summary of the CAC meeting of February 18, 2009 clearly show that City Planner Rick Sepler did "". express concerns about expanded industrial uses at the airport, particularly those that are non-aviation related." The proposal would expand the extant 316 acre essential public facility (EPF) by 24 acres for a total of340 acres. As Mr. Johnson stated, this is consistent with the explicit and unambiguous policy direction of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Plan provisions were established in 2004 and were not appealed by the City or any other entity at that time. Because these provisions were presumed valid on adoption under the GMA and were never appealed, the County is now under an affirmative obligation to take action that is consistent with its own adopted policy framework. The proposal would also amend JCC section 18.15.110 in order to: I) create an overlay for the 24 acre rezone area, which represents 7% of the total EPF, to prevent non-aviation related rural light industrial uses; and 2) establish significant restrictions on impervious surface coverage, building size and height, establish vegetation retention and buffering requirements to visually screen future development and require that Low- Impact Development (LID) standards be implemented. The purpose of these considerable restrictions is to properly limit the scale and intensity of uses to a rural enviromnent in an area not provided with urban infrastructure. These substantial restrictions would also clearly distinguish, differentiate and limit the development of this 24 acre site so that it will be lower intensity and markedly different in character than light industrial development within the City's UGA, the Glen Cove LAMIRD or any other light industrial area in Jefferson County. The proposed expansion and allowance for non-aviation related uses would help the EPF to be a more self- supporting facility consistent with grant assurances required of the Port by the FAA and the explicit and unambiguous policy direction of the County's plan. The allowance for a broader range of uses will also promote much needed economic development for our community and provide greater future opportunities for business "start-ups" and those looking to relocate. This support for economic development and job creation is the central reason for the Port's very existence under State law, Moreover, by allowing the JCIA to be more self-supporting, the allowance for a broader range of uses will promote a "cost setters" approach to port facility financial management. This management approach is vital in insuring that revenue streams generated by other port facilities will not be siphoned off to support airport infrastructure development and operations. In turn, this would indirectly support infrastructure development at Port owned and operated facilities within the City of Port Townsend. For example. the necessary stormwater improvements at the Boat Haven. As an aside, the comment e-mail submitted by the Aviation Division of the DOT, judges the proposed expansion and future use of the site to be appropriate and compatible with the airport EPF. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 Expansion of the EPF without also allowing for a broader range of uses, non-aviation rural light industrial uses, would mean the County would not be supporting either economic development or a fmancially self- sustaining airport facility. There are currently about 25 acres of vacant airport EPF land that could be developed for aviation related uses. They are now. and have been for years, vacant and undeveloped, Precisely because the use limitations of the County's zoning code. The proposal is consistent with the GMA. There is a solid statutory and policy basis for the proposed action. The applicable statute is RCW 36.70A.200, a GMA provision relating to the siting of EPFs. The statute requires that jurisdictions provide a process for and not preclude the siting ofEPFs. Contrary to assertions by the City of Port Townsend, a decision interpreting the statute by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in the case entitled "City of Des Moines v. Port of Seattle. which was also later upheld by the Court of Appeals, concluded that both the initial siting, as well as expansion of EPFs. is protected under the statute. He quoted from the decision as follows "The broadest view should be taken of what constitutes an Essential Public Facility." In addition to the statute and decisions illuminating the statute, the EPF expansion and rezone proposal is entirely consistent with, and helps the County to implement, its own Comprehensive Plan. The Port's Airport Master Plan explicitly anticipated inclusion ofthis site and its future light industrial use. The County's plan, which was amended in 2004 following adoption of the Port's Airport Master Plan, mirrors those provisions and also authorizes the expansion of the EPF as well as non-aviation related uses to "". insure continuing operation of the airport as a safe and self-supporting Essential Public Facility." Approving this expansion and rezone is simply the right action for the County to take. In addition to be being consistent with the GMA and County policy, it is supported by the facts and procedural history and is consistent with the recommendations of the County Planning Commission and County Planning staff. It will help promote future economic development opportunities and by doing these things it furthers the public interest. The Port is acutely aware of a number of issues raised by the City of Port Townsend. While wishing to acknowledge the City's concerns and good faith in raising them, and reiterating the Port's sincere desire to work and collaborate with the City, County and PUD, the Port simply disagrees with the City's position. Without seeking to rebut in detail the points raised in City Manager David Timmons' correspondence dated December 4, 2009, which the Port received only this morning, the Port simply states that neither the facts, the law or logic support the City's contentions. The record clearly shows that the proposed rezone poses no threat to the environment, private sector entrepreneurs or any potential future expansion of the City's UGA into the Glen Cove LAMIRD. The County is strongly urged to follow its plan and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and DCD staff in approving the proposed EPF expansion and overlay. It is also respectfully requested that the Board hold the record open until Monday, December 14, 2009 to allow the Port to more fully respond to the concerns raised in the letter from the City. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7,2009 ~co,. ;t"':\ IJ Carolvn Lake. Attorney, Goodstein Law Group stated she is working with the Port of Port Townsend in support of this proposal. After reviewing her law background she eXplained that the State laws which provide for protection of regional airports are too numerous to detail here, but, have been previously submitted to the County and she asked that they be made part of the record. The County's prior actions also support this proposal. They applaud the County for the steps it has taken to carryout the state law mandates for protection of airports which include: designating the airport as an Essential Public Facility (EPF); adopted overlay protection zones to help protect these resources from incompatible uses; and the Comprehensive Plan contains numerous provisions that set the stage for the action being requested today. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan talks about cooperating with the Port to develop a plan for guiding future development that includes non-aviation support activities. After taking actions to discourage incompatible uses, today is the day to consider moving forward and adopting redesignation in a zone that will carryout compatible uses for the airport. Also in support of this amendment is the fact that it is consistent and vital to the mission of the Port which is to create jobs. The Board is probably aware of the mission of economic development set forth in Title 53 RCW that oversees Ports. That mission is to responsibly develop properties and facilities, and encourage job creation; private investment; local economic stability. The Port of Port Townsend covers the entire County so any economic benefits are County-Wide. There is no legal preclusion to adoption of this proposal. Some folks have cited to the legal case City of Des Moines v. Port of Seattle as support for the notion that only uses that are necessary to support an EPF can be considered by the Board. They argue that uses that are not necessary support activities such as unrelated light industrial uses cannot be given those same protections. That position is incorrect. The relevant portion of the Des Moines case says, in fact, just the opposite. In that case it was found that Cities could not preclude the siting of the SeaTac runway pursuant to State law which requires jurisdictions to provide a process for and not preclude siting of EPF s such as airports. The opposing cities in the Des Moines case argued that the third runway was an expansion and not a siting and therefore, there were no State law protections. The Growth Management Hearings Board and the Courts made it clear that State law directs that the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes an EPF and that includes expansion. In addition, the State legislature passed an amendment in 1998 which further strengthens the protections and ability for EPFs to expand. That provision states that improvements to facilities and services of statewide significance identified in the Statewide Multi-Model Transportation Plan, are also EPFs under RCW 36.70A.200 (the applicable GMA provision). In turn, the Statewide Multi-Model Transportation Plan refers to aviation planning where it talks about DOT encouraging Ports. Specifically, it states "The Aviation Division provides research documentation and best management practices and tools that can be used by local jurisdictions in airports to address land use compatibility adjacent to airports". Notably, the DOT Aviation Division has endorsed this proposal as compatible with airport uses. In conclusion she addressed the comments raised in the December 4'b letter received by the Port this morning from the City of Port Townsend and the comments made in a letter submitted by P. Stephen DiJulio and Susan Drummond of the law firm Foster Pepper. Their overall conclusion was based upon a Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 slightly incorrect premise that the Port is asking for a rezone adjacent to an EPF. The proposal is more accurately stated as expanding the EPF, and then to allow supporting non-aviation uses within the EPF. The law supports this in several ways. The comments in the record from the DOT directly support this point by specifically stating that the agency" endorses the redesignation and light industrial uses are considered compatible and complimentary to aviation/aGilities." The County conducted enviromnental review and determination by way of an addendum. Addendums are non-appealable decisions because the proposal was previously determined through an Enviromnental Impact Study (EIS), not to create significant changes. The review and the studies that the County undertook show that to be absolutely correct. Foster Pepper attacked SEPA on three grounds: water; transportation and improper piece-mealing. Mr. Johnson already addressed water. The transportation study which is challenged by Foster Pepper as an incomplete study when in fact, the report, which is a sub-element of the larger Quimper Peninsula Transportation Study, is complete. Just because the larger study is incomplete, it does not take away from the viability of the transportation element that supports this proposal. Foster Pepper used some select numbers to challenge the traffic report and cite them inaccurately. The lawyers claim that by 2031, four intersections with SR19 will be at LOSF. That is a true statement, however, what they fail to leave out, is that the traffic study points out that all four of these same intersections will be at LOSF either with or without this proposal. The SEP A analysis is sound, the use of the addendum is sound based upon the traffic study support where is states "no significant impacts are shown to take place due to this proposed land use designation." One additional point is that as these site specific airport proposals come before the Board, as a result of this comprehensive redesignation, they will each undergo their own site specific enviromnental analysis which will be an opportunity for the County to capture needed traffic improvements to address these LOS F intersections. The opposite is true ifthe County does not authorize projects. Piece-mealing is an argument that is raised and held not to prevail. Piece-meal review is permissible if the consequences of the ultimate development cannot now be addressed. As Mr. Johnson pointed out, a non-project SEPA review was undertaken. It addressed a broad view. When a site specific proposal is brought forward. the Board will have the specific plans to review and the impacts can be mitigated as they actually become known. In conclusion, the weight of the law supports this proposal and they urge the Board to adopt it. LaITY Crockett. Port of Port Townsend Director stated the public planning process for the current airport master plan was started in 2002. Participants in the process included neighbors and stakeholders of the airport and County and City staff. Last week the Port received a letter from the Federal Department of Commerce through the Economic Development Association that works with the Peninsula Development District, saying that the Port's grant has moved to the final stage, so it is 99% certain that the grant funding will be approved. If the rezone is approved, that funding will be used to do the binding site plan. That will be another entirely separate public process. There will be public forums and townhall meetings to make sure it is something the community is comfortable with, but, also to make sure it meets the requirements of the County UDC and Comp Plan. After that is approved, further permit processes will be required. The very first stage ofthat is providing proof of water availability. So, even though the PUD has said without a doubt Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 that there is plenty of water (see permanent record), they will have to confirm that before the Port will be allowed to proceed. There was an article in the Leader about lady farmers who said that one ofthe biggest issues with the support of agriculture in this County is that the farmers cannot find a place to store their goods once they have been processed and harvested. No private developer is going to put money into that issue. There is no return on the investment to make money at it. But, from the governments standpoint, the Port can go after the U.S, Department of Agriculture grants, and develop the property as part of its economic development mandate from the State. The incubator would be a great use for this new acreage. A lot of Ports around the State are now doing incubator structures where a "start -up" business can have affordable rent. This is something that WSU, Team Jefferson, the Port, County and City have been talking about for literally a decade. In response to the easement question that was brought up, he explained that the Port talked with the land owner that provided the 30+ foot easement. It is not controlling exclusively, but, it is still not large enough to accommodate a road which requires 60 feet. The owner is willing to provide the easement, but, the Port does not want to make that purchase unless the rezone is approved. The Port has also been working with the Fire District which also owns a parcel adjacent to the Port's property. It is hoped that a new Fire District structure will be constructed on this property and an easement is negotiable as part of that deal. This is not just