Let's get a V capture going as it's nine o'clock
cap.
So G captures working.
Ok, good morning, everyone. I will call this November 13th meeting of the board of
County commissioners to order, got a busy day today. And uh we will start as we do
every morning with, with public comment period on any topic. So we have no one in
the chambers with us today. But if anyone online would like to make a comment on
any subject, we would love to hear from you. You can hit the raise hand button or
Star nine. If you're on the phone to make a comment,
make one more call for public comment. If anyone would like to make public comment
this morning, you can click the raise hand button or star nine.
All right. Well, seeing no hands, we'll keep public comment open as is our practice
until 930 we'll uh let's dig into this consent agenda. Any questions or concerns
highlights uh, the um,
extensions of time on the two purchase and sale agreements for Quimper West and Quimper
East are, I mean, I was briefed a little bit about that, but I think it's just needs
more time in the going, going back and forth between us and DNR. Is that correct?
Mark?
Oh, ok.
Um, but I've been tracking those ones and I had heard months ago that they needed
more time. So this seems to be the living out of that. Um, I don't know, maybe Philip
knows something if he's online. But, ok. Well, we're flying
flying then on this one additional time necessary to clear title and to attend to
matters of closing. Ok.
Um, I'm interested in talking about number five, or, or, and I don't know if we need
to do that as a board or individually with, um, with Mark, but, um, it's something
I'd love to give some consideration to before we move forward. Ok. Um, you're, is
it the 18 month just, just, you know, curious if, uh, since we did a lot of collective
bargaining, um, with staff, um, just curious how, how, you know, what, what the thinking
is of why that's why that's necessary. Um,
uh, so not opposed to it just would, would like some more information and to be informed
before making that choice. You wanna talk about it now, Mark or do we sure, you know,
talking about this, um, with Sarah Mellinson, our hr director, um, you know, Bob,
even though he hasn't been at the negotiating table has been a, a fixture throughout
the negotiating process. Um, we consult with him, we meet with the bargaining unit
following the meeting with the bargaining unit, we, we consult with Bob. He helps
us with, um, you know, sticky issues and uh gives us advice on negotiating positions
to take. Um So that would be um my explanation, you know, having Sarah uh
contribute to this discussion would probably be helpful. Well, um we were going to
actually rearrange our schedule a little bit since Heidi needs us to leave at two.
I was hoping to move our executive session with Sarah, um, a little earlier before
lunch when, as time permits, perhaps we can pull this and, and engage in the conversation
in open session before we do that. Sure. Would that be? All right. Mark. Yeah, that
would be just fine. Yes,
it doesn't have to be right now for it. All right. So we'll, we'll plan on pulling
number five for the time being and chat it through a little bit more. I thought I
had told all the appropriate people that I needed to leave by 230 today. But I'm
sorry, maybe I need to be briefed on the protocols or something. But I told, I think
everybody other than you, Greg, sorry. It's, it's fine. We can, we can adapt. Ok.
No problem.
That's the only thing we have really, we'll go too, too much past two. So I think
it's ok.
Um, so we did have enough property tax appeals or not. Property tax appeals. That's
property assessment appeals, isn't it? Number 11, the assessment, right? It just
says property tax, that's why.
Mhm.
I'm happy to move to approve and adopt the consent agenda minus item number five
a second. Ok. It's been moved and seconded to approve and adopt the consent agenda
minus item number five which we're going to discuss in some more detail all in favor
indicate by saying II I ok, that passes. So let's see, we
still have, I'll make one more call right now for public comment. If anyone would
like to make a public comment, you can hit the raise hand button or star nine.
Ok. We're still open. So if you are anyone with us, would you mind bringing me over
Caroline? Yeah, we, we have, we have some public with us six or seven. Um ok. Well,
ok. Did you,
did you want to reiterate that question? Heidi? No, I think it just if he's listening,
I'd say for Phillip's benefit, the time extensions on agreement seven and eight,
I know you guys are working on those and I know there was some um delay in the back
and forth between us and DNR. So I'm assuming that's why, why we're extending the
time on those two purchase and sale agreements. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't
miss misstating that.
Ok. Well, I guess we can take care of some briefing. Let's look back and uh, Carolyn
keep an eye out. If anyone does raise their hands, we can interrupt our, our briefing.
But hi dear Kate. You wanna start looking back and see how your last week was? Share
the details. Sure. I just need to get there.
Are you gonna go? I can. Yep. Ok.
All right
here with you all on the sixth. Of course. Um Tuesday had a really, really good
um workshop with the Puget Sound Partnership. So they have um been doing some work
with consultants and a AAA core team where they have modeled a number of different
factors. Um And, you know, these are scientists of various sorts, including social
scientists model different factors of how the Puget Sound region might grow. Um And
so, depending on land use patterns, how that would affect human well being salmon
population. Um you know, and it's, it's a model, it's their assumptions built into
it. Um But they ended up kind of creating three scenarios of what Puget and might
look like in 2080 based on kind of a, a status quo. Um for one, a
um kind of a more uh I can't remember what they called it, greater coordinate, more
coordinate, uh governmental land use. So basically like a state framework that, that
uh did more land use planning, uh you know, some status quo being just county by
county city by city, did their own planning ends up being a Yep. Yep. Ends up being,
you know, a bit of AAA patchwork. Um a more coordinate and then a highly coordinate
with um really all development going into urban areas. Um And the last one was presumptuous
in, in the uh Yeah. So it's like a G MA on steroids, kind of um you know, and that's
very much a bias built into it, you know, by saying, but, you know, they're just
looking at it. Yeah, exactly.
Yeah. Um And um the work, it was, this work was getting uh feedback from uh a wide
variety of stakeholders on Tuesday. That's what this workshop was. And so once they
incorporate some of that feedback, it will be released and, um, happy to share it
with you then. And I was certainly pushing back on some of the, uh, assumptions and
biases built into it which were, um, I'd say fairly, um, anti rural, um, without
recognition that, that, you know, people need to live in rural areas to produce food,
to produce fiber. Yes. Yeah. Um, so, um, you know, and there's a
possibility of doing rural differently just, you know, doing things, doing it the
way we do it now maybe isn't the best that growth management, you know, is actually
driving sprawl and if we could work towards a rural village model and density. Exactly.
Yeah. So, um, great, great discussion and really valuable work. So if you, I, I'll
try and pass on opportunities for you to hear about it. Um, yeah, it was, uh, really
inspiring and some good academic work that I haven't Greg, you get to explore academic
work right now. I do not, but this was so it was fun to spend a day thinking about
that. Um, had to miss the budget workshop at transit. Sorry. And I, I did let them
know I wasn't going to be there. I hope I didn't hold up, hold things up by. Ok.
Um Calendar was the biggest hold up. Oh, no. People thought it was an hour earlier
later. Yeah. Um That afternoon also had a conversation, Heidi, this will be of interest
to you. Um You know, ongoing concerns within the puget sound partnership about the
role of local integrating organizations. We of course, have two in Jefferson County
and um so I'm in my role there trying to help navigate um
figuring out that, you know, what are, what are the roles with the value of L I Os?
How can we better uh structure the organization to take advantage of L I Os? Have
them feel more empowered. And then also, I think the, the partnership and EPA are
also wanting more impact from them. They really want to see the documented impact,
you know, if, if investing more in them, what is, what are getting back? So pretty
existential conversation and that will continue for a while. The Leadership Council
is gonna take it up. So it's continue to be a um it's being elevated, that conversation
is being elevated to um really a policy level which I think it will be beneficial.
Um Wednesday State Board of Health meeting. Um Let's see, we um
oh yeah, the new, the new on site code. Um So um let's see, I didn't grab my,
my agenda from the meeting. I was sticking all brief uh at the uh at our Board of
Health meeting on Thursday about that. So, um let me think if there's any, any big
takeaways from it. Um
Yeah, there's nothing really, I don't think any significant decisions um, at this
meeting in part, waiting for the, the big on site, uh, hearing and decision which
the hearing is now in January. I don't know if I announced that previously, um, had
a meeting on Wednesday afternoon for the childcare center and Mark. Um, you and I
should connect with, um, Amanda and Judy and really nail down what we want, um, our
admin fee to be out of the, the two big grants that we're, uh supporting that project
with. Um, we did hear back from the city. They're gonna want a lot of um
development, street development, um, road improvements, um, which is
that? No, but sidewalk and, you know, full on curbs and, you know, there's even within
sidewalks, there's different um, requirements and this is, this is full, full on
maybe with some time to do it, but it's, it's a, a challenge, huge cost. Yeah. Um,
and we don't want to take that out of the grant for the, for the structure itself.
We can't. Yeah, I mean, we're at, we're at budget. So, um figuring out how to, how
to pay for that and would really love the city to help support that.
Yes, I mean, then they, their applicants generally have to pay for that stuff, but
we're gonna hold out and hope that, that they'll um, come to the table with some
ideas. Um uh Thursday morning, um spent with Carolyn and Ad and Kristen doing interviews
for the executive secretary position for Julia's position. And, um, so, uh, it is
in Carolyn's hands and, uh, hopefully we'll hear news in the next little while. Yeah,
we only interviewed two. yeah.
Yeah.
Um, uh, I'm not sure if either of, you know, I guess anyway, wasak held a session
to brief folks on the bylaws amendments that will be coming before, um, the membership
on Thursday morning. And I, I still, I believe we all have a
vote in wack. We have three votes, I think in the membership we do, but we'll have
to, we'll have to look that up again. I know. I know legislative steering committee
really well. And the membership less. Well. But is there a way to vote if you're
not there? It's virtual. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So, um, that's Thursday morning,
8 a.m. is that discussion and vote? But there's a, um, virtual option. Yes. And I'll
be on an airplane.