an enclave of economic development, even though Foster Pepper called it "high intensity industrial". The proposal involves 8 to 10 parcels that are very limited in size and scope with large green buffers. This is a chance to get probably another 100 jobs into our community, maybe more. It is not just airport sustainability, although that is a large part of it. By allowing the airport to be more financially sustainable, more money is freed up to reinvest within the City limits to keep our marine trades up and running. The airport cannot be looked at as a separate entity and disassociate that from the rest of the Port activities and economic development. Rick SeDler, Citv of Port Townsend Planning Director asked for and received confirmation that the City's correspondence dated December 4, 2009 was received by the County and has been entered into the public record (See permanent record). The City supports the record being kept open for one week to allow time to review the additional uses as just proposed. The City had not heard about the proposed agriculture uses, or about the incubator uses at the site and staff wishes to review that and comment. Wavne King, Public Utilitv District Commissioner stated that PUD wants to make clear that the PUD does support the Port's request for rezone. Water is available. In fact, a well has been drilled adjacent to this property for which the PUD has applied for water rights. If necessary, the PUD can transfer waters rights from the "Kively" well to this well. The Port's mission is economic development. As a business man in Jefferson County, he thinks we need some jobs out there. The PUD urges the Board to approve this rezone. Craig Durgan, Port Ludlow said that he supports the Port's proposal. He has been a proponent of economic development for a long time. We need to move forward even if it is just one job, but 100 jobs, that sounds Page II Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 wonderful. Things are getting worse and we cannot sit around hoping for it to get better. This proposal is not immediate and it will take the Port awhile to move forward. We need more of this development, and not just from governmental entities, but from everyone. He pointed out that the proposal is consistent with the economic development portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The County did not develop any further regulations on the economic development portion so what is in the Comprehensive Plan is the law without any restriction. He believes it was mentioned that generally the State looks upon those things with a broad view, leaving the Board of Commissioners with a lot of discretion. Economic development is a mandatory element of the Growth Management Act and it needs to be considered in all regulation development. According to State law, the economic development element of the plan has equal weight with every other element of the plan. So when the City comes in here and says "you can't do that", the County can defend itself with its plan which was approved and never appealed or found to be invalid by the Courts. The plan is valid and we need to move ahead. We need some action as outlined in the economic development portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Many of those action items relate directly to the Port's proposal. George Yount. Port Ludlow stated this subject is near and dear to his heart because he managed the Port of Port Townsend from 1980 to 1988. This proposal has been 30 years in the making. He commented on past Port projects which led to improving the existing Jefferson County International Airport with limitations on the size and load bearing capacity of the runway. A general utility category airport has a lot of requirements and is expensive to operate. It is essential that we find ways with which to generate revenue to pay for the maintenance and operation of that field. The first Airport Master Plan specifically addressed such issues as aviation and non-aviation activities. This is not new and has been an ongoing process. We need to broaden the economic base of Jefferson County so that we can weather this international firestorm of economic disaster. He knows that the Board is studied in the elements of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to economic development. This rezone is one of the critical elements. He urged the Board to adopt the proposed rezone recommended by the Planning Commission and County staff and he urged the Port to actively seek U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration grant funds to develop a detailed, in depth, feasibility study for rural type light industrial uses at the Jefferson County International Airport. The City, County, PUD and the citizens should be involved in the feasibility study. Written comments were also submitted. (See permanent record). Bill Marlow. Port Hadlock stated that he is the only private owner of property in the immediate area. He brought up some concerns at the Planning Commission meeting and it appears that the easement issue is being addressed. It is a non-exclusive easement. The Port would have the right to use that easement if the property owner gives them that right. He is in support of this proposal. However, he is concerned about the statement in the document about having no adverse impact on any other properties. Anything the Port does has an impact on his property, whether adverse or not, it is still an impact. In closing, he requested that the Board be sure to approve his application when he submits a comprehensive plan amendment proposal to make his property industrial. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 ~"'''' irJ\ ~. '.'~' ... ~"",s(.", Herb Beck, Port Commissioner stated he has been working on this project for 27 years. It goes back to 1982 when the first Comprehensive Plan was put together. The reason behind this is to create economic opportunities and jobs. This is the closest we have come to getting this property approved. It has been brought up many times and countered by the City with many remarks. We need a place to create jobs and opportunities. In the past we have had several opportunities to do this, but we did have a piece of property that could be zoned properly. The airport is one place that needs this, but there are also places in other communities that need this type of land available to create jobs. The proposal consists of 7 parcels and is located adjacent to the airport. It is a great opportunity for our citizens and our community. Especially, when you can create 100 jobs. He wishes that it would not take so long to get this online. The Port currently leases land at the Boat Haven and in Quilcene. A person is able to lease the land for a certain period of time at a nominal price and then invest their money in a building. This provides an inexpensive opportunity to create jobs. The property will only be used for leasing and will not be sold. Of course, the community will designate what type of activities will take place on the property. It has been his experience that people don't have the time to get property rezoned and go through the process of getting building permits. They want property that offers a "turnkey" operation. The way the economy is going, we have to look locally to create opportunities to develop and grow. He urged the Board to approve the proposed rezone. Bill Miller. Port Townsend said he is pleased to see how many people recognize the importance of government in establishing the economy of our community. He appreciates the efforts the Board is taking to make that happen. It is only allowing for opportunity. He has heard repeated criticism of government, but, the only reason we ever have any economic development is because the government stimulates it by building roads and infrastructnre. Government is the key to the success of our County. Philip Morley noted that the City and the Port are asking to hold the hearing record open and continue the hearing until next week. There has been good dialogue on the issues and he encouraged the City and Port to continue their discussions even outside this forum to see if there are solutions that can be brought forward to resolve the concerns to the mutual benefit of both parties should the Board desire to hold the record open. Commissioner Johnson moved to hold the hearing record open and continue the hearing to Monday, December 14, 2009 at 11 :00 a,m. in the Commissioners' Chambers. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Johnson clarified that Ms. Lake stated in her testimony that there would be further approvals by the Board, however, this is the final decision of the Board. The next step in this process is the approval of the Binding Site Plan that will be decided by the Hearings Examiner. Any future building permits would be approved by the UDC Administrator. In terms of the Planning Commission process, there was an issue with water, but the majority came to the conclusion that this is not the time to inhibit economic development and that was the basis for their recommendation for approval. Public Works Project Coordinator Jim Pearson explained that a technical issue was raised in the letter from the City of Port Townsend regarding an assertion that the project would violate the County's level of service Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 t)"O' l.:..;::\ ~ ......, ;" "J("cJ' standard at the SR19 and Four Corners Road intersection. He clarified that the County's level of service standard for transportation is solely for roadway segments. We do not have an intersection level of service standard. As outlined in the existing Comprehensive Plan, Four Corners Road is projected to meet the County's level of service standard until the year 2024. In the transportation element it states that concurrency requirements do not apply to transportation facilities and services of state-wide significance. Four Corners Road/SR 19 intersection and the roadway segments there are facilities of state-wide significance. So, even if the County did have a level of service standard, it would not apply in this instance. David Johnson added that the staff reportlSEP A Addendum was sent to the State Department of Transportation for comment as required and no comments were received. We could assume from the lack of response that the DOT does not have any concerns about potential environmental adverse impacts. Chairman Sullivan asked that staff follow-up with the State DOT to confirm that there are no concerns. The Board met in Executive Session from 3:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Clerk of the Board regarding Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.l10(l)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. At the conclusion of the Executive Session the Board resumed the regular meeting and took the following action. Commissioner Austin moved to amend the preamble to the public comment period to read "This is an optional time period dedicated to listening to the public. We want to hear your ideas or concerns. To ensure equal opportunity for the public to comment, all comments shall be limited to three minutes per person and each person may address the Board one time during the public comment period. When the green light is on it means proceed to speak; the yellow light will go on when the speaker has 30 seconds remaining; the red light illuminated means stop. Please start by stating your name and address." Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: 2010 Budget: County Administrator Philip Morley and Budget Consultant Anne Sears gave a Power Point presentation to review 2010 budget recommendations. Philip Morley presented copies of the proposed 2010 budget and explained that it is scheduled for final adoption on December 14,2009. In November he presented a recommended budget totaling $53,260,521. He presented and reviewed additional expenditure and revenue adjustments to the General Fund and other funds that he is now proposing for the following funds: Hotel/Motel, Conservation Futures, Tri Area Sewer, and Construction and Renovation. He also reviewed charts and graphs showing the following: A percentage breakdown of the County budget; revenues and expenditures projected through 2014; Property Taxes from 2002 to 2008 compared to CPI; General Fund Basic Sales Tax; Real Estate Excise Tax from 2000 projected through 2010; and costs for mandated and non-mandated services compared to Revenues. Many cuts have been made to reduce expenditures, which among other things included staff reductions, limited office hours and park closures. Fortunately, the County was able to find community partners who helped prevent the closure of 6 parks by volunteering to take over maintenance responsibilities that the Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 County can no longer perform. In 2010, the County will continue to search for community partners for an additional 6 parks, including Memorial Field. An updated budget chart was presented showing revenue and expenditure projections. Philip Morley reviewed the County's budget goals and objectives and explained that the budget process included setting budget priorities and involved the cooperation of all branches of County government. All Elected Officials and Department Directors met and agreed to reduce more funding in 2010 in order to gain some stability for 2011 so the County can focus on service delivery, rather than perpetual rounds of cuts. However, even maintaining the 2010 reduced level of service, there will still be a gap between revenue and expenditures in excess of $800,000 by the year 2012. Unless the State legislature or our citizens step forward within the next 2 years to provide additional revenues to sustain those services, the County will be looking at significant additional cuts at that time. Anne Sears reviewed the various department budget cuts and reported on operating transfers and significant changes in revenues. Investment income has been steadily decreasing since 2007 and will continue to do so because interest rates are very low and funds are being spent down leaving less investment income. The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. John Gieser. Cane George - Port Townsend suggested that the Department of Community Development be closed on Tuesdays instead of Fridays in order to accommodate our "out of state" investors in property located in Jefferson County. Small business and residential building is the major "building block" for the economy to fire up and get going again. He feels our County is continually sitting in a non-growth position. Other Counties such as Clallam County are very embracing of any new construction and want to see projects get started readily and efficiently. There are too many committees being formed that have been involved in non-growth ideas that create more conflict for people. People need to believe that it will be worthwhile to put their energy and money involved in a project in a place that will embrace or allow them to feel that they can do it. We are not doing that here in Jefferson County. We are giving an impression that this is not a place that welcomes new construction. He would like to see more effort put into business. Maybe create a committee oflocal businessmen to help the County look at growth in the sense of inspirational ideas instead of depressing committees that are coming up with new ways to complicate the value of property with critical areas, the master shoreline plan and similar regulations. There needs to be something that will be worthwhile for the County in the sense of growth which would be helping people take advantage of their investments here. The County needs to take away the confusion. Deborah Stinson. Port Townsend thanked the County for its hard work. She sees a great sense of collaboration based on the work that resulted from this budget process. She especially gave thanks for working hard to preserve WSU Extension. When she first moved to this community 10 years ago, she was amazed by the wealth of resources that