Yeah. Only for an hour. It's a short flight long meeting, but it's,
it's right at the same time. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it'll be a long meeting. I guarantee
it. Um Then Thursday evening had a fairgrounds meeting,
elected new officers as we are want to do after our annual meeting, um moved ahead
a few important projects. Um including the pump track, gave them the next green light
for their um uh design and engineering. Um The uh high school Ro
Robocop pi I believe they're called um the um robotics club at the high school. They
are um we gave them permission to use space um at the fairgrounds and also a um
sound production company um is very interested in leasing some space there. So I
also give them a green light to work on a formal proposal to bring forward. So some
exciting new uses. Um The all night dance party there a few weeks ago got a lot of
noise complaints. So we talked about how to mitigate um noise complaints and still
have it be a um a fun place for. Yeah, yeah, there's a production, a local production
company um hosted a kind of a 36 hour I think. Um
Yeah, I think the attendant were mostly younger than us. Um And but it was a, a local
producer and he was took it very seriously and had done a lot of um like he even
through the event, kept walking around the fairgrounds and testing the decibel levels
and really, he, he wants to be a good partner. Um So it's um he was very apologetic
to the neighbors that it was impactful. Exactly. Yeah, I said if only the Navy were
that um willing to cooperates on, on sound issues because we know how uh subjective
they are, people experience them very differently. And in this case, base is moves
through solid objects. I I learned a lot. Um So hoping we can continue, you know,
come to some agreement on how, how to mitigate that. Um And work with the neighbors
to keep them, keep them happy, but also wanting more use of the fairgrounds and that's
gonna have more impacts. So, um and then we were off Friday. It was a short week,
spent the weekend out at um LA Push, which is always so inspiring and beautiful.
So excellent. Yeah. Thank you. I'll make another call. I mean, anyone online that
would like to make public comment we'd love to hear from you can hit raise hand or
Star Nine if you're on the phone. Yeah, I'm still not seeing anyone. All right. How
do you want to take a look back? Sure. Um It's always astonishing to me the number
of written and phone calls I get personally and people don't show up to make public
comment there, be it. Um Let's see. So Monday was with you guys, of course. Um
Tuesday, I um Tuesday morning, I attended the Board of Natural Resources meeting
virtually and made a public comment regarding their Deep Wood, Deep River Woods Project,
which is the a huge um parcel that they're acquiring with some of the $83
million replacement land funding that we got through the legislature in the last
session um because it's super productive timberland down there. So, um
that was exciting and there was a lot of people there testifying in support. Then
I immediately transitioned things to Zoom to a um the working group. I'm on regarding
the organics disposals, the Department of Ecology Work Group regarding um
ordinances model ordinances around organic disposals in local waste programs. So
that's been an interesting discussion. And after that, that meeting, I emailed the,
the coordinator and I said, you have amazing subject matter experts on this work
group. I said, do you really, I mean, I'm happy to participate and she said, well,
your, your voice is important and there will be a time. So, so um it's been a really
good educational experience for me in terms of what's going on in other communities.
Um Then we had the JT a budget workshop. I'm super thankful for that team.
They are, I feel like killing it. Um Just, you know, with all the transitions that
have happened at transit over the last couple of years there, that's a solid team
there. Really grateful for Kingston connector is gonna be free in the budget. Yeah.
So yeah, and then there were I saw somewhere, an article about free bus services
nationally, a review of free bus moving to free, free, free.
I think a lot of agencies are looking at that met with a constituent in the afternoon
about the idea of being a participant in the UG A swap. He's very interested. He's
got land in the UG A that he would like out of the UGA. I bet I know who it is. Yeah.
So that was, it might be appropriately sized as well. Yeah, that was a, that was
a fun conversation. Um Then the MRC meeting Tuesday evening, Wednesday morning, I
attended my first work group meeting of the Carbon and Forest Management work group
that also came out of the $83 million proviso. Um And it was very much the table
setting meeting because it was meeting number one and it's a huge work group. I between
DNR staff and stakeholders, there's probably 30 people on the work group. So just
getting around the zoom room and doing introductions to have the meeting. But um
it'll be another set of interesting spicy conversations. I'm sure had lunch with
Amanda and Grants, which was awesome and talked with her about just kind of understanding
how, how grant's current, what, what her role is because I haven't really had a conversation
with her since she transitioned. And um and then how they're right now looking at
how um in the first quarter of 2024 they're really gonna dig into how incoming grants
and contracts for grants are managed in U in Muni, which is gonna be great because
it'll give uh more of a transparent look into how, where we're at with all the grants
and contracts. Um We talked about the idea of a work group around grants and, you
know, I, I know I've been kind of tussle tussling with this. Like, should we do a
workshop as commissioners? We just to make sure that our grantmaking processes are
as transparent and kind of
similar to each other as possible so that people know what to expect when they come
to the county seeking funds. And um I think the fact that they're the, the finance
team is doing so much work with Munis right now, I think we should kind of let them
do that work and then have a conversation so that that work is part of the conversation
that we have. So once they've transitioned grant management fully into Munis, then
we can have a conversation about, is it really, is it how transparent is it for the
grant seeking public? Um So I think that um maybe slow playing the idea of that workshop
a little bit unless anyone else feels hair on fire about that. Um
And then, you know, one thing that we talked about Amanda and I was um the idea that
I've been looking a lot at what other counties do in terms of like lodging tax funds
and how they actually budget for county needs parks. Um, and we might want to really
think about how we allocate some of our lodging tax funds. Are we gonna have a workshop
on all of our different funding agencies to see if we want to do some set aside budgets?
I mean, like with housing fund board too, I, I really, I mean, we defunded our emergency
shelter and that's something that is kind of our responsibility that we outsource.
So I think that this, uh we should have this about all of our funding organizations
that workshop, we've been talking about that. Right. I'm just wondering if the timing
of it might be better after they get their head around the management of it. Oh,
you're connecting it to that. Yeah, because, because Venus will be a tool for us
to show, you know, to, to manage funds, right? And so part of the transparency piece
could be further illustrated by understanding how the Munis piece is working.
I, I guess I don't, I don't, I see them, I don't, I don't see them as connected as
that, but I don't mind waiting. I guess I, I think that we have like there's fifth
grants going out right now too. So doing it in the middle of a process doesn't seem
like the right, the right course. But I don't, I guess, can you explain why the Muni?
Well, because it's a tool that we'll use to manage our grant funds. MS is right?
And Munis itself can uh elevate the transparency of certain grant making processes
both internally and externally in terms of reporting and you know, what interval
we want to do, reporting on grants or how Munis helps us with developing our grant
seeking processes. Um It's just a, a timeline idea when that. Yeah, I just said uh
first quarter of 2024 they hope to have that Munis piece. Yeah, I, I guess I misunderstood
what you're talking about when you were talking about grants, you're talking about
ex funding that we're doing, you know, not just big grants coming in and I'm happy,
I think first quarter 24 is like we, we, we've done all those processes so we can
start fresh. So I'm happy to wait until, you know, January or February. Ok. Um Can
we take a brief pause and take the public comment? All right, let's let's bring Mr
Cheers over for public comment.
Welcome Mr Tiers. When you get yourself unmuted, you have three minutes to make public
comment.
Ah There it is. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. Um I a couple of
things uh came to mind uh this morning. Uh First of all, I wanted to thank you again
for making the correct decision on not funding anything for the Trinity church folks
and for the good discussion that you had with them uh regarding that it was uh it
was actually refreshing to hear a little back and forth conversation for a change
instead of just uh a one way pronouncement from both parties. And that's it, conversation
is, is much better. And uh I would encourage you to, to do that for, for future topics
when it comes to public interaction. Um There was a lot of discussion uh last week
and, and previous meetings about uh projects that D CD is involved with and uh looking
at at what's going on with, with various uh options for housing and so forth. One
of the problems that um I'm running into is as you know, the permits database is
inaccessible. We can't see any permits uh being issued since uh you know, the end
of 22 because of these ongoing software problems with the new system. So I think
it would be useful to get an update as to when that's gonna be fixed, what we, what
we can expect because it, it's really hard to keep track of what the heck's going
on with the building department without being able to see building permits. And I
think that's pretty important public information and I don't wanna, you know, burden
your public records, people with records requests for that kind of stuff because
that just makes it worse because they've got to go to D CD to get the information
and yada, yada yada. So, you know, whatever we can do to accelerate that. And at
least give us some expectation for when it's gonna be resolved. That would, that
would be a very welcome information. Um The uh mentioned earlier about the new childcare
center uh running over its budget and the city wanting to have all kinds of extra
stuff for unexpected surprises coming up for funding needs. Uh For that does uh bring
to mind what you can expect to happen if you go ahead with the pool for the city,
uh you know that it's gonna exceed the budget, every project does and it's only gonna
be that much worse because that's such a huge project. So, you know, I, I know that
this afternoon the city is gonna be touring the facility and then having a workshop
hearing on, on the pool and I guess you're gonna have the same presentation in a
week. I would remind you that the city has yet to come up with the cost uh comparison
for what it would take to refurbish the existing facility. And without that baseline
number it, I think it's absolutely uh dangerous to proceed with any kind of uh uh
proposal to build a new facility until you know what it's gonna cost to, to fix up
the, the existing one. So that's the comment. Thanks. Thank you, Mr Tisch. And we're
at 930. So I think we'll pause the rest of your briefing and um any responses to
Mr Tush.
Um Let's see, since I'm most involved in both um pool and childcare center. Um let's
say, you know, part of why we build the hefty contingencies into projects like this
is expecting cost overruns. Um And I'd say in, in both cases, um you know, we are
waiting to, to, well, just continually refining budgets because nobody wants a failure.
You know, it is a, a, an absolute failure for government to, to screw up a project
like this. And um we have zero incentive to do that. We have a lot of incentive to
make these projects successful. So continually taking the best information, we have
to um to change uh to, to come up with these estimates and give the public the best
information possible. Uh One of the challenges with the existing pool and trying
to figure out the cost of repairing it is that it has been deemed unsafe to go underneath
the pool where much of the um uh you know, plumbing, yeah, operations kind of
take place under there and it is um uh you know, the city has been told it is too
unsafe to go under there. And so it's really hard to um take a look at repair um
options when it, it is unsafe, which, which, you know, then means having to excavate
and, and rebuild the whole thing from scratch uh underneath and then the, the roof
on it, which was added long after the fact the pool was built. You know, it was not
really uh built to, to be as long lasting as it is knowing that the bottom needs
to be redone, the whole top needs to be redone. That sounds an awful lot like a whole
new pool. Um, so, uh, stay tuned. That is largely, you know, out of our hands, the
city is doing that work and again, just, you know, continually refining the information
we have available and make available to the public,
anything to add the topics. No, I mean, I, I would just echo the question about the
permits database progress. I mean, I just get a lot of questions about that from
constituents. So I think getting a workshop on that fairly soon,
I do too. Ok. And I appreciate the note as well about back and forth being helpful.