are available to her through the WSU Extension office. She found environmental, agricultural, youth and technology resources. It is an incredible resource for this community. In terms of investing in our youth, WSU Extension allows young people to come in and be entrepreneurs and start businesses in our community. It supports youth in very creative ways. The County is showing a lot Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7,2009 of insight by working so hard to maintain these programs. Many Extension offices in other Counties are not fairing so well, which is why she wants to thank the Jefferson County for their effort. David Herrington. Port Townsend spoke as the Facility Manager for the Port Townsend School District and suggested that the County, City and Schools collaborate on their purchase of supplies in order to reduce costs of paper products and other items. He has talked with the County's Park and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler about trying to create some kind of a consortium between Chimacum and Port Townsend School Districts, the County and the City to maintain the use of Memorial Field. In his initial conversations it was unclear whether the School District would see an offset in their expenses for using the field if the School District were to take over part of the field maintenance. He has talked with his personnel and he thinks there are a lot of different things that can be done to work together to try to keep the field viable for games and other activities. From his personal point of view, it is advantageous for the schools to keep using Memorial Field for games rather than using the field at Blue Heron which cannot handle all the events or that much usage on a continuous basis. Tom Thiersch. Jefferson County stated that 22% is the measure of productivity of all non-farm workers in this country in the time period from 2002 to 2009, which is the increase in labor productivity. If Jefferson County personnel are working as well as anybody else, you would expect their productivity to go up at approximately the same rate. If our County population remained constant, you should be able to serve the same people with fewer staff or do more with the same staff. We just heard that the population has gone up about 9% or 10%. Ifthe population grew 22% and productivity went up 22%, we would be breaking even. But, the population has only gone up halfthat. It has only gone up 10%, not 22%. We are not getting the increases in productivity that we deserve or that we should be getting. It is not for lack of trying or lack of expenditures, because this County has pumped in well over a million dollars into technology expenses in that same period of time. We are not getting our money's worth. Something else is wrong here. His property taxes have gone up 13% in that same period oftime. He's not getting more for his money, he's getting less. We have heard that the County is providing reduced services across the Board. We are losing ground. Something is wrong with this equation. We are not getting value for money. Productivity is usually how that is done. The County needs to work harder on improving productivity. 3% is about what is going to be left in the fund balance of the General Fund. That's our rainy day fund if any thing happens or goes wrong. The 3% figure is almost an irresponsibly low number to have in the County's fund balance. That is not enough money. The amount of $460,000 is not enough money to take care of any kind of really serious situation. The County has to tighten it's belt more and save more money. The County cannot be depleting the reserves as fast as it is. You are going to leave this County in a very dangerous situation without any reserves at all in the very near future. He thinks that is a very poor plan. Donna Eldridge. Jefferson Countv Auditor stated that the County has possibly a 4% unencumbered fund balance. The Commissioners have set a 10% encumbered fund balance that is reserved and cannot be used. This budget shows approximately a 14% fund balance. Her staff has taken on another project and has lost an FTE. They are working very hard and she thinks her staff is doing an excellent job. They are crossed trained so that they can continue to give our citizens exceptional customer service. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 George Yount Port Townsend expressed his appreciation for all the effort Mr. Morley and the elected and appointed officials of the County put into working together to collaborate to make these kinds of painful cuts. This is an economic time that has actually come upon us and is not of our own making. It is primarily due to those who have espoused the idea to deregulate and emasculate your government so that they cannot provide the services. It is here for the people that are hurting the most and yet some scream that the government is not doing enough for business. He doesn't buy that. The private sector has to playa role in this too, They have to feel the pain too. He applauds Team Jefferson for its attempt to look at the economic picture in Jefferson County. Where is the private sector helping Team Jefferson? Why are they all dumping it on the County? He appreciates the County's work on this painful budget and asked that the Board adopt it. Katherine Baril. WSU Extension Agent for Jefferson County expressed her appreciation for the professionalism of Philip Morley. He challenged everyone to work together and she thinks the County budget has better explanations and is better than she has seen in the past. It has been a joy to work as part of the team. Tony Hernandez. Jefferson County Sheriff thanked all the Elected Officials and Department Directors for all the work they have done on the budget. During tough times you hope that you see the best in people and not the worst. He thinks that you can look across this nation from the east coast to the west coast and you can see on television what is happening with all the infighting that is occurring among governments. That has not been the case in Jefferson County. He thinks it is important to take note of that fact and that we congratulate ourselves on making some tough, difficult decisions and passing a budget. The Sheriffs office will continue to provide the highest level of services. Like everything else that happens during tough times, we've rolled up our sleeves, and we are just going to work harder and do more with less. Jean Baldwin. Jefferson Countv Public Health Director stated that Public Health is a mandated public service. The State budget comes out on Wednesday with an antcipated $2.8 billion hole. She urged the Board to think about a work group to look at how the State budget impacts the County. She knows the Board has to adopt a balanced budget, but, the impact ofthe State budget is a huge other problem. Ruth Gordon. Jefferson County Superior Court Clerk stated she has heard stories of what is going on in other counties across the State, and she wants to thank the Board for the respect extended to the Department Directors. Many of the Board's colleagues don't do that which has resulted in thoughtless "across-the- board" cuts that cut into mandated services to the degree that she personally finds frightening in terms of her responsibilities. She has several colleagues who are no longer following the constitutional mandates, let alone the statutory mandates of their position, because there is no money in their budget. She thanked the Board for allowing everyone to work collaboratively and she hopes the Board accepts the solution presented. Her fellow department heads are extremely generous and have worked together. She urged the Board to adopt the budget as presented. She explained that she has served in government for approximately 4 years and the degree of complexity that comes with every legislative session is really quite onerous. There is a large unfunded mandated that the Counties and Cities are required to absorb 'Within their General Fund. Every time the citizens pass an initiative that does not have a funding mechanism it makes our job that much Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 7, 2009 harder. Just because a legislator thinks that something is automatic we are required to do three more steps. There is nothing automatic. Everything is a new procedure. We are becoming more efficient in the sense that we get more done with less, but we are constantly asked to do more. She thinks an objective person would say a lot of it is busy work, but we do it and we are doing it with a shrinking staff. It would be interesting to see a deeper exploration of those numbers. Bill Miller. Port Townsend thanked everyone for their efforts and urged the Board to pass this budget as recommended. He recognizes that governments have to serve the people with changing requirements while they're actually doing their job. He thinks County staff is doing everything it can to accommodate the situation we're in. He now recognizes that we have a lot more talent than he realized. We are looking at where we are and he really thinks that we will find out where we can go and he sees the flexibility to adapt. He also appreciates the courage to step forward. Hearing no further comments for or against the 2010 budget, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. Philip Morley stated that the budget documents will be prepared and submitted to the Board for approval next week. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:58 p.m. until the next regular Monday meeting at 9:00 a.m. or special meeting as properly noticed pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJO~ED .",," ~.' . / '., -" SEAL: /.' ,,:5';';;1" /- t"""i. . '--.,,, / :.. .' \'F \.',..... _-!, I ' . . . . I~.' \ ."'J"'.'I '. .. . . , \ "'.to ,;.. " a; '\ . ~ "~J -"-., ~ '. . ,,<.. ",/ ATTEST: '., . " in c,) .';./' r kiL /~~;J{fiu0 Erlll Lundgren, fSep~tY J' Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS U~- David Sullivan, Chair (j~ Phil Johnson ember ~~ Page 18 ry lC-,'. \)(..l) l'1. f e\o~ " Regular Agenda 1:30PM JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Philip Morley, County Administrator THROUGH: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager "f* FROM: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Plan~ DATE: Agenda request for December 7, 2009 SUBJECT: ~ 'BoCC public hearing to hear testimony before deliberation and decision on 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application MLA09-00077 Port of Port Townsend "Airport Rezone." STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On November 16,2009, The BoCC made a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(2)(b) which requires a public hearing should the BoCC deem a change to the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan Amendment recommendation necessary. The BoCC will conduct a public hearing to hear a Staff report and take public testimony before deliberating and making a final decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, MLA09-00077. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on Wednesday, September 16,2009. Their findings, conclusions and recommendation to approve the suggested amendment MLA09-00077; Port of Port Townsend Comp Plan and UDC amendments is outlined in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle: Recommendation with Findings and Conclusions dated November 4,2009. The BoCC should note the following items before making a decision: o The DCD Staff recommend approval ofMLA09-00077. o The BoCC received the following relevant documents prior to the hearing: . 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Staff Report and SEP A Addendum . The Planning Commission's 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle Recommendation with Findings and Conclusions dated November 4,2009 (wi map). . Written comments of record on the proposal. . A Water Facilities Inventory Form from the State Department of Health verifying available PUD water service. ALTERNATIVES: After conducting the public hearing, the BoCC may adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation, findings and conclusions to approve MLA09-00077, or they may develop and adopt their own findings and conclusions using the same criteria as the Plarming Commission set forth under JCC 18.45.080(1)(b )&( c) to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. l_ . .' ". Regular Agenda 1:30PM FISCAL IMPACT/COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: There is no fiscal impact by either accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation or approving or denying the application. Ifthe BoCC decides to approve the application, the benefit to the County could be realized in tenns of economic development through increased employment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: 1) The BoCC approve the application MLA09-00077 2) Draft their own findings and conclusions 3) Direct Staff to prepare the adopting ordinance for signing on December 14,2009 REVIEWED BY: .~ JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle: Recommendation with Findings and Conclusions To: Board of County Commissioners,. Chair David Sullivan; Department of Community Deveiopment, Director AI Scalf; and Interested publiC Of Jefferson County Date: November 4, 2009 Attached: Guidance 10 Create Findings for MLA09-00077 - Port of Port Townsend rezone The Platmino Commission is pleased 10 submil our COfflDfflnensive Plan Amendment recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. The Planning Commission has worked diligently to review and deliberate the application fora rezone from rural residential to Airport Essential Public Facility and UDC text amendment for an Airport Overlay III in an effort to provide guidance to the Board on this effort to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. We recognize the hard work of the Port of Port Townsend in preparing the application and Department of Community Development (DCD) in preparing the Staff Report, and we support their proposal for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. In preparing our reCommendation, we have considered the growth management indicators and other general guidance on required findings, and therefore do hereby declare the following findings and conclusions in support of our decision: '~ A. Required findings as per Jefferson COunty Code (JCC) Title 18.45.080(1 )(b)(i-iil): 1. The circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantialiy changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. For example, the economy has significantly declined and local growth has fallen below assumptions. 2. The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid. New information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. For example, the business cycle is more extreme than anticipated levels. The capacity of the County to provide services has fallen dramatically. 3. The proposed amendment reflects current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. For example, everyone can agree that economic development is a widely held value which the proposal promotes. B. Additional required findings as per JeffersCln County Code (JCC) Title 18.4!i.080(1)(c)(i-viii): 1. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services. because the Public Works Department has reported that it is not likely to adversely affect transportation, and other services are not adversely affected. 2. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various eiements of the Jefferson Counly Comprehensive Plan. For example. the application goes into great ctetallon how the proposal meets and impiements the Comp Plan. 3. The proposed site-specific amendment will nol result in probable significant adverse impacts that cannol be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. 4. The sUt;}ject parceis are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including planned surrounding land uses. The critical aquifer recharge issue will be dealt with at a development permit ievel. 5. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the Change is in the long-term best interesls of the county as a whole. 6. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land us., and population growth projections that are the basis oflhe Comprehensive Plan. 7. Within an Urban Growth Area. the proposed sile-specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overali UGA. NtA. 11/04/09 PC Comp Plan Amendmenl Recommendation to BoCC Page 2 8. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). the County-Wide planning PoliCIeS for Jefferson County, any other applicapleinter-jurisdlctional pOlicies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. See #2 above. C. Inquiry to the growth management indicators as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18.45.050(4){b){i-vii): 1. Growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring slower than anticipated. 2. The capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished. 3. There is sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. this question is not applicable since the subject property is not urban land. 4. The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are not found to be valid. Economic growth projections are off. 5. There are not changes in county-wide attitudes which necessitate amendments to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. 6. There are changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 7. There are no inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jeffe.rson County. D. The Record In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County COde, and the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission finds: 1. The record also contains evidence with respect to this proposal. See Agency and public comment. 2. Assertions in the record can be confirmed by information from other sources. 3. Our 2009 Comp Plan Amem:fmentrecommendation is based on the record. 4. Our 2009 Comp Plan Amendment recommendation satisfies legal criteria. 5. Our 2009 Comp Plan Amendment recommendation is specific to the application to rezone Port of Port Townsend land from rural residential to Airport ESSential Public Facility and amend the UDC to create an Airport Overlay III (MLA09-00077). 1l!O4!09 PC Camp Plan Amendment Recommendation to BoCC Page 3 .~ . E. Additional Findings and Conclusions There are no conflicts of interest between Planning Commission Member and the Applicant. We recognize that our recommendation will be reviewed and considered by the Board of County Commissioners, who will then take formal action to either approve, approve with conditions, Of deny this Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA09-00077. On October 7, 2009, The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted 5 to approve and 2 to deny MLA09- 00077 and recommend that the BoCC approve the Port of Port Townsend's request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and UDC under MLA09-00077. On November 4, 2009,. there was a motion to rescind this recommendation. That motion failed by a vote of 3 to rescind and 6 to affirm the recommendation to approve MLA09-00077. 1/- tf - 09 Peter Downey, Plannin Issian Chair Date 11104109 PC Comp Plan Amendment Re<ommendation to BoCC Page 4 I 1.. i 1, 11 . . .. :} , .1 f !, I ,\ 1'1 i. '11'1 ji! I'! b!..I, 1j ill If'II .. h!!!IIIJlfj' $mld!dlh! ~ g ~ .. Il. t o Q. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ <~ 0 n; u.. ~ .!:a "'ffi 5J :0 ~ "C :I Q) "en a.. "'0 III "(ij '(i; a:::: ~ (1) c: c:: e 3l n; :::J (/) L.- !l: I.l;l &. ~ .4= L() rr. 2t c:l: !l: w !l: - c: .~ !!l Q. @ Q. '" ~ Il. DC] '" o o N ~ Q) i o z .3 g c.. ..... ~ ~ u ..... ~ rJJ 1:1 p., .; v ~ '(ii C ..d <3 '" 0 '"' ~ "' 0.. ~ ~ c: .c: E OJ ~ 0 ~ .... -, 0 CIl ;: U > 0 = e $ .... 0\ E Cl. 'S; 0 Cl. Q) l\l 0 -< ~ a. 0 N Iv~c:s:sa~c RE" '~rq, "D'l '.'.) -1 ,1 t~.j'" ,'- I 1 , . ,.t,-'--"" ",Ai!~ 'i lL4, rage 1 or k Jim Plvamik U ~1 Z;' ZOUi} From: bill graham [bgraham@jeffpud.org} Sent: Thursday, October 15,20094:25 PM To: Jim Pivamik To whom it may concern - Regarding the October 15, 2009 PDN article, oPT port urged to slow on tract" as the PUD Resource Manager I would like to resolve some concems about "water issues" surrounding the Port's proposal for essentially 10 new businesses in about 4 to 5 years. I assume this is about the availability of PUD water connections at the airport. The information below should be adequate to address your concerns. "E'Ah'iN'.t.. Dtrt"O', "0. JHHRSON COUNTY ucH. "',,' t '\'.} 'il<.,'0' R: For the record, as of July 2009 when we last submitted data to the Department of Health, WIfJ had 2,428 calculated connlfJCtions and wlfJre approved for 3,149. The PUD is currently expanding its system capacity with an additional 600 gallons per minute in the next year which should equate to at least 1,000 additional connections. And in 4 -5 years another 400 gpm could be added, all with existing water rights. As I understand it, the Port facility would provide space for up to about 10 businesses. Landscaping would be low impact and rain gardens. This would likely lower water usage for most business to less than that of a single family residence. For the sake of simplicity consider these 10 new potential residential connections. In 4 to 5 years, the City of Port Townsend should be on a new filtration plant which could force up to 500 PUD customers served by wholesale City water onto the PUD's Quimper System. There are also 610 assessments (about 260 existing hookups) for connections on Marrowstone Island. The new service capacity expansion will more than accommodate the 500 customers and the remaining 350 Marrowstone assessments as well as projected growth over that period. Based on these considerations and the number of different scenarios Manager Jim Parker and I have explored I am confident there will be 10 connlfJCtions available for this Port development within the next 4 - 5 years. Coincidentally, the PUD is currently working with the Department of Health in how we account for water connections in general. This will provide better accounting based on residential usage (including conservation) and will ultimately allow for a greater number of approved connections using our existing water rights. It will also recalculate and expand the number of existing connections in the process. The State has assured us this will not result in a "red flag" (not enough water for existing connections), and that our planned expanded system capacity in the coming months will add more available connections than we had anticipated when we presented this information at a WRIA 17 Planning Unit meeting in May 2009. None of these changes in accounting described above will impact the ability of the PUD to provide 10 business connections at the proposed Port facility in the next 4 to 5 years. However, this change in measuring connections will be how we account for connections within the next few months. The modest number of proposed businesses eliciting concerns about water availability insinuates there is a pending PUD water crisis within 4 to 5 years. We do not forecast such a crisis because the data and our forecasts do not 10/21/2009 lVlessage 1:'age;o or ;0 warrant one. Bottom line: Under no reasonable scenario do we forecast that PUD will not be able to serve 10 new connections at the Port within in the next 4 to 5 years. Sincerely. Bill Graham Resource Manager Jefferson County PUD#1 ~ 10/21/2009 (.G' tA 1 '&::Lc... \ 1.. 1-.. \ oq vC \J jeffbocc Page 1 of I HEARING RECORD Sent: To: Cc: Peach Stebbins [pstebbins@cityofpt.us] Friday, December 04. 2009 3:47 PM jeffbocc; Philip Morley Catharine Robinson; David King; George Randels; Kris Nelson; Laurie Medlicott; Mark Welch; Michelle Sandoval; John Watts; Rick Sepler; Larry Crockett Subject: December 7.2009 Public Hearing regarding Jeff Co Site Specific Comp Plan Amendment MLA09-77 Attachments: Airport rezone. pdf From: Attached is the City's comments for your consideration of the Port's request with accompanying correspondence from Foster Pepper and memos to David Timmons from Rick Sepler Nov. 4 and Sept. 17,2009. 12/7/2009 City of Port Townsend Office ofthe City Manager 250 Madison Street, Suite 2 Port Townsend, W A 98368 360-379-5047 FAX 360-385-4290 December 4, 2009 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject: December 7, 2009 Public Hearing Jefferson County Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA09-77 (Port of Port Townsend - Jefferson County International Airport) Dear Board of County Commissioners, The City submits the following comments for your consideration of the Port's request to change your comprehensive plan and zoning code to allow light industrial zoning adjacent to the airport. First, on Thursday, November 5, 2009, you met with the City Council in a joint meeting to review issues of common concem. Nearly every elected official who spoke favored greater cooperation between our jurisdictions, and agreed that a central element to finding cooperative solutions lay in regional planning - among all governmental entities - to address our needs and to meet our challenges. Those needs are great - economic development, water resource management, and others. They need to be addressed cooperatively and regionally. All elected officials who spoke at the joint meeting favored having our respective staffs work together to come up with strategies for solutions that would be presented to the respective legislative bodies for consideration and possible action. The proposal that comes before you represents an opportunity to do right by the collective views expressed at this previous meeting. While there has been previous collaborative discussion on the need for additional industrial land. there has not yet been any finding or adopted study that documents the need at this time for any additional light industrial area in the County or how any need might best be addressed. A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT Under GMA mandates, we can not assume there is a need for light industrial area in the County. The need must be documented, with analysis (including appropriate infrastructure) on how to meet that need in the established UGAs, LAMIRDs, or MIDs. The previous effort to provide for this documentation was never completed by the former EDC and County staff. Absent this documentation, there is no current assessment that supports the proposed rezone. The City has no obiection to an exoansion of the airport for airPort-related facilities and ooerations. If the rezone proposal is limited to a rezone for airport-related facilities and operations, then it should be approved. But the proposal here isn't limited to a rezone for airport facilities and operations. It allows any light industrial uses whether or not they relate to airport facilities and operations. The proposed airport rezone will undermine the legitimate future consideration to rezone privately held light industrial land in the City, the Tri-area urban growth area and Glen Cove. Consider also these areas are also where the County and City are investing significant dollars assuring adequate infrastructure exists to support light industrial uses. As noted in the attached memos dated September 17 and November 4, 2009 from Rick Sepler, our DSD/Planning Director, the proposal undermines the City's interest in protecting its investment in infrastructure made to advance private opportunities to redevelopment, including industrial development in the City urban growth area. The proposal will undermine the interests of private owners who are willing to invest in developing industrial land in the City (and elsewhere). The current proposal will create unfair advantage since private owners will need to meet urban standards with their investments and lack the same financing and debt considerations as the Port. The result is an uneven playing field - an undermining of the County and City investment in the UGA's. Under the proposal, which allows any light industrial uses, there is nothing that prevents the Port from re-Iocating marine trades in Port Townsend's Boat Haven and Point Hudson to Port land located at the airport. If we were to complete the previous study on light industrial need, and it showed a need for additional land, allowing the rezone as proposed undermines consideration of planning options. Say the study showed a need to rezone an additional 30 more acres of light industrial land. With this rezone as proposed, 24 acres are already committed to the Port's properties and the County and City are left to allocate the remaining six acres to the privately held land suitable for industrial use. Far better to contain this to airport related uses then to deny private property owners their rights to have their land rezoned appropriately. The City retained the Foster Pepper firm (Seattle) to review this issue. Their analysis is set forth in the attached letter. The firm litigated the two appellate cases (the Sea- Tac third runway cases, cited in the letter) establishing the application of GMA to essential pUblic facility expansions. As pOinted out by Steve DiJulio and Susan Drummond in their letter, there is no legal basis under GMA to expand the airport for non-aviation related light industrial uses. Nor, as noted in the letter, is it relevant under GMA that a prospective income stream from leases might support the airport. Such an approach means any Port land could be rezoned for any use if the revenues were devoted to supporting the airport. Nor, as further noted in the letter, even with a land use study that would demonstrate the need for additional light industrial land in the County (there is no such study), GMA does not allow siting of industrial uses in a rural area (except in limited circumstances - LAMIRDS and MIDs - which are not applicable here). The letter also notes the deficiencies in SEPA analysis. The analysis that is relied on is over 10 years old and does not address the proposal before you. Aside from the legal and SEPA issues, and the lack of a coordinated, planned approach to addressing regional needs, we have previously expressed our concerns with this proposal. In opposing the rezone as proposed, the City does so out of a valid concern to protect its economic base. The proposal has been pitched as supporting jobs and as being eco-friendly. Nothing supports these assertions. There are no standards that define how "green" and "eco- friendly" uses will be evaluated or determined. For the reasons set forth above, this rezone should not occur. If it does. it should be limited to a rezone for airport facilities and operations. Thank you and please call with any questions. David G. Timmons City Manager Cc City Council John Watts, City Attorney Rick Sepler, DSD Director Larry Crockett, Port Director ~ FOSTER PEPPER"" DirectJ'hone (206)447-7909 Dilect FocsUlUIe (206) 749-2093 B-Mail _.com December 3, 2009 Mr. David G. Timmons City Manager City of Port Townsend 250 Madison Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Port of Port Townsend Proposal Growth Management Act Regulation of Essential Public Facilities Dear Mr. Timmons: The City of Port Townsend ("City") has requested our review of certain issues relating to the application of the Growth Management Act ("GMA") to essential public facilities and rural, industrial development. We understand that the Port of Port Townsend has requested review and approval by Jefferson CowIty of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan and development regnlations to allow industrial development in a rural area. The rural lands abut the Jefferson County International Airport. We restate the City's questions as follows: . Certain uses are defined under GMA as essential, public facilities ("EPF's"). Does any use qualify as an EPF because the use is located on property adjacent to an EPF, and the same entity owns both properties? . Is rezoning rural land to authorize 24 acres of non-EPF industrial uses inconsistent with GMA? We conclude that simply because property is owned by a port district or another owner/operator of an EPF and is located adjacent to an existing EPF, this does not mean all proposed uses are EPF's covered by RCW 36.70A.200. And, 24 acres of new industrial development should not be authorized in a rural area, absent compliance with GMA provisions for either major industrial developments or limited areas of more intensive development. TEL: 206.447.4400 FAX:206.447.9100 1111 THTRDAVENUE., SUlTEJ400 SEAITLE. WASHINGTON 911101-)299 www.FOSTER.cOM SEATTLE WA'HIN01ON SPOKANE WAIHINGICN Mr. David G. Timmons December 3, 2009 Page 2 In reviewing the proposal pending before Jefferson County, which prompted these questions ("Proposal''), we further identify concerns regarding the adequacy of review under the Stale Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A''). We discuss these issues in greater detail, as follows. 1. RCW 36.70A.200's ADDlicabilitv to Non-EPP Uses We have from time-to-time served as special counsel to the City on various matters, including issues arising out of the Growth Management Act ("GMA''). Additionally, Foster Pepper litigated the two appellate cases establishing the application of GMA to EPP expansions. Those cases, referred to as PSRC I and II, I address Sea- Tac Airport's then proposed third runway. PSRC I established the principle that regional EPP's do not unilaterally trump local planning. It was only after an extensive regional siting process, which included the third runway's designation in the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional transportation plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 47.80 RCW, that the EPF could not then be precluded by local plans and regu1ations. The Growth Mauagemmt Hearinp Boards have adhered to this principle: The duty for Des Moines to amend its comprehensive plan did not derive from the fact that the Port wanted to expand Sea- Tac Airport. The duty derived from the regional decision to support expansion of Sea- Tac. ... Here, there is no regional decision supporting the expansion of Harvey Airfield. ... Snohomish County was under no duty to adopt the amendments proposed by Petitioners.2 PSRC n also establishes that mere association with an EPF does not grant "protective status." In this litigation, the airport established that the proposed runway could not be constructed without hauling dirt to the site, to ensure a level runway. Consequently, the activity could not be pm::luded.3 In contrast, should a port district seek to develop non-airport related uses, such uses are not viewed as EPP's, although the airport itself may be an essential public facility under RCW 36.70A.200. A public entity may operate. an EPF and also lease property to individuals who develop and operate non-EPF uses on ad,jacent property, However, simply because the entity owns an EPF does nol confer EPF status on the leasing activities. Further, the fact that income could be derived from such leasing is nol relevant. If a prospective income stream provided ''EPP status" to non-EPF uses, then an EPF ojlClator could site virtually I!ri use on property it owned. I City of Des MoUra Y. Puget Sowrd RegionoJ Co1mcI/, 97 Wo. App. 920, 988 P.2d 993 (1999) ("PSRC f'); City of Des Moin.. Y. Puget Sowrd RegionoJ Cowu;il, 98 Wo. App. 23, 988 P.2d 27 (1999) ("PSRC If'). 2 HtlIWJI v. Snolromi.rlr County, CPSOMHB #00-3-0008, FOO, 2000 WL 1207506, 2 (lu1y 13, 2000) (emphasis added). 3 PSRC 11.1 846. Mr. David G. Timmons December 3, 2009 Page 3 Jefferson County has admitted that the proposed uses are "non-EPF' nscs,4 and described the Proposal as being designed "to allow non-aviation related uses...."s While the port district may have authority to develop non-EPF related uses, it must do so in a manner consistent with GMA requirements regarding the siting of industrial uses in a rura1 area, just as any other property holder would be required to do. 2. SitiDll Industrial Uses in a Rural Area The Proposal would authorize 24 acres of "non-aviation-related light industriallmanufacturing."6 The Proposal also creates a mechanism for expanding further industrial development throughout the County's rura1 areas. This scale of industrial development should only be approved where a proposal can meet either GMA' s major industrial development provisions or GMA's provisions authorizing limited areas of more intensive roraI development.7 The County's Comprehensive Plan recognizes this fundamental GMA principle by limiting industrial development consistent with the law's directives: . Rural land designated as roraI industrial land in this Plan is based on existing industrial uses in areas previously zoned as industrial. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(S)(d), counties may recognize areas of more intensive industrial development and contain them within logical boundaries to limit infill development. 8 . The County must ensure that roraI areas of more intensive residential, commercial and industrial development are contained in a manner that preserves rural character.9 Consistcnl with these provisions, GMA prohibits rura1 development that is inconsistent with rura1 uses, and would convert "undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development" and require the extension of''uIban governmental services."IO The Proposal is urban in nature. As noted below, it would have urban IJansportation impacts, as well as urban infrastructure and service needs. The industrial uses arc not consiatent with either GMA provisions governing industrial development in rura1 areas or the County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, accomplishing port district objectives consistent with GMA would require further coordination with the City.ll 4 County Slaft'Rnpome to City CommeIllI OIl MLA09.00077, PlJ. 2. S County Slaft'hport and SEPA AddeDdum, PI. 1-8. 6 The Propoaallimits impervious .urlitce coveno8C to 25%. 7 RCW 36,70A.365; RCW 36.70A.070(5Xd). 8 County Comprehouai.. p..... Land U.. and Rura1 E1.meut, lDdua1rial I,auds, Rura11Dl1u1lrial. 9 County Co~ p..... Land U.. and Rura1 E1e1llClll, Land U.. and Rura1 Strategy Guidelines. 10 RCW 36,70A.030(1'). Il SeeRCW 36.70A.l00. Mr. David G. Timmons December 3, 2009 Page 4 3. SEPAReview SEP A requires issuance of a threshold determination, and an environmental impact statement, when a proposal bas probable, significant adverse impacts.12 Jefferson County prepared a series of addendmns, and adopted an EIS from 1998. The procedures used in preparing these documents are not consistent with SEP A. The BIS does not adequately address the Proposal. And, an addendum may only be used when it "does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental documcnt."1J The prior environmental review - over 1 O-ye8l1l old - does not address the Proposal, or the Proposal's impacts on the environment, and has been improperly adopted. Further, review is being piecemealed, with phased review being ~1'>UI',iately relied upon. And, the analysis in the Addendum does not adequately address the Proposa1's impacts. Most notably, the water supply and traffic issues also raise GMA concerns regarding the adequacy of public facilities; and, the failun: to meet capital facilities planning and levels of service requirements. The City has previously alerted the County regarding the continuing concern over water supply adequacy. This has been a continuing issue within the County, particularly given the Department of Ecology's recent rule-making activity.14 The County agreed "a closer woding relationship with the City" is needed and that ''we share the City's concerns over water scarcity......I' However, this coordination has not yet occurred, and the SEPA review does not adequately assess impacts to local water supplies potentially associated with the proposed industrial development. As for transportation, the traffic impact analysis has not been completed.16 The County Public Wodes traffic impact memo does provide minimal information. The memo assumes 100 jobs will be generated by the proposal, with an associated 49 weekday PM peak hour trips. By 2031, four intersections with SR 19 will be at LOS F, with over 100 seconds of delay. The total seconds of delay are not disclosed.17 Transportation facilities are inadequate to handle the proposal, and its urban impacts. 12 RCW 43.2IC.031; WAC 197-11-310. IJ WAC 197-11-706. 14 Chapter 173-5 17 WAC (Water R"""""," Management for the Quik:eIlc-Boow Basin, WRIA (7), takes .ffect ~31, 2009. IS Cowtty S1aff1'ClJlOllS1l to City ....~lIIS on MLA09..ooo77, PI. 3. 16 StaffRcport ODd SEPA AdAeM-"" PI. I-II. 17 Memo fromJeffenonCounly DepartmontofPubIic Walks (Octaber 1,2(09). Mr. David G. Timmons December 3, 2009 Page 5 4. Conclusion The proposal would authorize intensive industrial development which does not comply with GMA's requirements for locating industrial uses in rural areas. Simply because the affected property is owned by an EPF operator, does not mean the proposed non-EPF uses are treated as an EPF under GMA. We lIUst the foregoing is responsive to the City's inquiry. Sincerely, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC p-~~ Susan Drummond cc: 10hn Watts, Port Townsend City Attorney . . . To: David Timmons, City Manager From: Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director Date: 4 November 2009 Re: Jefferson County Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA09-77 (Port of Port Townsend - Jefferson County International Airport) As we understand it, you have asked us to identifY and summarize the key land use and environmental issues associated with the above-referenced application. After a review of the record, the following issues have been identified: 1. Inadequate Analysis - Lack of Demonstrated Water Availability. . Lack of water availability demonstrated by assessments by DOE and WIRA 17, and PUD's analysis that it is one million gallons a day overcommitted. . Will water be diverted from the pending Port Hadlock UGA? Will increasing the PUD's over commitment of water by approving this application indirectly thwart plans for residential development in the UGA? . The County must demonstrate adequacy of water supply for this proposal to proceed. . Rezone should be deferred until planned 2010 WIRA study of future water supply and demand demonstrates adequate water supply. . Current lack of a reservation scheme for connections by PUD is the equivalent of overbooking an airline flight - there is a significant risk that demand will exceed supply at a given point in time. 2. Transportation Impacts - Violates Adopted County Concurrency Requirements. . The transportation analysis prepared for the proposal indicates that existing intersections serving the airport are currently functioning below minimum adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards. The proposed rezone would further degrade this condition. . The County will violate its adopted concurrency requirements though approval of the rezone unless it amends its Capital Facility Plan to include interventions (with an identified funding source) that will improve the function of the subject intersections. Consistent with adopted concurrency requirements, the identified improvements must be constructed concurrent with the project. 3. No standards define "Green Eco-friendly" Indnstrial Development. . Statements that proposed "rural industrial uses" will be "green" and ~'eco~friendly" are not supported by any standards that define how this will be evaluated or determined. 4. No Legal Basis to Expand the Airport Essential Public Facility (EPF) for Non-EPF uses. . GMA doesn't allow for the expansion of an EPF for non-EPF uses. City of Des Moines v. Port of Seattle (97 Wn. App. 920) (" ...the expansion of an existing EPF, including necessary support activities associated with that expansion, is protected by RCW 36. 70A.lOO.") Uses that are not necessary support activities, such as unrelated lil!bt industrial uses, cannot be afforded the same protection. Memoratldum to David Timmons September /7. 2009 Page / 0[4 To: David Timmons, City Manager From: Rick Sepler, DSDIPlanning Director ~ Dale: September 17,2009 Re: Proposed Airport Rezone As we understand it, questions have been raised by both community members and City Councilors regarding the potential effect on the community associated with the approval of the proposed expansion of the Jefferson County International Airport (JClA). You have asked us to preliminarily review the pending application and provide the resnlts of this analysis. Specifically, you have directed Us to ascertain if there are potential adverse effects on the community as a result of this proposal. Background. The Port of Port Townsend has requested a rezone of a 24-acre parcel abutting the JCIA site. The site was not originally part of the airport. It is believed the site was purchased by the Port several years ago, not for purposes of expanding airport functions, but to buffer the airport from incompatible uses. The request would change the zoning designation of the parcel from Rural Residential 1:10 (I dwelling per 10 acres) to Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF)I. The Port has specified that the basis for this request is to allow a broader range of uses than currently allowed within the AEPF (which is limited to airport-related uses) in order to maintain the long-term financial viability of the facility. The rezone request is accompanied by proposed changes in the County's Uniform Development Code (UDC) that would allow non-aviation-related, ruraI light industrial uses within the AEPF, with limits on size and height The Port has characterized the future industrial users as being both "green" and "eco-friendly" . Summary. While Jefferson County may be currently short of "turn-key ready" light industrial land, selecting appropriate locations for new sites needs to be consistent with GMA and be based on sound planning and environmental standards. The City's interest is not to limit light industrial development, but to make sure development is located consistent with applicable standards. The proposed rezone area lacks infrastructure and capacity (no sewer or water and the PUD is already overcommitted on water resources). The provision of full urban services (sewer, water, roads, stormwater management) is essential to effectively address the impact to the I "Essential Public Facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports~ stote edll<ation facilities and state or regional transportation racilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional faciJiti~ sefid waste handling facilities~ and in.patient facilities including substanee abuse fac.ilities. mental health facilities, group homes. and s,",ure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." RCW 36.70A.200(1). M.moOl'andu... to David 'rim"",,,. Seplember J 7, 1(J(J9 Pogelof4 environment that result from industrial uses. It is poor planning to site industrial facilities without a detailed analysis that is lad:ing here of both the availability and cost of providing full urban services. In cases where this analysis is skipped or incomplete. or when only partial services are planned or provided, it usually results in a significant cost to retroactively install services. 