It's kind of challenging in public comment especially, but maybe worth talking about
how we can facilitate that without kind of getting out of hand, which I think is
the reason we don't normally do it. And as time allows, you know, that was we, we
had the time last week to do that. And so yeah, trying to find reasonable accommodation
to make that happen is helpful. Ok. Well, thank you. Um I'll make a last call for
public comments and then seeing none closed public comments since we do have a 930
hearing scheduled uh for setting the 2024 ad val Arum tax levies for Jefferson County
levy in 2023. And collection in 2024. Um I will uh call this hearing to order and
welcome everyone to this public hearing regarding set in 2024 ad valorem tax levies
for the Jefferson County levy in 2023 collection. In 24. This public hearing is now
open. If you join this meeting via the phone and wish to provide hearing testimony,
please stay on the line and you'll be provided an opportunity to speak during public
testimony. Uh Before we open for public testimony, we'll listen to a staff presentation
assessor, Chef Chapman is present and to give this presentation on this topic. So,
uh and Laura Lee as well, I don't know who's gonna do more talking. I know, I know
who did more. Oh, yeah.
The other way, maybe I would just say for such a big,
I can't complain about the sun and for this weekend.
Yeah, I'm sorry. All right. Take it away, Jeff and Worley. Ok. I'm Jeff Chapman.
The county assessor and Laurie Kisel who does our uh who's our levy technician among
many other things. But at this time of year, she's the one who uh calculates up all
the levies that estimates, excuse me, that we give to the tax unit and work with
the taxing districts so that they have an idea of what they're allowed under the
statutory limits to collect. And then they just like today, like with the county
set their l these, they set the amount that they really want to collect and then
we turn around and work that in and come up with a final levy rate that will certify
at the end of the year to the treasurer. Um, now the county thi this today is about
the county levies which would be county, uh, general fund roads and conservation
futures and those are all regular levies and they're limited to 1% more than
fundamentally what you got last year. Um, plus another bonus from new construction.
So new construction is considered added value to the tax to the assessment roles.
And therefore you get added taxes from that. Um, plus you could get, uh, uh, some
from utilities, state assessed utilities. If they go up, you would get the difference
of the increase with state assessed utilities. Uh, we, we've just found out last
week was that our state assessed utilities actually went down, it went down about
3 million. So there won't be any bonus from state assessed utilities, but there is
some new construction. It's one of the best new construction years we've had since,
uh, 2015. And, um, and even then that was a particularly high year. So it's one of
the best we've had. And, and so there's another 1 1.5% bonus that's, you get from
new construction. So you get your regular 1% plus another 1 to 1.5%. Um, and then
we worked it up or Laura Lee worked it up and these are the figures that you see
today for this hearing is that the total County General fund levy, if you take the
full 1% would be 9,108,000 plus refunds. Uh
refunds are basically under collections from the prior year. Um You basically take
the net of what we thought in 2023 we would get from property taxes. We may have
got a little more from comp tax being paid. Uh That's basically property pulled out
of timberland or current use agriculture and they pay a tax on what they should have
been paying over the last 10 years. Had they not been in the program? And so, and
you also get under collections where basically people didn't pay their taxes or else
we make corrections corrections because we added senior citizens to the roles. Generally
you're at as a senior citizen. If you're applying to be to receive a senior citizen
exemption, you wind applying the year after you are qualifying for because you don't
have, you, you need to bring in your income tax information and you won't know that
until the next year. So what happens is we wind up adding seniors to the roles the
following year, which means correction. So we correct it and they get a corrected
tax statement. Um So that said the refunds are particularly high as you can see the,
the figure that Laura lease has here is $55,000 for refunds. Part of that is
because it was a major correction on the mill and we had certified the mill at a
much higher rate than what we eventually settled on with the mill for value. You
know, they were purchased by a different buyer, you know, by Atlas holdings. And
they, um well, there's a lot that goes into this, but fundamentally, they, they said,
well, wait a minute, the value you have on here, which is around 80 million is much,
much higher than what we bought it for and what we think it's worth. And I kind of
agreed is that, you know, we are inching up on new construction. We kept adding new
construction to their value and we're getting to a place where you're going. But
is the new construction really adding that amount, you know, the equivalent amount
of what they're spending? And so that was a reduction and that was about 36,000 of
this 54,000 was the mill reduction. So that's been settled, Jeff. Yeah, it's been
settled, but they're appealing again this year. So that new race. Yeah, they want
it down to, well, yeah, they want it down to virtually nothing. So, um, where did
you settle for last year? I assume that's part of that's public record. About 35
million and we brought it up this year to 40 million and we did have a Department
of Revenue advisory on it. The advisory came back and recommended like 80 million
with an income of 256 million. So they said you can go somewhere between 8256. We
went at 40 million and they, the, the mill wants it lower to 8 million.
Big range. Plus they're saying that the value of the plant itself was $1000. So,
yeah, it's a big range. So, somewhere between 1256 million. Yeah. Well, I'm sure
you'll dial in just right.
But I'm sure we'll come, you know, this is not unusual. There's a lot of mills before
the state right now to be hearing and this is not unusual at all and I'm sure it
will come in somewhere that is fair and reasonable. So I wouldn't worry about it.
The problem is it could take years for that to happen because it gets backlogged
before the state board of tax appeals. And while that backlog which could be multiple
years is happening, you've got these levies that we sat on an amount that's different
than what you may ultimately wind up with. And that's what you're seeing here. It
was great that they settled with us this last year. So we didn't have that drag on
because anything could happen this year. So it doesn't just go to the board of equalization
like a house or something. It is, it is scheduled for the board of Equalization.
The one last year was two or it should say last year by 2023 2022 for 2023. By the
beginning of this year, it was scheduled for the Board of Equalization and we settled.
Gotcha. Ok. And that could still happen. Um. Ok. Out of the 9 million, uh,
100 and 8000, we take veterans relief and mental health de de development disabilities
out of that. Um, because those are also part of the county levy and they get, we
basically have been adding to those at the same 101% every year. Um, plus new construction.
So they, we've been doing those proportionately, you could actually do those and,
and give more money to them, but we've been doing it proportionally, which is allowed
by state law. Um, there is, in fact, there was a bill this year. Um, House Bill 1022
is one of Mike Chapman's bill, which would give the counties the option of pulling
those out of the county levy and having them as separate levies. Um, there's pros
and cons to that, you know, that it didn't pass, but it's still theoretically in
play. It could come, come up again this year. Um, you know, I think part I didn't
like about it is, it also pulls them out of the 590. You know, it's a fun thing to
pull them out, but then everybody wants out of the 590 you know, whether it be the
conservation futures or these, everybody's trying to get out of the 590. And then
the question is, you know, the Port Pud in state schools are already out of the 590.
Um Conservation Fusion three out of 590. But the, the, the question becomes, well,
you know, if everybody wants out who's gonna be in. So that's what that was my question,
Anna Cesar's question with that bill to pull these out. Um, it basically mental health
development, death ability are running our levy rate is about half of what it could
be. And if it was pulled out then it could go up, it could double, but it's very
low. It's half a cent, right? For each one of those. So I think the, the statutory
limit is 11 cent, 11 and a quarter cent. So we're about half, about half veterans
relief is a whole different deal because it's also about half a cent. And, um, if
it was pulled out, the minimum would be 1.1 cent and it could be as much as 27 cents.
So it, for, so it's mainly for veterans relief that the bill would make, it could
make a big difference depending upon what the counties did. So do Jeff, do you know,
do other counties, um, like on the mental health item, for example, do they tax at
a higher rate than we do.
Yeah. Well, you can mental health. It can only be, well, basically they're both part
of the same levy, which is 2.5 cents. So they do. Um, some are higher, some are lower.
In fact, I looked that up for the current expense levy itself. I mean, we're down,
we're gonna be under a, do a dollar, we'll be at 99 cents and, um, it can be as high
as a dollar 80. And I remember when we were talking about the last time we were gonna
do a housing, they were worried about hitting the dollar 80. Well, we're, we got
80 cents. We're below that. You know, we're about half of that now. And I looked
at the arou surrounding counties and they're about in the same boat. Clallam, I think
is at 90 cents and, um, and kits apps around that too. Um, the fact they might have
been around 70 cents and then, you know, one of the southern counties was about the
same. So they're all running about half. Um, and that's because the 1% has been holding
the, the, the county levies down and, and it's hard to get a lid lift on a county
levy. King county uses lid lifts a lot more than, than we do. And they do it like
they have a parks levy. Right? And you look at a parks levy that they ran, you think?
Oh, well, that's a park and rec district levy or a metropolitan. No, it's a li lift.
They just quit calling it a li lift and, and that's like, it's a parts levy. Well,
it's part of that dollar 80 you know. So, um, so you can do that if you can run a
levy for a particular purpose. For a particular number of years. You, you, you have
to renew it if you do it that way and it comes out of that dollar 80. Um The advantage
to that is it, you know, the, the county is a senior levy, so it's protected under
the dollar 80. It's at the top of the line of the le so, so you, you, you can protect
one that way it can be a housing levy like we did, we tried doing it that way. That
was half the housing or it can be a park levy or it could be some other p special
purpose, but you have to run that as a levy lid lift in order to exercise the event.
Yes, effectively it's majority vote levy. It's a l they don't call it that, but that's
what it is just curious in the regional context, you know, what other entities are
doing. So, thank you. So, um and um, as far as so what you see here is
the maximum you can take, you know, you can a, you can, you can levy whatever you
want, but you're not gonna get more than this. Um, what, what Laura Lee has here
and then, so what the remaining for current expenses you can see is just under 9
million, um, road levy. Same situation maximum you get is, is this $5 million figure?
Um, that actually is a levy rate should be around 80 cents. And the maximum road,
I think to be is $2.25. So, and, and I, and I look at the other counties and that
is pretty typical 80 cents. 88 is what they're running at. Um, and then out of that
comes the diversion, you know, if you're doing a diversion. But, you know, and I
haven't heard of a Rhodes Lid Lift for, I mean, you can do one but I haven't seen
one on a ballot for a while, but you can do it, try running a Rhodes Lid lift. But
a, again you're running about 80 cents and you can go up to 225. Now, another thing
is that with the county, we said a dollar 80. Well, actually it's, if the combined
county and road cannot exceed 405, so you could actually go over the dollar 80. You
know, as long as, as, uh, when you add it with roads, it doesn't go over 225. So
of the, uh, there's also a refund, as you can see a refund amount of 36,000 for roads
29,000 as a mill, you know, was a mill corruption. So, you know, the
county levy includes the city, the roads levy does not. And so you're going in, in
the mills outside the city, so you're gonna see a bigger percentage there. And again,
I think we're asking 620,000, 620,000 for diversion. Yeah, I had a question about
that. Just, we've, we've been gliding it down from, I think 7 2019 and wondering,
yeah, it just, it's so max, you know, I just think about the, uh, the grant return
rate and, and roads and everything and, and, you know, we have to pay for the Sheriff's
out of General Fund anyways. Is there a possibility of continuing to glide this down
in, in future years? A little more? Right. Well, the resolution that the board adopted,
uh, setting the objectives for the budget this year called for the, um,
road fund diversion to remain constant at 620. Ok. With the commitment to look at
it for further reduction, um, if the general fund can afford it. And, um, with all
the, uh, baseline budget additions that the board is gonna approve, um, in December
and all the wage adjustments, I think it would be prudent to assess the results of
all of those before we reduce this, um, beyond where it is now. Yeah, that, that's
fair. Thank you.