'These "after-the-fact" costs are unfortunately often borne by the public. By contrast, the City has made substantial investment in infrastructure to further development. including industrial development, in the City urban growth area. An industrial park at the airport undermines those efforts. An industrial park at the airport could also undennine boatbuilding and repair activity at Boat Haven and Point Hudson if operators can move to the airport. Establishing new facilities at the Airport without the possibility of sewer service even in the mid-tenn future (10-20 years) appears short sighted and not cost-effective. If increased intensity of industrial development is desired in the County, it would be a far more prudent use of public funds to increase the intensity of development at Olen Cove through the extension of sewer service (which can be done more cheaply than providing new sewer to the airport, by agreement with the City to extend City sewer), rather than create another constrained industrial site. The proposed rezone is based on economic considerations - expand the "essential public facility" (EPF) so it can become more self-supporting. While the airport is an EPF, state law governing EPFs (generally, local zoning cannot prevent location or expansion of EPFs) don't provide for expansion of an EPF (airport) fur a non-EPF purpose (industrial development). Further, state law on EPFs does not justify location or expansion ofEPFs on economic grounds (or that they be self-supporting), so use of this rationale is not justified. IlIues .1IlI A..lysis. After a preliminary review of the record, the following issues have been identified: . IlIlIdequee E."lro._.tal Au/ysls - Water Availability. It is undisputed that the region in general, and the specifIC rural portion of the County in which the proposal is located, is facing a shortage of water fur future use. This has been assessed by the State Department of Ecology and thorouahly discussed at recent WlRA 17 meetings. The PUD, which ostensibly would supply water to future industrial uses at the Airport, bas concluded in their own analysis that they are one million gallons a day overcommitted. How can the County ensure with any certainty that adequale water is available for industrial uses at the Airport? Many industrial USCIsuch as manuflMlturing have high water useage. Where is the water to come from to serve this proposal? Will water be diverted from the pendina Port Hadlock. UOA? Will increasing the PUD's overcommitment of water by approving this application indirectly thwart plans for residential development in the UOA? ~ . . . . Memorandum 10 David Timmons September /7, 2009 Poge J of4 The County mlIM demonstrate adequacy of water supply for this proposal to proceed. It is our contention that this is not possible based on agreed-upon as.'le8SI11ents of available rcsolD'CC8. . lAck of Material DiH:Ioaure dllrillg EnvirH_.taJ Review - Potential Tra..po....tion Impadl. The Staff Report and SEP A Addendum acknowledges that the County's Public Works department has determined thai a Traffic Impact Analysis should be done to " .. .determine potential imptlCtS to tire transportation level of.,ervice for Four Corners Road. 8819 and S8 20 as a result afthe build-ou/ of the proposal." County Long-Range Planning staff acknowledges thai this analysis is nOI complete but then surprisingly comes to their own conclusion in advance of the completion of the study. If the conclusion were self-evident, why did the County Public Works Deparunent require the stndy? Will the proposal require signalization al Four Comers Road? How will the increase in area \rafflc affect 1Jaffic on Highways 19 and 201 What will be the applicant's financial contribution to resolving traffic impacts lhey creale'? Additionally, as noted by County staff, the proposal site is currently served by a substandard access easement. How certain is the applicant that they will be able to secure additional land to perl'ect this easement? Access is fundamental to any industrial use - it is typically considered inappropriate to move forward on a proposal until such time as adequate access is secured. . Fiaaaeial SeIf....ppert of an EPF is Ula GMA requireJDellI. Although self-support is a laudable goal, there is no state-wide regulalory requirement or SlllIldard established in the Orowth Management Act (OMA) that EPF's be fill8ll(:jalJy self-supporting. More over, it is likely that this goal would be difficult to impossible to achieve for most EI'F's - by their very nature they are challenged due to limitations associated with their primary use. Since stale law on EPFs do not justify location or expansion of ELFs on economic groUDds (or they be self-supporting), use of this rationale is not justified. . UmltaUoIII on LoBI-term Industrial Villbllily wid! Oa-site Septic. As demons\ra1ed by the Olen Cove LAMIR02, lack of llQCCSS to sewer service can signifu:antly limit the intensity and scale of future businesses at an industrial site. In Glen Cove, a significant portion of each site is used to accommodate a sanitary sewer drainfield and a reserve area. Establishing new facilities at the Airport without tile possibililY of sewer service even in the mid-term future (10-20 years) appears short sighted. Ifincreased intensity of industrial development is desired in the County, it would be a far more prudent use of public flUIds to inerease the intensity of deveJopmenlat Glen Cove through the extension of sewer service (which can be done by agreement with the City to extend City sewer), rather than create another constrained industrial site. , Local Area of More lmcnse Rural Developm...' . Memorandum 10 Davkl7lmmons September /7, ]009 /'age 4af4 . . UnalllWered QII..tlolt. 011 "Greea Eco-trielldly"lndllstrlal Develop_lit. The applicant contends that the proposed "rural industrial uses" will be "green" and "eco- friendly." However. and contradictorily. the applicant states that not all of tile future uses will be of this type. A review of the application materials does not indicate what regulatory scheme will be used to ensure that I!!! of the future uses at the expanded Airport will meet this environmental &oal. What percentage of the proposal will be "green"? Will all uses need to meet a minimum environmental standard? And if so. what standard? Who will evaluate and determine if a use is appropriately "green" or "ceo-friendly"? Lac.k.inll specifIC standards. the "ceo-friendly" justification for the proposal is really no justification at all. . No Regulatory Basil to Expalld the Airport EsaeDtial Public Facility (EPr) for Non-EPF UHI. The City supports and values the continued operation oftbe Airport. The City acknowledges that the Airport, while needed by our community. may have real or perceived negative impacts on surrounding properties that may makes it an undesirable neighbor. This increases the complexity and difficulty of expanding the existing facility. (Purchasing properties to buffer the airport from incompatible uses makes sense.) In response to this challenge, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires all local comprehensive plans to inclnde a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities, and prohibits local comprehensive plans or development regulations from precluding the ""nan.ion of essential public facilities. However. these . nrovisions don't allow for the exnan.i"n of an EPF for non-EPF uses. This is completely inconsistent with the special state law provisions that would allow the Airport to expand for an essential use, such as additional runways, taxiways and hanaars. Approval of this application for uses that are unrelated to the primary purpose of the EPF would establish a precedent that could lead to requests for other unrelated expansions in tile future. . No Collabontloll bttweeD jurildlctieu 011 shina and expaDdl... EPJls. GMA contemplates a collaborative process between the City and the County in making and implementing regional decisions concerning EPFs. That process has not occurred here. Expanded indllltrial zonlnalD COUlIty lIlIdvmiDes City pla..iDlI- The City has an interest in proteeting the investment in infrastructure the City has made to further development, including industrial development, in the City urban growth area and consistent with GMA requirements. An industrial park at the airport undermines those efforts. An industrial park at the airport could also undermine boatbuilding and repair activity at Boat Haven and Point Hudson if operators can move to the airport. . , ~- tA 3 ~c.,(../ vC\) jeffbocc .. l'zJ, loq HEARING RECORD Page 1 of I ~(', From: George Yount [gyount@olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, December 06.20091:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: JCIA Rezone Attachments: Port of Port Townsend Rezone of JCIA 120609.doc Gentlemen, Attached is my testimony regarding the Port of Port Townsend's proposed rezone at Jefferson County International Airport. Sincerely, George B. Yount 12/7/2009 ........' George B. Yount 717-2Sth Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Monday, December 7,2009 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Court House PO Box 1220 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed Rezone of Jefferson County International Airport Gentlemen, I am in favor of the proposal to allow a limited range of non-aviation related rural type light industrial uses on the property of Jefferson County International Airport adjacent and south of JCIA and north of Four Corners Road. While the present effort to rezone goes back to around 2002, the property south and adjacent to the airport, the development of non-aviation uses was identified much earlier. In the 1982/3 Port of Port Townsend's first Comprehensive plan, and again in their Airport Master Plan update of around 1987, the purpose was and continues to be to broaden the economic base of Jefferson County instead of concentrating on the specific locations within the City of Port Townsend and Glen Cove. The Port's mission then as now emphasizes it responsibility to actively lead the County's economic development based on environmental sensitivity and sustainability. Furthermore, the Port has an obligation to the tax payers of the County to generate and maintain activities that provides a fair return on its investments. Jefferson County International Airport is a first class small General Utility Airport. It is small because that is what the citizens of Jefferson County said they would support. The safety and operation requirements of a General Utility Airport are expensive. The citizens of Jefferson County could not have funded the capital transformation of JCIA from a soggy grass strip with Puget Power high voltage transmission power lines at the very end of the runway to a safe black topped runway with safe approaches without federal and state help. The Port of Port Townsend received Federal Aviation Airport improvement 90/10 matching grants and considerable sums from the Aviation Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation. Their only requirement of the Port is that the revenues generated on airport property from aviation dependent and non-aviation uses be used to maintain the airport. Rural light industrial uses south of the field would significantly help keep the airport safe and operational. I have reviewed the letter of October 5, 2009 to the Jefferson County Planning Commission submitted by Port Director Larry Crockett in response to the concerns listed by the City of Port Townsend regarding the rezone. It is a very well reasoned point by point rebuttal of the City's concerns. I hope you have had the opportunity to read it. The ....~...- , -' City's concerns remind me of those who oppose the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA and sewer system. Of course they have a right to oppose, but it leads one to conclude that there are only two places economic development can occur which happens to be within the City limits or at Glen Cove. I feel this is a short sighted view of the County. The City, County, the Port, and the PUD should be working together to broaden the economic base throughout the whole county. I share Mr. Crockett's frustration. The hurdles posed are surmountable and can be achieved well within the guidelines of the Growth Management Act. I feel the City should be endorsing and embracing the Port's rezone because the type of activities visioned in the Port's Strategic Plan compliments the City and Glen Cove rather than competes with them. I urge you to adopt the proposed Rezone recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission, and I urge the Port to actively seek U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration grant funds to develop a detailed in depth feasibility study for rural type light industrial uses at Jefferson County International Airport. I urge the City. County, PUD, and the citizens of the County to step forward to make this rezone work. Sincerely, George B. Yount qvount@olvpen.com cc Port of Port Townsend Port Commission Port of Port Townsend Director, Mr. Larry Crockett Port Townsend City Council JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Philip Morley, County Administrator ~ DATE: December 7, 2009 RE: Public Hearing on Recommended 2010 Jefferson County Budget STATEMENT OF ISSUE: A Public Hearing is scheduled at 4:30 PM, December 7 to take public comment on the County Administrator's Recommended 2010 Budget. At the Hearing, staff will give a brief overview prior to public comment. After hearing from the public, the Board of County Commissioners will begin deliberations on the proposal and public comments. The Board may request budget modifications. Adoption of a final 2010 Jefferson County Budget is tentatively scheduled for December 14,2009. ANALYSIS: On November 16,2009, the Board of County Commissioners received the Recommended 2010 Jefferson County Budget. A copy of the November 16 transmittal memo is attached. Copies of all other budget materials are available for public review on the County's website www.co.iefferson.wa.us. or from the County Auditor's Office. The Recommended 2010 Jefferson County Budget is a balanced budget that totals $ 53,260,521 for all funds. Of this, the General Fund is $15,634,625; and other funds total $37,625,896. The Recommended 2010 Budget continues to address the present economic downturn, plus the on-going structural funding gap for County services as the I % limit on property tax continues to lose ground to normal inflation. It contains painful service cuts in virtually every department that uses funds from the County's General Fund. This budget is based on a five-year budget strategy for 2010-2014. The Recommended 2010 Budget balances revenues and expenditures in 2010, but also positions Jefferson County for budget stability in 2011 as well, if revenues hold at today's levels. This stability provides certainty to the public we serve and to the valued staff we employ. It also will , .~ allow county government to refocus toward building for the future, rather than simply dealing with the budget problems ofthe present As recommended, 20 I 0 staffing for all County government would be dovlTI to 287.55 full time equivalents (FTEs), 10 fewer employees than originally budgeted in 2009 and 23.38 FTEs fewer than 2008. In fact, recommended 2010 staffmg is lower than in 2002 or any time since, even though the county's population and service demands have grown more than 9% in that time. Still it is important to acknowledge that by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary, unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels. FISCAL IMPACT: As proposed, the 2010 Budget would start with an Unreserved General Fund Balance of approximately $852,000 and end with an Unreserved Balance of over $468,000 to help sustain programs in 2011. RECOMMENDATION: After hearing public testimony and upon deliberation, the Board of County Commissioners may request changes to the Recommended Budget prior to adoption. Adoption of a final 20 I 0 Budget is tentatively scheduled for December 14, 2009. REVIEWED BY: 1.2-(3(0 ;; Date ATTACHMENT: November 16, 2009 Transmittal Memo: Recommended 2010 Budget ~<9 <;g!'>~~~ JEFFERSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 'et\:i' 1820 Jefferson Street. P.O. Box 1220. Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.co.jefferson.wa.us RECEtVef) TO: County Commissioners NOV 1 3 2009 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Philip Morley, County Administrator DATE: November 16, 2009 SUBJECT: Recommended 2010 Budget This memo transmits a Recommended 2010 Jefferson County Budget for your consideration. Public comment on this Recommended Budget is invited at the Board of County Commissioners' Public Hearing, 4:30 PM Monday, December 7 in the Superior Courtroom in the Jefferson County Courthouse. Written comments are also welcome from now anytime up through the end of the hearing. After hearing from citizens at the Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will deliberate on the proposed budget, consider public comments, and may request budget modifications. Adoption by the Board of a final 2010 Jefferson County Budget is tentatively scheduled for December 14. DISCUSSION The Recommended 2010 Jefferson County Budget is $ 53,260,521 for all funds. . Ofthis, the General Fund is $15,634,625; and . Other Funds total $37,625,896, Details of the Recommended 2010 Budget can be viewed and downloaded on-line on November 16 by following the link on www.co.iefferson.wa.us. The Recommended 2010 Budget continues to address the present economic downturn, plus the on-going structural funding gap for County services as the 1% limit on property tax continues to lose ground to normal inflation. This bUdget is based on a five-year budget strategy for 2010-2014. The difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary, unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels. The General Fund funds the criminal justice system, central government functions, and important community services. 2010 General Fund expenditures total $15,634,625, which is virtually the same as projected expenditures in 2009. Without $436,972 of Phone (360) 385-9100 Fax (360) 385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us extraordinary revenue and expenditures from a new law enforcement contract with the Hoh Nation and a joint drug enforcement grant secured by the Prosecutor and Sheriff, the General Fund would be $383,647 (2.5%) smaller in 2010 than 2009, despite inflation in labor and other County costs. Balancing General Fund revenues and expenditures has been accomplished with the cooperation of all branches of Jefferson County government. All departments made a 4.7% reduction from their departments' status quo budgets, for a savings totaling $575,000. Next, directors and elected officials met in three committees (law & Justice, community services, and administration) to work on cross-departmental efficiencies and further reductions totaling more than $500,000. Together, all three branches of County government achieved $1.036 Million in cutbacks. These cuts have been painful, and impact public services in every department. As recommended, 2010 staffing levels for all County government would be down to 288 full time equivalents (FTEs), 10 fewer employees than originally budgeted in 2009. In fact, 2010 staffing would be lower than 2002, even though the county's population will have grown more than 9% in that time. Many of the staff reductions from the original 2009 budget have already taken place. Most of any remaining reductions are possible through attrition, but not all; and those who are potentially affected have been notified. Not counting extraordinary revenue from the Hoh contract and drug enforcement grant, all other General Fund revenues are projected to be lower in 2010 than 2009 even after drawing upon some short term revenue shifts from other funds. The General Fund and Other Funds are summarized below. Summary of 2010 Recommended Budget 2009 Projected 2010 Proposed % Change +.3% +1.5% - 22% - 45% General Fund Ex enditures General Fund Revenues Endin Fund Balance Unencumbered Fund Balance $15,581,300 $14,867,976 $ 2,415,665 $ 857,535 $15,634,625 $15,095,052 $ 1,876,092 $ 468,976 2009 Budget 2010 Proposed Ex enditures Revenues $32,732,999 $29,113,406 $37,625,896 $33,399,218 % Chan e + 15% + 15% 2 Revenue reductions in 2010 reflect two budget pressures that confront Jefferson County (and all local governments throughout Washington State). First, a significant national economic downturn that continues to temporarily depress sales tax, Real Estate Excise Tax, property tax from new construction and other revenues. Second, we also have a structural funding problem where prior state legislation cutting the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax and setting a 1% limit on year-to-year growth in property tax collections have meant that local government revenues cannot keep pace with the true cost inflation in wages, goods and services each year. Since joining Jefferson County as County Administrator a year ago, I have worked with all of the elected officials and department directors to address these issues and ensure the County is on a responsible and sustainable financial path. The decisions have not been easy. The cooperation of the independently elected officials and appointed department directors and County staff continues to be a unique strength that well serves the citizens of Jefferson County. Significant changes as proposed in the Recommended 2010 Jefferson County Budget are summarized below and on the pages that follow. 2010 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES: EXPENDITURES (Note: FTE refers to Full Time Equivalent - 2080 hrs per year) General Fund Budget Description Change Assessor (60,138) Staff reduction of 1 FTE Auditor (40,042) Staffing reduction in 0.9 FTE for one position. Elections (62,891 ) Reduction in printing costs, clerk hire and lease costs. Clerk (20,884) Staffing reduction of 0.4 FTE Commissioners (21,116) Reduction in clerk hire and reallocation of staff between BOCC and County Admin. budget District Court (31,837) Reduction of 0.5 FTE and Clerk Hire Community ( 7,198) 4.7 % reduction in allocations to community service Services organizations like OlyCap, PT Seniors, and Gardiner Comm. Ctr. Juvenile Services (47,691) Staffing Reduction of 0.5 FTE Probation Counselor, reduced juvenile detention costs to Kitsap County and other misc. reduced costs 3 G I F d Budget D .. enera un Ch escnptlOn ange Prosecutor (47,994) 73,330 Sheriff (341,278) $364,436 Treasurer (14,405) Non-Departmental (24,556) Operating (408,018) Transfers . Staffing reduced by 1 Deputy Prosecutor in 2010 preliminary budget. . Federal stimulus grant of 73,000 was able to fully fund this position for 2010 and 2011. . Reduced staffing from preliminary budget: o 0.8 FTE - Data Entry Clerk o 1 FTE - Undersheriff position o 1 FTE - Deputy position o 1 FTE - Corrections o 0.5 FTE Investigation paid for with Federal Stimulus funds . Added staffing for fully funded grant and contract positions: o 1 FTE Community Policing Officer paid for with Federal Stimulus funds for 2010 and 2011 o 1 FTE West End Deputy paid for by Hoh Tribe on contract o 1 Clerk hire position for WASPC Grant for 2010 . Continue to stabilize the Sheriff's budget allowing reasonable overtime costs as part of base budget . Reduced Staffing hours to reduce 0.1 FTE and other misc. reductions . Reduction of professional services and other misc. reductions. . Substance Abuse reduced by $2,295 . Public Health - reduced by $108,620 in 2010 . Cooperative Extension and Noxious Weeds transfer reduced $21,894 . Water Quality reduced $4000, Conservation District reduced $2300 . One time reduction in Transfer to Economic Development fund, economic development fund will use unreserved fund balance. . Parks and Recreation - Operating transfer reduced by $82,000 in 2009, continued into 2010 . Transfer to County Capital improvement reduced 251,000, using another capital funding source to cover REEf revenue shortfall used to pay County Bond payments. 4 G I F d Budget D .. enera un Ch escnptlOn ange TOTAL EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS GENERAL FUND $1,036,121 TOTAL EXPENDITURE ADDITIONS: $437,366, total amount offset by corresponding grant or contract revenue Other Funds Budget Description Change Public Health (75,000) . In anticipation of cuts in State funding for 2010 and reduced funding from the general fund, Public Health anticipates having to make changes in their 2010 budget of approximately 2.75 reduction of m's. . Reduced hours will still be in effect at Environmental Health in 2010 and the Environmental Health Director position will be left open at this time. Animal Services (21,575) . Reduction of 0.6 FTE Clerk Hire and Overtime . Reduction in 9,000 in crematorium services Department of . Continued staffing reduction of hours to 36 hr. Community Dev. work week for DCD in 2010 . Staffing reduction of 3.8 FTE from Budget 2009 (staff reductions already in place) . DCD 2010 Budget is $375,000 less than 2009 budget excluding pass thru expenses. . DCD will continue to be closed on Fridays Parks and . Staffing reduction of 2.64 FTE, mostly in the Recreation Parks budget . Budget 2010 for Parks and Field maintenance has been reduced 33% from 2009 Budget, about $115,000 . Anticipate park closures and adoption of parks by citizens to fill the budget gap Parks Capital (35,000) . Funding for parks capital projects has been Projects Funds reduced due to funding availability . Capital Improvement fund eliminated an annual transfer of $35,000 to H.J. Carrol Park due to reduced REET revenues . 0.7 FTE reduction in capital parks projects Facilities Mgmt . Reduced custodian position 0.25 FTE to help fill budget gap 5 Other Funds cBhudget Description ange County Capital Improvement . REET Revenues continue to be projected about $480,000, Annual County bond debt is $750,000. For the 2010 budget, funds from other capital reserves will be used to pay bond debt. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES: REVENUES General Fund Budget Description Change Property Taxes 216,000 Temporary Levy Shift from Road Fund Sales Taxes Expected to be at 2009 projected level, down $400,000 from original 2009 budgeted amount. Investment (100,000) . Treasurer's investment income down from 2009 Income projected amounts. Investment income is projected to be about $394,000, down from 2007 high level of 1.1 Million. . Investment rates are low and as unreserved fund balances are used, there are fewer dollars invested to accrue investment income. Other Funds cBhudget Description ange Road Fund 216,000 Recommended use of Road Fund banked capacity, coupled with a temporary Levy Shift to the General Fund in 2010 and possibly 2011. Intent is to shift the levy back to Road Fund in 2012 to address needs of 2010-2915 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan. Compliance Opinion & Basis for Budget Preparation I believe that the 2010 Recommended Budget complies with all statutory and constitutional requirements, This Recommended Budget was balanced with a combination of expenditure cuts, existing revenue and Banked Capacity, and through careful and judicious use of Fund Balance. Expenses were prioritized using the 2010 Budget Goals & Objectives as adopted by the Commissioners, including three top priorities of Law & Justice, Roads, and Public Health. Under the Recommended 2010 Budget, Law &. Justice grows from 53% in 2009 to almost 58% of all General Fund expenditures in 2010. 6 Other Notes . We continue to gain information about the net impact of the State Legislature's change to the sales tax law so that sales tax is imposed at the point of delivery rather than the point of sale. . The 2010 level of "diversion" of Road Fund monies to the General Fund is based on the amount of money expended for Traffic Control by the Sheriff in 2009. . Revenue: This 2010 Recommended Budget includes . the allowable 1 % property tax revenue increase for the Road Fund, plus Banked Capacity, accompanied by an equal but temporary levy shift to the General Fund. . the allowable 1 % property tax revenue increase for the General Fund, and a temporary levy shift from the Road Fund, . the allowable 1 % property tax revenue increase for the Conservation Futures Fund . the base sales tax of 1 % . the 0.1 % sales tax for Criminal Justice . the 0.1 % sales tax for Mental Health/Chemical Dependency . the 0.1 % sales tax for JeffComm 911 . Debt: This budget proposal does not anticipate any additions to short or long term debt It is important to note that the General Fund will be required to payoff portion of the debt service for 2010. The shortest term debt is 2012 and the longest term debt is 2026. At year end 2010 the County expects to have the following principal outstanding on the debt: General Obligation Bonds Contractual Borrowing Total Principal Outstanding $2,591,748 $2.146,874 $4,786,622 FUTURE ISSUES The reduced national and local economy just now entering recovery will likely affect both revenues and demands for County services. In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means. The practice of making quarterly emergency expenditure appropriations that draw on Fund Balance is no longer an option. Our Fund Balance must be protected throughout 2010 to prevent deeper service and program cuts in 2011 and beyond. 7 Jefferson County will need to use 2010 as a time to continue looking for creative ways to increase our efficiency to reduce the cost of providing services, and continue reviewing our priorities of government. Even as we continue to grapple with a troubled national economy and the Washington State-imposed structural funding problem for County govemment, we must also build for the future. In 2010, Jefferson County government must strive to help forge a regional public/private vision for economic development, engage actively with County citizens about their government, develop a strategy to better harness information technology, strengthen our capacity to manage our budgets and finances for the challenging times ahead, and plan to care for our physical infrastructure, CONCLUSION The Recommended 2010 Budget is a fiscally responsible budget that responds to today's economic realities, while preparing for the future. Many individuals in every department of our organization have worked hard to prepare the Recommended 2010 Budget. Special recognition and my personal thanks go to County Auditor Donna Eldridge, County Treasurer Judi Morris, County Assessor Jack Westerman III, Lorna Delaney, and Karen Bednarski. For a second year, budget consultant Anne Sears has been invaluable in pulling mountains of information together, facilitating communication with each department, and providing sage advice. ATTACHMENTS: 2010 General Fund Summary 2010 Other Funds Summary 2010 Departmental Staffing Schedule 2010 Budget Detail (available on County Website Nov 16) 8 11/13/2009 JEFFERSON COUNTY GENERAL FUND 2008 2009 2009 GENERAL FUND Actual Budget Projected BARS REVENUE TYPE Revenues Revenues Revenues 31t Property Tax 6,041,241 6,684.000 6,684,000 7,050,800 311 Diverted Road Taxes 634,763 678.400 678,400 720.000 311 Sale of Tax Title Property 0 0 0 312 Private Harvest Tax 296,940 315,000 102,000 165.000 312 Private Harvest Tax (div) 42,249 40,000 13,000 22,000 313 Sales Tax 2,410,507 2.445,000 2,210,000 2,200,000 313 Sales Tax-LOST 293,880 275,000 275,000 275,000 317 Leasehold Excise Tax 61,116 53,100 53,100 52,000 317 Treas Collection Fees 42,308 50,000 50,000 25.000 319 Penalties 258,871 201,500 226,500 197,500 TOTAL TAXES 10,081,875 10.742,000 10,292,000 10.707.300 332 Fed Entitlements-PIL T 225,064 225,000 267,167 230,000 335 Trailer Excise Tax 0 0 0 335 PUD Priv. T axlRefor. Har. Tax 84,161 80,000 73,000 75,000 336 Law & Justice -MVET 329,361 320,000 325,000 325,000 336 DUl/other Crim Just Assist 12,000 12,000 11,000 336 Liquor Excise Tax 34,588 30,000 30,000 35,000 336 Liquor Profit 57,572 60,000 60,000 60.000 338 Regional Service Contracts 0 0 0 341 General Gov. Treasure~s Fees tl,t24 t4,214 14,214 14,005 349 Interfund Serv.-Cost Alloc. 