Ok. And the last, uh, and again, uh, if you take out the diversion that leaves for
county roads 4.5 million.
And, uh, the last levy here is conservation futures and it max at the 1% brings it
at 278,000. Um, and you know, of that 1600 for
refunds, 1000 of that is, is Male Correction.
So, and with the 59 conservation features tend to, it's outside the 59, it's in the
constitutional 1%. So it's at the bottom of the constitutional 1% list. Ok. And we're
a long way from either. I mean, you know, the 590 we're down around $3. So we're
just over half the 590. So we've got, there's a lot of room, um, that's because values
of course, have been going up dramatically while our, you know, our 1% has not. So,
um the, the disc describe the, the difference between the 590 what we're actually
at has just grown and we're not collecting the maximum of what we could on conservation
futures. Correct? No, no, not conservation futures. I had looked up here somewhere,
we can get six cents is the max and we're at three cents. So again, it's about half
of what it could be. Six and a quarter is what the max, six of quarter says. That's
the one I'm most interested in looking at. Obvious.
Yeah, I think there was, especially as property values go up, you know, these conservation
projects cost more every time a new one gets put on the table these days. And yeah,
there was a bill that moved the conservation futures outside the,
the 1%. Yeah, outside the one statutory 1% which means you could just move it up
to six and a quarter council manly. Oh, wow. But it did not,
but that bill, what did not move? Oh, ok. But it could come back. But you're saying
we could, we have the statutory authority now to go to success. Now, now you're limited
to the 1%. So you have to go into a lead list to, to do it.
All right. Um And the rest of this is the back of the information is las work up
to show you what the estimate. And again, we're not telling you, you have to collect
this amount. We're showing you what you're probably gonna run into. If you try going
over this amount, you're gonna be held down to it.
Got it. Uh I guess that's it. Ok. Well, thanks for the uh the, the explanation, the
breakdown, all the work. Laura Lee as well. Thank you. Um It's good to know that's
probably the messaging we need to push, we're like half of 590. So uh we hear a lot
about this, any other clarifying questions before I open this hearing for, for any
public testimony? No, I just appreciate all the work and I like your little breakdown
and super helpful for me. Yeah, one question. Um you know, we, we work on a
preliminary budget before we do this hearing every year just to, you know, get it
in line. We have time to complete the budget. Um and I assume this um revenue amount
we're looking at is consistent with what we had budgeted for mark in the preliminary
budget.
Mhm.
I mean it's
just from a timing point of view. Um I know we work with your office but the exact
number that's in the preliminary budget, I don't know if I would have to check to
see if it matches this number precisely.
Yeah, I did look at it. It was fairly close. Ok, thank you. So when the board adopts
it, it should be, it should match precisely right. Ok, good question. Any others
we would, we wouldn't know until just now what we're working with because utilities
they can't pass state assessed utilities until we get them the we have to close to
the Boe get them the information um accept our ratio and then they come back with
state assessed utility. So that just happened. So we don't even know until then what
we're really talking about here. Um and our ratio went down by the way, it went down
to, I don't have it exactly before it was around 88%. So we actually went from over
90% and for the first time since I've been assessor, we dipped down to less than
90%. So we're down. And so which means we're at 80% of market value. Um So when people
say, and we raise values, so we raise values but not enough because we are dropping
in our ratio of, of assessed value to sales and we get a parte takes that ratio and
divides the state school levy by that amount. So the rate levy rate for the state
school levy rate will go up higher than it would normally have been if we had it
something in the mid nineties. And so you want, you want a fair assessment? It's
gonna get, it's gonna, they're gonna get you coming or going. Right. But I, I've
been seeing a number of people who are filing appeals and saying, oh, well, the values
are going down. No, they're not in Jefferson County going up. That is an unfortunate
truth right now. Any other questions? No, just to point out how low, I mean, that
veterans relief mental health each, you know, 51 $52,000 like it is so little to
do anything meaningful with. And that has increased. So anemically in the seven years
I've been looking at this and, um, you know, that, that goes, it didn't go far enough
seven years ago and it goes way less far today, discouraging given, you know, just
how much we value those populations and want to support them. It would be interesting
to look at the real impact of the costs, costs increasing and you know, across and
the the levy rate staying essentially very similar. Yeah. Yeah, the veterans that
were pushing the Mike Chapman.
Ok. Uh Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Laura Lee. As your elected officials, we want
to hear your testimony on this issue. Your testimony will help inform our deliberations
and decisions. I'll now open the hearing to listen to your public testimony. If you
join the meeting via Zoom, uh please click on the raise hand button and we'll bring
you over. If you're calling in by phone, hit Star nine to raise your hand and then
Star Six to unmute when you've been brought over. Uh if listening to the live stream
do remember to mute your playback. So as not to create feedback and when called upon,
please address your testimony to the board. Not to the audience, please be respectful
of opinions by others that may differ from your own. Since this is a hearing, please
identify yourself and where you live. Uh I'll now we don't have any uh public. I
assume no one here is testifying on the advi arm. We got folks queued up for the
next workshop, but anyone online, please hit uh the raise hand button or Star nine.
If you would like to give testimony on this, we have Sheri, let's bring Sherry Van
Hoover over
say her name and place of residence.
Oh, MS Van Hoover, if you'd like to make testimony. You're gonna have to accept a
promotion to Panelist. We'll try that again if anyone else would like to give public
testimony. Uh, here we go. Good guess MS Van Hoover. Thanks for being here. We'd
love to hear your testimony on this topic. You'll, you'll need to identify yourself
and where you live and you have three minutes to make testimony once you get yourself
unmuted. Hi, this is Sherry Van Hoover of Port Hadlock. Um I want to express some
concern about the deferred taxation of the mill through their appeals process, which
I recognize is a legal process. But, you know, as a private equity firm,
um which has, you know, all these private equity firms have, um, such a reputation
and history of wealth extraction from communities and, uh, and so often
manage to take away the resources that we need so desperately for our communities
without paying their fair share. So, um I just want to speak in support
of whatever it will take to make sure that the, the mill is taxed fairly relative
to the tax burden on homeowners in this county. Um Acknowledging that absolutely,
we need taxation to support all of the, the services that we need and desire and
that make for a strong healthy community. Thank you. Thank you very much, MS Van
Hoover.
Anyone else like to testify today, we'll hear all testimony before we deliver it.
You can raise hand or Star Nine. If you're on the phone.
I'm going to be one last call for public testimony. You can hit raise hand or star
nine if you're on the phone to give testimony on this ad volum hearing.
Ok, seeing no other hands or anyone in the room, I will uh close the testimony and
we'll turn it over to mark. Do you have a response to MS Van Hoover? Uh No, but I,
I just checked the uh recommended budget and the general fund, um, property tax revenue
amount in the recommended budget is $8,000,960. And that's,
yeah, that is $8420 higher than what's in the resolution today.
So, finally, a good ratio from the assessor's office. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. What's
in the budget is provided by the I, I think we could. So that's a pretty good guess
or pretty good professional. Very, very nice. It might be worth just pointing out
too that, uh, you know, this is the, the county's portion of property tax and, you
know, I always like to give little civic lessons on property tax. Of course, that
the um the state schools portion is a lot larger. We have, you know, a number of,
of uh school and um other other levies and bonds that, that contribute to property
tax. So we're just talking today about the county's portion. Correct me if I misspoke
there, Jeff. No, that's correct. I would also mention on mills that the two have
shut down in this last year in Washington State, you know, one in wall, a wall shut
down their, their pulp production. And then of course, the one in commencement, the
one in Tacoma shut down completely and it was valued, you know, the department haven't
had over 200 million on that one. And so, and so what's it worth once it shuts down?
They got a, so there is a distress going on in the pulp mills, particularly older
ones. So we're very much aware of that and, but we'll make sure that what we come
out of this is a fair assessment. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. And I, I, you know,
I think that's the, the tenor of the testimony that we heard too is just making sure
that it is fair and acknowledging the distressed situation of, of pulp mills especially
is, is, is part of that calculation.
Yeah, other, I guess it's time to deliberate.
That's,
I have no, um, I mean, solid work by our team
and I don't have any arguments. Yeah. No, I mean, with any of the presentation, I
mean, it's like to, to maintain our level of services. It's, uh, are there any counties
that, that don't traditionally go for the 1% that levy lower? You know, there are
a few that have, particularly east of the mountain they have or, um, the other, you
know, like the port or the Pud and, and even in our county have a couple of times
that the hospital have not gone for it because they say they want to go away from
depending on property tax to fees and services. What we find is when they, they may
do that for a couple of years and it winds up as bank capacity and then they come
back and take it all. So eventually the ones that have held back for a few years
wind up coming back and taking it. So yeah, even if we didn't, it would be bank capacity
that we could entertain. And as long as they pass that first resolution, they don't
have to, you can pass a resolution, authorizing 1% but not take the 1% then it becomes
bank capacity. Ok? Well, we have several resolutions in front of us. So maybe I just
just make a comment to that. Um You know, we, we hear a lot of frustration of people
feeling how, how tax burden this area is and um you know, Washington falls right
about smack dab in the middle in terms of total tax burden to its residents. Um And
um I hope that folks are hearing that there is more um more capacity to tax higher
and that we consistently choose not to, to hold it to the 1%. And um we we also are
the most regressive taxing system in the country number 50 in terms of regressive
50 being most regressive. Not good. Um, so, um, just some throw some context in.
Thank you. I have a number of friends who've left the county for these very reasons.
So it's interesting for which very reasons the tax tax policy in Washington State,
they've gone through more progressive taxation and left the state.
Ok. Well, if, uh, I don't think we have a lot of hard deliberations in front of us.