224.027 305,000 440,000 358,000 361 Investment Income 971.352 830,000 500,000 394,000 361 Treasure~s Investment Fees 24.514 26,000 26,000 15,000 361 Investment/Other Interest 4,500 4,500 5,000 369 Foreclosure SurpluslDNR In!. 750 750 2,200 369 Misc. Revenue/lnterfnd Int. 2,000 2,000 4,000 389 Non Revenue (KPS Refund) 0 0 0 395 Timber Sales D.N.R. 322.657 265.000 t50,000 175,000 395 Sale of Surplus Real Property 0 0 1,000 390 other Non-Revenues 81,030 0 0 0 TOTAL OTHER TREAS. REVENUE 2,365.450 2,174,464 1,904,631 1.704,205 TOTAL TREASURER'S REVENUE 12,447,325 12,916.464 12.196,631 12.411,505 Dept # 010 Assessor 2.784 2,600 2,600 1,800 020 Auditor 258,691 273,787 263,787 268,628 021 Elections 92,776 122,938 148,711 53,200 050 Clerk 188,784 167,928 167,928 t 88,233 060 Commissioners 17,596 18,000 18,000 t2,000 067 Safety & Security 40,013 60,000 106,818 1t3,801 068 Community Services 9.000 9,000 9.000 080 District Court 685.192 664.085 699,085 632.650 110 Juvenile Services 275.457 327.468 327.468 269.8t2 150 Prosecuting Attorney 136,442 148.629 251,129 302.880 151 Coroner 12.164 10.080 10,080 9.280 180 Sheriff 334,108 421,564 594,997 808.763 240 Superior Court 3,000 71,742 13.500 260 Non Departmental 0 0 0 TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL REVENUES 2,044,007 2,229,079 2,671,345 2,683.547 261 269,888 14.761.000 15,145,543 14,867.976 15,095,052 Percent increase from previous year 4.1% 2.6% 0.7% 1.5% 1111312009 2 2008 2009 2009 GENERAL FUND Actual Budget Projected Dept. EXPENDITURES Expenditures Ex enditures Expenditures 010 ASSESSOR 612,084 704,565 673,040 682.3tO 020 AUDITOR 470,614 500,557 482,251 468,656 021 ELECTIONS 269,523 263,994 224,458 228,791 050 CLERK 376,999 398,592 379.590 389,849 059 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 360,109 325,387 288,309 306,376 060 COMMISSIONERS 358,737 400,460 384,858 392,147 061 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 6,755 7.359 7,359 7,364 062 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 2,207 2,100 2,100 2.100 063 PLANNING COMMISSION 22,172 33,935 33.935 34,644 067 SAFETY AND SECURITY t37.085 141,934 185.980 200,091 068 COMMUNITY SERVICES t53.353 153,350 153,350 146,350 080 DISTRICT COURT 633,646 674,116 655.574 649,629 110 JUVENILE SERVICES 869.699 953.376 889,489 904,414 150 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 782,328 886,328 931.236 945.544 151 CORONER 32.159 36,250 36.250 32,850 180 SHERIFF 4,564,232 4,266,094 4,576.929 4,979,148 240 SUPERIOR COURT 309,650 282,721 522,853 273,289 250 TREASURER 312,866 342.296 317,162 340,707 SUBTOTAL DEPARTMENTS: 10,274,218 10,373,414 10,744,723 10,984,259 260 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,051,830 2.222,842 2,200,842 2,712,632 261 OPERATING TRANSFERS 261 Op Trans- 10- Substance Abuse 48,894 48,894 48,894 46,599 261 Op Trans- 50- Coop. Extension 210,207 196,703 184.203 175,470 261 Op Trans- 70- County Cap. Improve. 166,000 251.000 0 261 Op Trans- 99- Parks & Recreation 326.176 431.477 349.548 349,477 261 Op Trans- 160-Health 746,043 772,974 615.774 607.623 261 Op Trans- 163-Animal Serv 108,750 123,174 114,059 108,705 261 Op Trans- 164-Water QuaL-Cons Dist 51,750 51.750 47,920 45,646 261 Op Trans- 165-Water Quality 76,664 90,483 86,933 82,852 26t Op Trans- 200-Community Develop. 602,476 295,000 420,000 420,000 261 Op Trans- 261-lnlo. Services 100,000 50.000 50,000 261 OTHER OPERATING TRANSFERS 683,072 467,404 467.404 101,362 15,280,080 15,290,115 15,581 ,300 15,634,625 Percent increase from previous year 10.4% 0.1% 2.0% 0.3% Beginning Cash and Investments 3,317,256 2,798.176 2.798,176 2,415,665 Revenues 14,761,000 15, t45.543 14.867,976 15,095,052 Expenditures 15,280,080 15,290.115 15,58t ,300 t5,634.625 Ending Cash & Investments 2,798.176 2,653,604 2.084.852 t ,876.092 Equity Transfer from other funds 175,000 carryover (est at 1%) t55,813 156,346 Adj. Ending Cash & Investments 2,798,176 2.653,604 2,415,665 2,032,438 Required 10% of Exp. to Reserves 1,528,008 1,529,012 1,558,130 1,563,463 Unreserved Fund Balance 1,270.168 1.124,593 857,535 468,976 JEFFERSON COUNTY Other Funds Revenue & Expenditure Summary- 2010 Budget 2010 est. JtJ10 JtJ16 Est Ending Beg. Cash ~v_e EXpend cash & DEPARTMENT BUDGET' Sl.Jl)GET 8/)DGfi1' invest 2010 t05-AUDITOR'S O&M 87.500 208,423 185.133 80.158 88.124 177,167 t06-COURTHOUSE FACILITATOR 8.080 8.452 19.682 6.900 9.160 17,422 107-BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM 33.436 38.856 23.388 27.900 27.878 23,410 108-COOPERATIVE EXT. PROGRAMS 386.172 425.116 143,000 341.078 383.364 100,714 113-4-H AFTER SCHOOL 85.000 85.000 38,618 85.000 85.006 38.612 t14-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 25,000 25,000 109,460 25.000 25.000 109,460 12O-CRIME VICTIMS SERVICES f>1.= 65.608 16.792 70.158 70,172 16.778 121-JEFFCOM ENHANCEMENT 278.140 1.261.160 2,060,500 193.720 2.254,220 122-E-911 TELEPHONE (JEFFCOM) 1,476.537 1.594.213 516.700 1.625.783 1.658.945 483,538 123-JEFF CO GRANT MANAGEMENT FUND 375.000 375.000 118.000 350.000 350,000 118.000 125-HOTEL-MOTEL 295.000 303.483 482._ 232.500 303.493 I 411.391 t26-H&HS SITE ABATEMENT 26.500 26.500 19.882 22,500 28.500 . 13.882 127-PUBLlC HEALTH 3.834.666 3.864.314 825,213 3.515.183 3.703.572 636.824 126-NATURAL RESOURCES 940._ 867.651 221.232 1,009.067 1.028.210 202.089 129-ANIMAL SERVICES 234.601 242.584 46.000 223.132 231.461 37.671 130-MENTAL HEALTH 42.925 42,925 649 43.900 43,924 625 131-CHEMICAL DEPEND/MENTAL HEALTH 398,000 470.600 288.155 368._ 438.753 217,786 135-JEFFERSON COUNTY DRUG FUND 22.000 27,4Il4 77.127 19.200 19.200 77.127 t36-SHERIFF DRUG INVESTIGATION 2.000 2.000 54.294 20.000 34.294 t4D-LAW LIBRARY 10.525 10.000 25.487 10.893 10.981 25.399 14t-TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT 12.000 16.100 27.821 12,000 26.065 13.756 142-PUBLlC DEFENSE FUNDING 35.000 35,000 32.929 35.000 35.000 32.929 t43-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1.854.356 1,798,269 I 156.821 1.257.043 1 .255.170 158.694 147-FEDERAL FOREST TITLE III 85.000 ' 137,736 85.000 52.736 148-JEFF CO AFFORDABLE HOUSING 140.000 140.000 271.999 140.000 140.000 271.999 150-TREASURER'S O&M 41.500 43,360 9.695 12.787 22.482 151-REET TECHNOLOGY FUND 12.000 115.000 15,000 110.000 20.000 155-VETERANS RELIEF 40.000 56,520 8,442 40.000 48,442 160-WATER POLLUTION CNTRL LOAN FUND 53.000 53,000 80.000 5.000 15,000 i 70.000 174-PARKS AND RECREATION 526.673 539,546 118.016 438,077 438.077 118.016 175-COUNTY PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND 72.950 137.857 17.939 51.000 68.916 23 177-SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 4.560 4.580 9.709 9,709 t 78-POST HARVEST TIMBER MGMT RESV 1.500 16.059 15._ 150 15.060 759 tao-COUNTY ROADS 8,716,724 9.072.228 4,831.156 10,142,228 11,436.779 3,536,605 181-EMERGENCY ROAD RESERVE 3,200 76.973 800 77.773 183-FACILlTIES MANAGEMENT 852.805 988,174 147.951 934.907 1,016,858 66.000 185-FLOOD/STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 4.750 14.015 5,000 9.015 18l>-BRINNON FLOOD CONTROL SUB-ZONE 3.024 11.033 3,525 7.508 t87-QUILCENE FLOOD CONTROL SUB-ZONE 25,524 120,_ 175,000 286.552 8.914 3Ot-CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION 45.000 241.600 599.681 32,711 136.000 496.392 302-COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 841,000 778.067 348.590 756.000 743.067 361.523 303-CAP. IMPROV. CLOCKTOWER 50.000 32,711 32,711 304-H.J. CARROLL PARK 37.500 117,744 55.091 695 55.786 306-PUBLlC INFRASTRUCTURE 300.000 885,000 1 .570.094 339.000 1.046.000 863.094 308-CONSERVATION FUTURES TAX 227.250 215,200 850,444 215.200 438.900 626.744 401-S0LlD WASTE 2.748.108 2.857,405 978.946 2,442.020 2,775.756 645.210 402-S0LlD WASTE POST CLOSURE 5.600 6.000 101.242 1.500 6.000 96.742 403-S0LlD WASTE EQUIPMENT RESERVE 156.979 120,000 1,480.694 120.979 301.000 1.300.673 Page 1 1111312009 2010 est. 2010 2010 Est Ending Beg. Cash Ri>_ .fi!<P*fd cash & DEPARTMENT BUDGEI' I!ffJtlGE!t I!ffJtlGE!t invest 2010 404 ? 6.000 6.000 405- TRI-AREA SEWER FUND 332,797 i 1,054,111 196.935 4.641.000 I 2.756.875 2.079,060 S01-EQUIPMENT RENTAL & REVOLVING 1,764,900 i 1,791,658 2.698.353 1,697.000 i 1.760.622 2.634,731 S02-RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE 210.000 160.000 107.335 . 100,000 45.000 162.335 S03-JC UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVE 118.000 160.000 334.087 118.000 218.000 234.087 S04-INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE RESERVE 17.000 23.000 28.602 23.000 5.802 50S-EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVE 64.500 136.125 193.546 131.000 152.625 I 171.921 . 506-INFORMATION SERVICES 1.248.555 1.173.769 589.865 1.288,665 1,338.665 539.865 I TOTAL OTHER FUNDS BUDGETS 29.113.406 32.732.999 21,641.482 33.399,218 37,625,896 I 17.414.804 GENERAL FUN D 15.145.543 15.290.115 2.415.865 15.095.052 15.634.625 1.876.092 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 44.258.949 48.023,114 24,057,147 46,494,270 53.260.521 19.290.896 Page 2 11/1312009 JEFFERSON COUNTY 2010 STAFFING SCHEDULE (Full Time EquivaJents ~ FTE's) De rtment Assessor Auditor Elections Clerk County Administrator Commissioners Board of Equalization Planning Commission Safety & Security 2.84 District Court 8.71 Juvenile Services 7.32 Prosecuting Attorney 11.93 Sheriff 49.57 Superior Court 2.03 Treasurer 4.38 120.01 Auddor's 0 & M 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.00 Courthouse Facilitator 0.20 0.11 0.20 0.00 0.00 000 0.15 0.18 0.03 Boating Safety 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.25 -002 Cooperative Extension 3.45 3.42 4.t7 4.28 4.10 2.92 2.65 3.06 0.41 4H After School 1.31 2.00 1.26 2.11 1.26 1.79 1.26 1.26 0.00 Crime Victims 0.75 0.76 0.95 0.94 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.00 E-911 JeffCom 13.39 13.26 14.02 t3.77 15.35 15.94 17.35 17.35 0.00 Public Health 35.49 38.57 38.72 39.14 38.79 38.03 35.75 35.26 -0.49 Water Quality 1.95 1.60 2.40 3.48 6.03 5.44 6.75 5.79 -0.96 Animal Services 2.25 2.84 2.64 3.13 2.64 2.89 2.67 2.06 -0.61 JC Drug Fund 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.12 -0.12 Trial Court Improvement 0.30 0.30 Community Development 26.01 24.12 25.89 24.66 25.89 23.77 15.20 11.38 -3.82 Treasurer's 0 & M 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.00 Parks & Recreation 6.78 7.02 7.59 7.66 7.58 6.91 7.92 5.28 -2.64 County Parks Improvement 0.82 0.82 0.77 0.54 0.71 0.89 0.75 0.25 -0.50 Special Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 County Roads 55.22 46.85 51.97 46.16 50.63 44.69 51.90 51.47 -0.43 Facilities Management 6.98 6.54 8.03 7.21 8.23 7.04 7.46 7.42 -0.04 Flood/Stormwater Mgmt. 0.18 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 .0.00 Brinnon Flood Control 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 Quilcene Flood Control 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 Construction & Renovation 0.83 0.82 0.55 0.64 0.53 0.61 0.24 0.t8 -0.06 Capitallmprov-Courthouse 1.00 1.12 0.50 0.79 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 HJ Carroll Park 0.14 0.17 0.t5 0.17 0.28 0.13 0.28 0.07 -0.21 Solid Waste 7.80 7.88 8.23 8.13 8.28 8.10 9.33 9.30 -0.03 Tri Area Sewer 1.04 0.66 1.11 1.05 1.12 1.05 0.68 1.13 0.45 ER&R 6.85 6.40 7.15 6.47 6.60 6.06 6.71 6.54 -0.17 Information Services 6.99 5.96 7.02 6.77 7.14 7.09 7.13 7.38 0.25 179.92 171.54 183.93 177.64 186.76 175.18 176.18 167.54 -8.64 Total All Funds 301.53 295.27 307.59 299.97 310.93 299.07 297.55 287.55 -10.00 JEFFERSON COUNTY 2010 STAFFING SCHEDULE (Full Time Equivalents ~ FTE's) De artment Assessor Auditor Elections Clerk County Administrator Commissioners Board of Equalization Planning Commission Safety & Security District Court Juvenile Services Prosecuting Attorney Sheriff Superior Court Treasurer Aud~or's 0 & M 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Courthouse Facilttator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Boating Safety 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.26 0.26 Cooperative Extension 2.19 2.14 2.09 2.60 2.76 2.80 2.71 4.12 3.20 4H After School 0 2.20 2.11 3.32 2.36 2.00 t.93 1.31 1.65 Crime VICtims 1.50 1.47 1.49 1.50 1.49 1.31 t.42 1.31 0.75 E-911 JeffCom 11.78 7.98 7.80 11.39 8.98 11.04 9.65 11.39 11.43 Public Health 36.08 34.08 33.99 37.40 37.47 37.99 35.54 34.01 33.30 Water Quality 2.40 2.85 2.84 2.95 3.03 2.78 1.89 1.93 0.78 Animal Services 3.34 3.13 3.12 3.18 2.85 3.36 3.02 3.27 2.89 JC Drug Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial Court Improvement Community Development 17.t3 15.23 15.29 17.13 16.89 20.66 18.77 24.73 23.07 Treasurer's 0 & M 0.22 0 0 0.22 0.13 0.t5 0.15 0.15 0.15 Parks & Recreation 7.05 6.66 6.84 7.02 6.78 7.39 6.73 7.20 7.98 County Parks Improvement 0.27 0.43 0.40 0.59 0.89 0.73 0.86 0.86 0.95 Special Projec1s 2.24 1.37 1.30 1.05 1.78 1.06 1.01 0.42 0.14 County Roads 55.30 53.06 53.77 53.51 49.82 53.40 52.88 53.73 50.87 Facilities Management 6.56 6.20 6.30 6.48 6.40 6.98 6.64 7.02 6.98 Flood/Stormwater Mgmt. 0.72 0.28 0.21 0.58 0.43 0.55 0.30 0.40 0.52 Brinnon Flood Control 0.01 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.00 Q uilcene Flood Control 0.52 0.23 0.t7 0.46 0.55 0.36 0.30 0.15 0.07 Construction & Renovation 3.46 2.88 2.81 2.66 2.81 2.66 2.90 2.35 5.61 Cap~allmprov-Courthouse 0 0 0 0 0.80 HJ Carroll Park 0.57 0.28 0.24 0 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.10 Solid Waste 8.48 7.71 7.58 8.26 8.18 8.27 8.22 7.60 7.74 Tri Area Sewer 0 0 0 0 0.31 ER&R 7.65 7.14 6.40 7.12 6.88 6.98 6.72 7.03 6.83 Information Services 7.33 5.46 5.47 5.94 5.90 6.00 6.14 6.01 5.73 175.09 161.06 160.54 173.61 166.76 176.85 168.11 175.41 172.18 Total All Funds 292.88 275.57 274.82 287.83 279.95 295.58 282.62 296.05 292.63 L.C- (A '2 . l?:ocL S l"Lb\oC1 Page 1 of2 -' jeffbocc From: Marcia Schwendiman [mdschwendiman@msn.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11: 11 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Dec, 7 Budget Hearing Remarks HEAR ;"N''''' nf"''''^'~' r'\ , " ,,' i J "" l-::/~!;, J ',' L~,U.' ',' .' ", "'..... ",""""'u"" " . ..... ~ 'ilIl" ...-1--~"4V 1; Dear Commissioners Austin, Sullivan, and Johnson, The many volunteers from WSU Extension make such positive contributions. I can't imagine our county without them. Here are a few examples of why I appreciate and praise your continued support for the programs at WSU Extension. Master Gardencrs Train, Teach, and Le,ad by EX:J!.mple 1) Master Gardeners train in the latest science-based practices for home gardens which advocate reduced and correct use of pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, improving the health of the watershed. As volunteers we school the public in these practices. 2) Community outreach spreads the ethic of sustainable gardening practices that protect the watershed. Advanced Gardening Classes, Monthly Continuing Education Programs, Plant Clinics, the Secret Garden Tours, the Yard and Garden Lectures, teach our citizens best practices for environmentally sound gardening. Grants made by Jhe MllsJer Gard.ener FouJldation SJ~pport Environmental Stewardship 1) Grants to Community Gardens and Pea Patches that contribute produce to our food banks and supply nutritious meals to participants of all ages and economic circumstances. 2) Grants support curricula in our schools that teach children about the environment and how to be good stewards of it. 3) Grants pay tuition and training fees in horticulture, agriculture, and environmental studies for people living, working, and farming in Jefferson County. I felt both excited and apprehensive about my 2005 move to rural Jefferson County. How would I fit into this place so different from my urban home? How could I make a difference in my newly adopted commtmity? I would never have guessed that Washington State University Extension would furnish me with those opportunities to contribute. WSU is my intellectual home, my entre and connection to the local community, as it is for so many Extension volunteers like me. In closing, I believe County Govermnent and WSU Extension Master Gardeners espouse the same goals when it comes to protecting our community resources for the long run. Our joint efforts to move people to change their actions to protect the environment strengthen each other. While you have the tools to regulate actions, we have the power to persuade through programs that teach and train. Both are valuable means to our shared goals. Thank you for your continued support of WSU Extension. These are the worst of times financially for county governments. I fully appreciate the difficult choices you must make and thank you for your service. I would like my remarks to be included in the record for the Budget Hearing scheduled for today, December 7' 2009. 12/7/2009 Page 2 of2 ~-~. Sincerely, Marcia Schwendiman, Cochairman WSU Master Gardeners of Jefferson County 23 Longmire Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 ~ 12/7/2009