So if anyone would like to make a motion on the, uh, the first resolution, I'm happy
to, um, move that we pass a resolution in the manner of an increase in the Jefferson
County General Fund levy for 2024 taxes. I will second. Ok. It has been moved and
second to approve the resolution in the matter of an increase for the Jefferson County
General Fund levy for 2024 taxes. Uh, all in favor. Indicate by saying, hi, hi, hi,
pleasure.
All right, we have
on the roads. I'm happy to make a motion to approve a resolution in the matter of
an increase for the Jefferson County road levy for 2024 tax. I'm happy to second
that. All right, it has been moved and seconded to approve the resolution in the
matter of an increase for the Jefferson County road levy for 2024 taxes. All in favor.
Indicate by saying I
any opposed unanimous,
uh, I am happy to make a motion that we approve a resolution in the manner of diversion
of road levied for traffic law enforcement for the 2024 general fund budget. I have
a second. Ok. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the resolution in the
matter of version of road levy for traffic law enforcement for the 2024 general fund
budget. All in favor indicate by saying I any opposed. All right, that is unanimous
and I move to approve a resolution in the matter of an increase for the Jefferson
County Conservation futures tax levy for 2024 taxes. I'm happy to second that. Ok.
It's been moved and seconded to approve the resolution in the matter of an increase
for the Jefferson County Conservation futures tax levy for 2024 taxes. All in favor.
Indicate by saying I, I and he opposed, all right, also on that legislation in the
next veterans especially. Ok.
Um, say again, oh, we've got to approve. Oh, should we have done that first?
Ok. And so we also have the letter we need to approve, uh, the, the, the letter on,
on page two of the agenda request. My, uh, wheels are spinning on my
PDF document. I move to approve the letter from assessor Chapman regarding
the 2024 real and personal property levy amounts is the letter to the assessor. Oh,
it's from us too. We, we, yeah. Right. Yeah, I think that was the ok to, uh,
excuse me to assessor Jeff Chapman. Um, I'll second that motion on our letter to
the assessor. All right, it's been moved and seconded to send the letter as, as presented
today to the assessor. All in favor. Indicate by saying hi, hi, hi. Hi. All right
and opposed. That's unanimous as well. Great. Well, thank you guys for all your work.
Really appreciate it. Thank you. And this, this hearing is now closed.
All right. Um, does anyone need a break before we dig into the next work? Ok. Come
on up Barbara. We got another cascading uh workshop here trying to drown you in paper.
Oh, yeah.
Can uh Sheriff Noel from the sheriff's or Jen? Ok. Ok. Come on up. We'll, we'll go
and order. Yeah.
What do we need presentation? Ok. Um I can put it up. I, I get
to the right one. I just want display with the Navy Capture. So I can, you can email
it to me. I can, I'll download it and it's fine.
It is. I mean, it's still a PDF, right? Barbara? You didn't send a powerpoint. Well,
I sent it to Caroline as a PDF. Ok. I can, I can send it to, I can share
Greg sharing it.
All right. So just guide me through if I don't uh feel your cues. Very good. All
right. There it is. All right. All right. So take it away. Tell us why we're here.
Barbara. Ok. Uh Well, as you know, um, about uh F five months ago, there was a
ordinance approved having changing our fee way. We do fees. And so, you know, traditionally
we did them by ordinance. And, um,
although there were some exceptions to that, I found out that some departments did
them different ways. And, um, as a result, we ended up with a lot of fee schedules
in the code that are antiquated and not used and actually inaccurate.
Um, and so the idea today is to clean up some of those for at least five
departments. There are more, but, um, these were the ones I could manage to wrangle
this time. So we've been through this process before on the parks fees and then the
solid waste fees, all the public works fees have been done now. Right. No, no, they
have right of way fees that they have not yet updated, although I've encouraged them,
but, ok, so solid waste previously. So we can go ahead to the first
slide. Mm. So today we have five different ordinances
and five resolutions and we're just here in workshop for, to sort of get you familiar
with what's happening. So you didn't end up with a big pile of paper like this and
wondering what am I supposed to do with all this? Um, so we have the county auditor,
the County Sheriff Public Records Act Administrator, spirit Court clerk and um, environmental
health, all in this package. And we have representatives from each of the departments
today. We've got Jen Moore from the sheriff's office. We have Brenda back here auditor
and then Laurie Bailey from Spirit Court Pinky up there on the big screen from EPH.
Um, and I guess Ken's not here but, um, there aren't any changes to his fees. So,
um, so again, we're doing this because you can go to the next slide because of the,
uh, the ordinance that was passed back in June to allow for a more streamlined way
of adopting fees, more transparent and you know, to clear up confusion over fees
that may reside in the code versus fees that the departments actually use. You know,
as you recall, we have AC P I index which we allow fees to increase every year. So
that's one of the reasons why the fees that sit in the code, um, don't reflect what
the departments are actually charging right now. Some of them were so outdated, I
mean, decades outdated, as I remember there were some in the nineties. So I really
appreciate this work and the move to more towards more transparency on these fees
because it makes it so much cleaner and clearer for the public. That's the goal.
Um, ok, so next slide. So we're here again, just to remind you, we have to have you
adopt an ordinance that eliminates the existing fees from the code. And then, um,
you also have to adopt a new resolution at the same time, which establishes the fee
schedules for the departments, um, by resolution. And then from here on out, they'll
be able to just do them by resolution rather than going through this dog and Pony
show. Every time I have to say it kind of seems like the first act of a horror movie
a little bit with the, you know, the, the prescription that has to come, but I'm
willing to entertain it. Ok. And then one more thing to be aware of is because of
the way that I have, um, done these ordinances. I've amended the appendix fee
schedule in a progressive manner. So the auditor is first in line, the sheriff is
second pr a administrator is third, Kenny clerk is fourth and public health is fifth
and that corresponds to the way the amendments show up in the ordinance so that we're
all hunky dory on how we, uh, amend the appendix V schedule. Once this is
done, I think there will be, there's D CD fees still remaining in there, which is
waiting a fee study they're working on. And then, uh, we'll have, we have some Humane
society or animal control fees that we need to deal with and a part and then the
public works right away and I think that will be it for the appendix fee schedule.
Ok. So, um, this is the part where I get to turn it over to everybody else.
Um, and to talk about what changes are appearing in these ordinances and,
or actually resolutions. Um, and how they compare with what we have today. Can we
go out of order in the presentation since Jen's already sitting there? Ok. Yeah.
Well, and can I ask a question too? Which is that, um, are we going to redo? I mean,
I think a hearing is a place for this level of information for the public or are
we going to redo all these presentations for the actual hearing? Um, we can do whatever
the board said. Makes perfect sense. Ok, wait for these presentations, uh,
or maybe just AAA brief, you know, I, I mostly just don't want you all to have to
repeat yourselves. Um, and knowing that it should be done in the public for the uh,
in the hearing for the public's benefit. Yes. Is there a, yeah, if you want to do
a brief, maybe just a brief summary from each department. Yeah, just trying to save
you all some effort. Sounds good. All right. No changes. Yeah, we don't have any
changes, the fees for the civil office and the sheriff's office haven't changed.
Um, there was a few minor corrections that needed to be made based on what was in
the county code and our system. But, um, Barbara got it all taken care of, so we
don't really have any changes. Ok, great. Thank you, Jen. Thanks for being here.
All right, Ford. Do you want to come up and uh, go over the minor changes or did
I already did I steal your thunder?
No. Um, just the minor changes were, um, we added maps because we just,
we, um, talked about surveys in the code and maps. We, uh like the city is talking
about developing a new map that we're going to record. So we wanted to add maps.
So it would be easier. And then, um, the first, the basic first page is $25. It always
was um what we're adding or the minor changes. Each additional page was $5 for a
survey, but not for a, a plat, a short plot, a long plat, a subdivision. So we're
adding it just so it's consistent because, uh you know, when surveyors or landowners
are trying to divide their property and we're getting the check, sometimes it's incorrect.
So we wanted to make it all the same. So each and of course, this is just the county
part, there's other fees with recording surveys or maps. So adding the additional
$5 for each additional page for all maps, not just surveys, um
copies that is actually done in the assessor's office. And I went and asked them
what they're actually charging because I don't think they even knew about this ordinance.
So they are charging $5 for the first page and each additional page a dollar previously,
it said $3 in the ordinance or Yes, yes. So we're, we're making it consistent with
what they're actually charging. Ok. And then record of monuments, it said $2. Well,
the, for, for any copies from our, um, office recording recording is a dollar
page and those monuments are two pages, they're double sided. So we just thought
we, we would make it consistent to what we actually charge for any recorded document.
A dollar page. Ok. Ok. And how do fees that are, uh, external, you know, passport
fees or something? Dol fees? How do those get updated? They just are updated separately.
Yes. Yes. So this was just, yeah. So all of our recording, well, our recording fees
and we, we're hoping to make this one of, um, effective January 1st because our recording
fees are going up $100. Um, so a lot of it is by different laws. So, uh, and passports
are set by the Department of State. They used to be $25 for each one we take. Now
they're 35. So I don't know how they analyze that and when they decide to increase
it, but that has been increased in the last couple of years.
That, that is a change we're gonna need to make in the ordinance right now. It says
effective immediately. And, um, so we wanna talk about it and realize it would be
better for them to have it. And I don't know what the other departments think about
that, but you might consider whether that's an issue I know with Uh EPH, we already
have that at January 1. Yeah. Ok, thanks so much, Brenda. Thank you. Good to see
you. All right, we don't have Ken and, and so yeah, I guess lady come on up. Oh,
Ken. Well, let, let, let's start. Bring is Ken already over.
Why don't we can want to accept a promotion if you can? And we'll start with Laurie
in the clerk's office. Um, so we also did not have any major changes. There was one
um fee that we have not been charging at all. It's the electronic um court records
management system, access fees. We, we have not done that. So I'm not sure how it
came part of the code. So I think it was um 2019 or 2017. I think when we went into
Odyssey, our records have stayed with Laser Fish and our records are not with the
state. So parties need to come to us to access laser fish. So that's why I probably
was set up to do, but we have not, and it's a free system, right? It is, it is a
free system. That system is, is cost money, right? Well, it's not truly free. They
still have to pay for copies. So, right. But it's not a free, a free access, right?
And the other fees that we have that are by code, we're already charging them within
our fee schedule. So great. Thanks so much, Laurie. Thanks Laurie. All right. Ken.
Do you want to speak? It looks like you have no changes. I don't know if you want
to speak to it. Yeah, I'm here. Um, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Yeah.
No changes. I thought there might be changes but there, it turned out that there
weren't, um, the, the only reason I thought there might be was, um, was having to
switch the, uh, the provider for, um, for online payments for, for records
through our, through our records management system. But, um, so there's gonna be
a change in the, in the, uh, like a transaction fee or a surcharge. Um, but
it's, it's small enough, I think, I think we'll be fine. So we, we're not proposing
any modification of the, of the records fees for now. Great. Thank you so much, Ken.
And I saw, yeah, thank you. I, I saw Pinky before but I'm not seeing her now or is
a Lisa with us? Does anyone from EPH want to talk to their fees or?
Hi, can you hear me? We can hear you? Yeah. Ok. Um, yeah, Pinky was on and her computer
crashed. So you find me in here. Yeah, here she is. Just a moment, please.
Sorry. Um, technical difficulties. We've all been there. It's ok. So where are we,
where you were? You know, we just heard how no one else is increasing any fees, but
go ahead and talk about your 6%. Ok. Thank you. Great segue. Thank you, Commissioner
Brotherton. Um, yes. So we haven't, um, increased fees since COVID other than, uh,
the CP I. And so, um, since 2020 there's been a 19%
increases in wages. And so what we're asking four, right now is the CP I, which is
3.56 and then on top of that, just to cover the wage increases, um, 2.45%
So that it totals up to 6.01%. And that's what we're asking for. And py, we, we heard
that maybe we're talking about 1124 for making these changes. Is that what? Yes,
EPH is thinking. Yes. So, starting in January of 2024. Ok, great. And there's no
additional complexity that the Board of Health is kind of the regulatory agency that
approves these fees or anything. Right? Is there any difference there? So, we're
gonna, the hearing will be a combined joint hearing, um, between, uh, Bocc and, uh,
Board of Health on the 27th. And we understand that we need a quorum and that part
of the new Board of Health makeup and the, um, the rules that it's the, the voting
members of the city and the county and I had all that pulled up on my computer. But,
um, I don't have my computer.
Right. So, it's not the consumer, uh, members of the Board of Health anymore. Correct.
It's the elected officials that vote on the actual fees. Yeah, and that, that includes
not including Commissioner Cole from the hospital district. Ok. Ok, great. Uh Thank
you very much, Pinky. Any questions? No. Ok. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Questions. Are we done with the presentation? Stop share?
Ok, so thanks for dipping our toes into that and we will go
back to the agenda. So we have a resolution to call a hearing. Is that what we got
you guys uh, feel comfortable? Yeah. Yeah. And I, I do think it is, it's probably
confusing for the public when they hear us saying no changes. But you know what we're
doing is giving ourselves the authority to take out of code, this patchwork of um
of, of fees that are inconsistent, very hard to change. So even though we're saying
no change, it's really just uh changing the code. So I'm just wanting to state the
obvious again because it's even I who have been in this for a number of months with
Barbara, I had to, I was like, what if there's no changes? Why are we doing this
change in the process? But I'm happy to move to approve a notice of public hearing
for the 2023 public fee changes for the county auditor scheduled for Monday, November
27th at 10:30 a.m. Auditor at all.
Oh, right. Yes. Do you want me to read the whole notice? Let's do it. Ok.
Motion to approve the notice of public hearing 2023 public fee changes for the county
auditor, the county sheriff, the public records administrator, the county clerk and
the Department of Public Health Environmental Health hearing on Monday, November
27th, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. And I'll second that motion. Ok. It's been moved and seconded
to approve the notice of public hearing on 1127 at 10:30 a.m. for the fee changes
for various departments all in favor. Indicate by saying hi, hi, hi, hi in the post.
All right, that's unanimous. Thank you all for taking time out this morning to be
with us. It's good to see everyone. We'll see you again on the 27th, I guess.
Thank you. Thank you. Oh,
ok. So this takes us to the,
yeah, let's, let's recess for 10 minutes. We'll come back at 1035. Hm.
Recording in progress.
Ok. I will call us back into session at 1035 and we're going to kind of rearrange
our schedule as mentioned earlier. So we're gonna readdress, uh, item number five
from our consent agenda and then we're going to move our, our, uh, afternoon executive
session, um, subsequent to that. So Commissioner Eisenhower can go get on a plane
to the county conference. Uh, so, um, thank you for being with us, Sarah, of course,
and we're so we got some questions, I guess about the contract with Bron consulting
in the in the light of the new, the new responsibilities that you and Mark have taken
on consulting. So, ok, you want to kind of walk through it? Sure. How does this compare
also to the existing contract? Is it the same? No, this is not the same, the existing
contract I believe was for five years. Mark, you can correct me if I'm wrong. And
so, yeah, and so, uh this contract would be for 18 months and
the intent of that is to carry us through the bargaining cycle with our uniformed
employees which begin um sometime next year, probably the middle of next year. And
um Bob Braun is used as a resource to make sure that we're compliant with legal administrative
issues surrounding the collective bargaining process. And um this year, we used a
different model where uh Mark and I were the face of Jefferson County in the collective
bargaining process. And in that process, we've been quite successful so far. Um And
this has taken place in collaboration with Mr Braun. Um I work with him to
review the um the draft red line CBAs to ensure language is appropriate
um to understand the uh strategizing the bargaining process. Um He's
also used throughout the year um when we have progressive discipline and for issues
with any questions regarding um the kind of the human resources function. And
um yeah, I don't know if there's any specific questions about the, when I was talking
about how does this compare to the previous contract? Not just the duration of it,
but what is, was it always a $2500 retainer? Is it? Ok. So it's kind of maintaining
the, the, uh, the relationship? But for 18 months, instead of five years, there's
language in there also about special projects and 2 25 2 25 an hour in the event
we have a special project. Um, I think the last time it was when we did the uh salary
study
questions. Thoughts. Yeah, I, I guess I, I have, I have felt ready to go in a different
direction and I this falls into a gray area for me of understanding kind of who,
who decides on um this function. Um And so I don't know, does anyone have any, any
clear understanding of either past practice or I don't think there's anything in,
in, I don't think we, we have anything in resolution or anything about um or in job
descriptions of where this falls, but I would welcome that information if there is
any,
you know, does it like, it would kind of seem to fall under hr it would, it would
fall under hr and that's the model that a lot of uh agencies are using now. And um
also in agencies that use the HR model, they also have retainers where they have
a uh hr attorney or somebody with that expertise uh to get that
legal input. Um because of the nature of the contract and the uh implications to
the jurisdiction. Um I wanna say it just, it makes sense to me because we're so new
into our new model, right? That I can see wanting more of a transition between where
we were and where we're going and having the, the legal resource and the knowledge
on hr issues because we don't have them, us three. Right? I mean, and, and that,
that's precisely why we went with the 18 month contract and the bargaining units
that we're going to sit down with next year are the binding arbitration, bargaining
units, right? Interest arbitration. What that means is that um, if we can't come
to an agreement with those units, then the questions go to interest arbitration
and um the arbitrator in those instances have the power to make any um
decisions based on um regarding wages, working hours or working conditions. And it
does take away a lot of the power from the legislative authority, which is why um
we're recommending that we have, we continue this assistance. So, are you talking
about an RFP for a different consultant or whether you, yeah, that would be my, my
interest in, in large part because um I think that we have generated a goodwill,
it, a lot of goodwill with employees by, by moving in this new direction and um kind
of re upping or doubling down on the, the old system. I, I, I just feel like it sends
the wrong message when I think we have really wanted to see some change in, in the
collective bargaining process. Um So, II I wanna be respectful of staff's wishes
and, and try to understand the, um you know, kind of, whose authority this would
fall under. Um you know, we are ultimately responsible for collective bargaining.
So I don't know if, you know, I, so yeah, I um appreciate the work Bob has
done, but I actually did not feel like I was very uh well represented in um in my
kind of policy direction and desires and working with him. And so, um I'll just state
my, my interest would be to go out for an RFP, find a new partner to work with um
in collective bargaining that, that serves the same purpose. But,
and, and you guys are interesting, OK, which I mean, we could flesh this out more
in, in, in conversations, one on one and see if we can come up with something. And
if, if, you know, if this is really truly within your authority, I don't want to
usurp that. And um I just don't, I don't know. Um Well, my sense is that um we've
accomplished our, the objectives that we, we set out for this bargaining uh round.
Um The negotiations have been collegial, I believe and um very effective and um
I think it's um advanced the cause of uh management, employee relations quite significantly.
Um but if the board wishes to issue an RFP and go a different direction, well, that's
what we'll do. I feel like you guys have done a killer job in this last year. And
I, I feel like if this is the, the path that you see us going, if it's 18 month contract
that I trust that it's the right path. So, I, I don't feel I need to go in a completely
different direction because this is a bridge to somewhere that we know where we're
going. Yeah, I tend to agree with Heidi, I guess a couple more questions. I mean,
do you think that, I mean, is the retainer appropriate, you know, as are we, as we
wean ourselves into more independent hr is, is, I mean, are you using 11 hours worth
of Bob's time a month? Yeah, he's, he's reviewing every contract that we put together
um back and forth. I'm, I'm completing um at least one or two
versions every, um, every month after we're bargaining and also,
um a lot of phone calls um regarding disciplinary issues, um uh
behavior, correction law interpretation. Um And so that's all in the background and
that's the intent is to keep that in the background and um have hr as the face of,
of our relations with our employees as well as in collective bargaining that obviously,
I think we're all huge supporters of that change. I think it's worked really well
and I guess different than Kate. I, I think some of the lack of representation of
the, like the board's drive or direction was not so much Bob who is re really willing
to kind of has, has demonstrated quite a bit of range over, over the uh strategy.
I think. So. I don't know. I'm, I'm pretty inclined to go with the recommendation
of the folks that are interfacing just because it does seem like it's moving in the
right direction now. I don't know. Um any more tops K then. Mm No,
I'm just unlikely to support it. I think we would do better to find another consultant
personally. Um And, you know, I've probably been through one additional round of
um of collective bargaining uh that had more interaction between the board and the
consultant. So um you know that I'm, I'm maybe calling on some, some more um
experience than you guys have had in some, some frustration long term. I hear
that. I mean, I just feel like our team now says this is the, the path they wanna
proceed forward with. So I, I trust that this thing. Yeah. Mhm.
Um Yeah, I don't know. Are there other thoughts before we vote on this? You wanna,
you wanna delay? I mean, you suggested maybe having private conversations. I mean,
we can kick this a week if we want to have some private conversations and dig in
deeper, I'm willing to delay it a little bit if you'd like Kate to.
Yeah. Can we put it off a week and um, have an opportunity to talk about it. I, I
don't, you know, relish talking about people's performance in public session. Um,
ok, we'll, we'll bring this back up next week, but thanks for digging into the broad
strokes with us. Thank you.
It seems like there's a fine to put it on consent. I think there very well could
be discussion about it but
great. Well, thank you. Um All right. Uh, next topic we're gonna go into our exec
session scheduled for three with, let me find the script here,
Miss Sarah. So we are going into an executive session to review the performance of
a public employee. No discussion of salaries, wages and other conditions of employment
to be generally applied within the county. No final action on the hiring setting.
The salary of an individual employee or class of employees or discharging or disciplining
an employee exemption is outlined in the open Public Meetings Act RCW 42.30 0.1 10
parentheses, one parentheses G will be joined by the human resources director. We're
going in at 1050. We'll come out at 1120.
Can you say that again? We're going in at 1050 coming out at 1120.
Ok.
Recording stopped to
think,
see a recapture going out, recording in progress.
All right. Well, call us back into open session as a reminder we were in executive
session. To review the performance of a public employee with no discussion of salaries,
wages and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the county.
No final action on the hiring setting, the salary of an individual employee or class
of employees or discharging or disciplining an employee exemption is outlined in
the Open Public Meetings Act RCW 42.30 0.1 10, parenthesis, one parentheses G we
are joined by our human resources director. We are coming out of that with uh no
action taken. And uh we've got, I guess the 40 minutes to conclude briefing and
we'll probably wrap, I guess after our um discussion and possible action about the
uh um site specific comp plan and U DC amendments. And I don't know, just to note
for the, yeah, after in the afternoon, um just as a clarification of the public,
we had some issues with that, that attachment over the weekend, it's been corrected,
the full full document is in there now. So we'll take that up at 130. Um So
Heidi, I think you were in the middle of briefing. Do you wanna, I think I finished
that up Tuesday or something, Wednesday half the day. Um I was, yeah, we were
talking about um my lunch with Amanda and talking about grants and so I think I've
gotten through that. Um
uh In the afternoon I attended remotely the Carbon Friendly Forest conference
um and co presented with um I swear, I erase the desk every week,
Cindy Jane on the city County climate plan. And I think it went really well. I mean,
I, I was a little nervous cause I haven't been involved as involved as UK but um
I did a bunch of reading and got up to speed and realized that a lot of the work
that I have been doing with the carbon proviso and the legislative session and all
that studying, I had to do around that. And then a lot of the forestry work here,
a lot of it comes down to forests and that was the, the focus of this presentation.
So, um it went well. Yeah. Yeah.
No, it was good. We were um and then Thursday, um I spent the
first half of the day at the che um pt a volunteer fair, which was,
which, which is um students have uh the opportunity, the requirement to um do a
certain number of hours of volunteer service. It's 55 is the minimum in their four
year tenure of high school. Um I it was funny that the popcorn around the room was,
I heard it was 100 and 30. I heard it was 55. I heard it was 200. And so I finally
went up to the woman who had organized the event and I said, OK, can you, can you
clarify this? So 55 is the minimum and then at 100 and 30 is when the merit levels
kick in and 200 is the gold, 200 hours is the gold gold level. Yeah, over four years.
And is that determined by the school district or there's a service requirement for
graduation? Now, I believe. Yeah. No, the 55 is the requirement.
Every high school has to do that. I believe. So. I didn't know it was a state requirement.
I thought it was a school district
but you're, you're speaking as a parent. So um so anyway, it was, it was, you know,
a lot of the uh I also attended last fall, the, the Employment Fair. That was a similar
event. A lot of the same organizations, the Maritime Center, you know, the organizations
that recruit volunteers in the community where are represented and the room was full.
I mean, there was a lot of folks and it was great to catch up with. Um I mean, I
feel like when I do things like that, I'm like I need to be out in the community
more. It's not really like there's the option for that with all the meetings we have.
But um I really appreciate being out and talking with folks and just having informal
conversations. So empower,
empower teams, coalition and Yeah, yeah, so that was good transit. Was there? Transit
was there? Um We're hoping to get a youth um seat. Yeah. Yeah.
Citizen Advisory Group, Transit Advisory Group. We changed the name, I'm transit
Advisory Group. Yeah, let's see. So then um in the afternoon I had a meeting with
a colleague from DNR about our presentation that we're giving on the 15th on Wednesday
at the Wasat conference. So that was good. And um so Sarah will be over there and,
and Duane Emmons also from DNR will be with us on Thursday in Spokane. Um
Hold on, let's see, Wednesday, that's Wednesday. Then I had the clean water district
meeting. Um I left that meeting early to join the was a federal issues meetings.
And you know that that was, I've, I've been part of that conversation for a couple
of years that um where they set the agenda for um was a counties
who then go to DC or share with their congressional delegation. The issues that WASAK
is paying attention to and I feel like they're really good conversations because
it's a diverse representation of members who are part of the agenda setting. Um We
actually got some harm reduction language in the federal agenda. We, I worked a lot
on the housing priority, um worked closely with Kilmer's office on what pieces of
legislation we had included last year and where they were now. And so got a lot of
updates on those and then also some new housing policy that's being proposed in Congress.
So it just felt it feels like a productive um table within the Wasak family, um attended
business after hours, which is also another good informal forum to counter programming
to the chamber. Yeah. And it's, I've been to a bunch of them. Yeah, they're good.
I think they're good. Um, and I did not take Friday off. I, I did take time to go
get my booster with my mom and then went out to the Northern Store to talk with folks
out there about the plan for reopening the northern, north Northern Store. There's
a good coalition of folks have come together um to serve as they're, they've reformed
as a cooper. So they're gonna hope to be open by um the end of April beginning of
May of 24. So um I think they will mostly wanted to brief me so I could help them
with any permitting. Hang up. Say, well, what is the status of permitting? Um They've
got applications in and I just got an email I saw this morning from Jim Nuremberg
with the documents that they had submitted. So I don't really know exactly what the
status is, but they have a few steps um to get through, but it feels, it feels, it
feels doable to me. Not at, they were at a, some sort of roadblock or logger heads.
I don't feel like they're, they're not at an impasse. Yeah. Um Then I went on KPTZ
for our weekly show with Tanya Barnett from Y MC A Joe Almay from the Nest and L
360 Denise banker from public health to talk about the empower teams, coalitions.
And the um the focus was programs for teens in our community. And I just, my mom
was listening, I made my mom proud that day. She was just, you know, she's like,
I didn't know all that. And I said, well, that's, that's what these radio shows are
for, to get the word out to the community. So I felt like it was a really great panel
and I had three questions written for each of those three ladies. And I only got
through my first question. They have so much to share and there's so much going on.
It was really good. Yeah. Came back here and logged in for the NACO public Land
Steering Committee monthly meeting and it was on the holiday and I learned that um
there's a bipartisan pil permanency bill moving through Congress right now, which
has happened before. So it's, we'll be watching that one closely though. Anything
moving through Congress at Congress, maybe. No. Yeah, I plan to keep the government
open. Yeah, I think that's the big, the big elephant in the room right now, right?
The 18th, they're talking about a government shutdown. So that was my last week.
Ok. Um I'll take a look through mine. Let's see. Of course, Monday with you guys
had a meet meeting with Laurie Fleming to kind of uh talk about the landscape for
the Behavioral Health Consortium meeting which we had on Thursday. So that's still
continuing. They're looking for more money. I think Jefferson healthcare is getting
more involved too and maybe we'll um provide services for the Behavioral Health Consortium.
Um but excited about that. So, another fundraising opportunity on the horizon there
um had some resident meetings Tuesday morning and then was with you guys at the,
but, well, I was with Heidi at the budget uh workshop. Um Yeah, really strong group
over there. I mean, it's, there's a, it's nice to have uh such healthy reserves,
but um I, I think they're approaching everything with really appropriate strategy,
you know, kind of protecting it and, and uh you know, baby steps forward. So I am
glad to see another electric bus on the uh on the horizon and yeah, it's, it's, it's
going really well uh or a meeting was canceled uh because we can, we have 10 meetings
a month, I mean, a year um met with the Quilcene Skate Park group again and uh they
have gotten fiscal sponsorship set up with stronger towns now and they're very excited
about the RCO grant that I talked about with you guys last week. So we kind of went
through the details there and they're gonna, you know, go to the webinar on, on the
14th of December and apply for that grant. So they're really excited. Um had a bunch
of cap stuff on Thursday that was uh I don't know, it's, it's uh some, some chaos
going on, you know, kind of wash a after action on the, the RFP, uh, the Housing
Fund Board and everything. So it's just, there's some turmoil going on but our new
hr director is really strong. So I think we've been a really, uh, at O at O cap being
a really positive, uh, impact both up and down the chain of command. We have lost
our, uh, finance director there. I don't know if you go. Um, it feels like
it feels like the C game. Right. Yeah. Well, you know, that one, they were, um, perhaps
Underqualified. So it was kind of, we've got, you know, really struggling to get
a, a, an agency wide budget together basically. So it's, it's really a challenge,
um, continue to ask folks to do stuff outside their job descriptions. Yeah, it's
a little bit of a struggle with some of the contracts that have been lost and I had
to re re uh, we hired the nutrition director and a couple other kind of key roles.
So there's some, some, uh, internal struggles going on. But, uh, the hr director
there is, is doing a really good job, uh, keeping the ship moving. Um, BHC is going
great, uh, and then it was off Friday. It was pretty late week for me last week.
Um, Mark, how did your last week look a short week? Um, of course,
Monday with the board and Friday off for Veterans Day. Um, number of meetings
with, with staff and others uh senior management team on Tuesday morning, a team
at two in the afternoon and then a coordinate meeting with Brent Butler and Josh
Peters um on Wednesday, um kind of an open
day. Um Lots of time for me to work on a variety of things. Um starting to put together
the budget presentation for the first Monday in December, uh issued the RFP for lobbying,
um working with Ben Bauermeister on the contract for the skateboard park in Quilcene.
Um uh Thursday, the Cindy Brooks Ceo Breakfast. Um
And then my one on one with uh Josh Peters and then I met with Sherry Mullen project
manager for inter gov. I will um get her scheduled to make a presentation to the
board, a workshop on, on GOV. Still quite a few issues we're dealing with. Um We're
investigating migrating to the cloud uh which will relieve a fair amount of pressure
on our local it staff. Um And we'll simplify change management and migrating inter
gov to the cloud. Um Yeah. Uh We do have an interface with laser fish that we need
to investigate. Um maybe migrate all of the laser fish documents into the into gov.
Um because there's a content management capability within GOV. Um So a lot of really
difficult issues we're, we're still working on. And then uh Sarah Melanson arranged
some anti bias training in the afternoon uh on gender and inclusivity um hour and
40 minute training, uh, very well done. Um, we had four of my senior managers there,
uh, along with me. Um, and then, so that was pretty much it for the week. The trainer
said it went well too, which is always a good sign,
lots of humor and he's great, really good knowledge of the subject matter. I mean,
it was really good training. Ok. I wanted to mention one other thing I met with uh
Commissioner Petron from the port on Tuesday too. Um about IC G and we've got an
hour for the, the Commerce presentation and um just some ideas I think we'll talk
about basically, uh one of the, the main other thing that's gonna be on the agenda
on Thursday is that this week or next, next week, next week, this week? Yeah. Yeah,
this Thursday is uh talking about the um uh the resolution, right? The, the organizing
body and whether or not like one of the things I wanted to talk about was what, what
constitutes quorum of the IC G right now, remember we've had some challenges a couple
of times. Quorum is one and then I, I think that uh Pam is maybe going to push forward
the idea of um
instead of the four administrators kind of putting it together, the four bodies like
the chairs putting it together instead. So just a different uh different perspective,
I guess. So expect those conversations as well. I'm, I'm multitasking a little bit
with the email, getting everybody on the same page for the Commerce presentation.
Fy, I mark. You're, you're on that Caroline, you're on it. Um, so, uh, we'll be clarifying
the scope of that conversation and making sure D CD is looped in and our office and
it's, I, it's been a little tricky that it's marks but
it is. Yeah, that's why I was late last time because it was on my ID on Thursday.
Have you? Oh, it's, it's six on mine. Mine's five this time. Last time it was six.
It's like it, it changes. I was not able to move it. You move this, but the organizer
won't see the change. It is at five. It's at five today or tomorrow.
Ok. Thank you. Um ok. Well, let's dig right into this coming week. Ok. You wanna
take a look at your calendar? It's a marathon. Yeah, this is a big one.
Um mm.
Ok. Um, having things added from was, but, um,
all right. So, uh, early tomorrow I had to Spokane for the County Leaders conference.
Um, and obviously lots of, um, churn there with the uh, changes to bylaws and um
budget and potential implications for the organization. So that is, uh, will be taking
up a lot of my time as well as the um, uh legislative steering committee meeting
which I chair all tomorrow afternoon and into the evening, um, into the eat. You're
not gonna miss the corners. Open bar. Are you? Well, it goes till six. Yeah, they
have the best, the best parties, the corners. I, I miss the parties, I guess. Oh,
yeah. Goes to, goes till six. So hopefully, yeah, that, that seems to go late into
the night. I, I go to the corners later in the evening, into the night. Yeah. Yeah.
No, only till six or so. Um, you know where it is? I found the party last year.
Um, so I'll be there Wednesday as well. Um Coastal Caucus looking forward to Heidi's,
uh, presentation, uh, head back Wednesday night to be here. Um,
Thursday, I'm gonna attend the annual meeting by Zoom, um, a second annual meeting
and I do think we should look up and confirm how many votes we have in that and encourage
folks to pay attention to the important vote on, uh, changes that will be the final
vote. How long do you think that will go? Um, it is scheduled to go from 8 a.m. to
230. I mean to 2.5 hours to 10:30 a.m. Eight AM to 10:30 a.m. Ok. I'll be on the
airplane. I can join at the beginning at Jeff. Come at nine. Ok. The search will
be later though, right? Issum that it will go later later in the meeting, do you
think? Um, I would guess they will do a poll on like a, in real time. Um, oh,
later, like when will they take an actual vote? Yes. Yes, there will be lots of deliberation
before the votes. Ok. Maybe I can do the two screens. Right. Thursday, the Thursday
morning. Um, uh, you might have to notice that
Heidi won't be there. Um, so if it's voting on was a business, we have to do a special
meeting when two or more attend the meeting if you're attending and voting, I think.
Yeah, it's tricky because we don't, we don't notice the whole conference and this
is part of the conference.
I know it to be a more liberal interpretation.
Yeah, we, we, we do a stricter interpretation for sure.
Um uh Thursday, I also have the um uh memorial celebration of Life for Chris Goy
at 1 p.m. at um, chats AOA Park and all um employees are being invited to
that. Um It sounds like um Greg, if you're ok with that, I might be speaking on behalf
of the board in part because Heidi is not sure she's gonna be able to be back in
time and trying to keep it pretty tight, um, um, program to keep it to an hour. I
mean, II I have time to rush back, but if anything gets in my way, I'll be late.
So, uh then uh come back for Board of Health and promptly turn around and head to
the IC G meeting. Uh Friday, have an in person meeting with the Olympic Consortium
board and the Workforce Development Council. Looking forward to that um have to appeal
out of that a little early to do the radio show, John Boina from Washington State
Ferries is gonna join me talk about all the fair challenges he's gonna join remotely,
I think. Yeah. Um let's see if he texted Beck about his song, Jim will probably be
relieved by that because I've been bringing three people into the station with me
every time And he's like, you're really pushing the technical limits here. Heidi.
I'm like, well, I like them in three. John has suggested bridge over troubled water.
I heard a song. Yeah. Um Quick rush from that into uh uh Nola steering committee
meeting an Olympic Legislative Alliance. Um And then great to meet with the same
folks to hear about progress at the uh Northern General Store. Yeah, it might be
a marathon. It's a long one. How's your week? Look, well, corners parties all week
long for you. Um Let's see here with you today. I have a meeting in 15 minutes with
DNR. Um There is a presentation tomorrow at the
Maritime Center at 530 with the commissioner of public lands about the 2000 acre
set aside of structurally complex forests. They proposed putting about 400 acres
of that. Um Jefferson County priorities for the day, Bob Bay Natural Area expansion.
There's, they've identified 423 acres of structurally complex forests and the meeting
in 15 minutes is just true up to make sure we're all talking about the same acres.
Um, and then I'll be leaving for Seattle at. Right. Right. When dc D's presentation
is over tomorrow, I'm gonna Spokane straight to Spokane and then 8 a.m.
Timber County's meeting in the morning. Um, Wednesday, the coastal caucus meeting
with Kate at 10 in Spokane. And then, uh, at four o'clock,
I'm giving a presentation on our, um, collaborative forestry with DNR, um with Sarah
from DNR. And we're mostly talking about the trust land transfer program. Some of
this proviso work and the encumbered lands work as well. What kind of talent this,
this week? At the, the was a conference? Yeah, I guess so. Well, I put, I put in
a proposal because I was asked to and I was selected. So there we go. Yeah. No, it's
good. There's a lot of interest in this topic right now. And um I feel like I feel
like there's more conversation going on about forest management than there has been
in a long time. And um, we are kind of right in the middle of it. So that feels good
to me. Um Let's see, Thursday morning, I'm flying back. Hence, I'm not maybe not
being able to attend the wack bylaws meeting, but I will try to if I can. Um, and
then straight back here and then to chris' celebration of life, which I love that
it's being held outside. He would love that as well at chats AOA, I believe. Um and
then the Board of Health meeting and I'm super excited. Um Pinky and I talked and
she's gonna do a presentation on the septage capacity issue at Board of Health. Um
It's again on the was ALFA legislative priorities and we need to try and bring that
one across the finish line, the capacity study across the finish line in the next
legislative session And then the IC G meeting, which I say the, the Board of Health
has that on their legislative priorities as well. Great, great. Well, is that true?
We haven't finalized it yet, but um we talked about it. Yeah, great. Um And then
the IC G meeting which I did hear people may be coming to demonstrate on the Hamas
and Gaza Israel situation to the IC G meeting that A No, I think it's going to be
a demonstration. Maybe at least I heard uh Friday morning, I have a event to attend
at Sunfield school and then the Olympic Coast Sanctuary meeting and that's what my
week looks like mean going out to the coast for that. Uh No, it's all virtual this
time. Yes.
All right. Let's see with you guys today. Um Tomorrow meeting with uh Amanda Kristofferson
and, and Josh Peters out and, and Mark, I believe out at the uh pud offices to talk
about Brendan wastewater and kind of finalizing that white paper we've been working
on and also getting ready for the Commerce uh meeting on Friday. I'll talk about
them. Um Then do, do, do do, oh, I have a bit of a conflict tomorrow afternoon.
I had said maybe though I haven't got an invitation that I could cover for you, Heidi
at the BH AC but after that, my empowered teens coalition meeting came on. So, ok.
Well, Azlin is prepared to chair that meeting. So you were going to be our representative
there. But you think you're gonna have quorum issues if I, I don't know, maybe we
can uh what I did, did it figure out am I would I officially be an alternate at that
meeting for quorum purposes? Oh, that's a good question. I don't know the answer
to that. Um I mean, in my mind you would be, but there we go,
we, we've talked, well, we, we get to a sign who's on that. So I guess I can let
them know that you, I do have, I mean, I feel like I should go to the Empowered Teens
Coalition. So and then after that, go out to the Housing Solutions Network
Network Housing Solutions Network. Ok. Um Five year anniversary. Um I'm only be able
to be there for their, their actual meeting and at the celebration, I guess I will
go represent at this DNR thing at the Maritime Center. Um I was potentially gonna
go to one of those editorial sessions about the pool out in Cal Point, but there's
plenty of other opportunities. So I'll defer and go represent us at uh the Maritime
Center on the 15th meeting with Jim Novelli from DB H as well as Laurie to talk about
the grant strategy a little more for BHC. And then uh doing the, the exit interview
for the accountability, Jeff Jefferson County accountability um uh audit with, with
Mark I assume and Judy and you know what I mean? Maybe um on Thursday, I will try
to join simultaneously. The was a meeting and the uh Jeff comp meeting which starts
at nine. I will be at the memorial for sure. And the Board of Health and ICG meeting
which is hosted by the Port this time. Then on Friday, I'm meeting with uh city Councilor
mckay in the morning and then joining uh Josh Peters and city representatives for
a morning tour with uh Director Fong from Commerce and, and Representative Theer
going to see a few uh different sites and that's kind of from 10 to 1 creating a
bit of a conflict for county coordinations as well. But you, it sounds like you guys
are both tied up from 1130 to 1230.
Yeah. So I don't know, Mark, maybe I don't know if none of us can be there. Do we
just let you leave the meeting or delay it or cancel it? I'd be happy to do that.
I'd like to collaborate on the agenda. With you. Let's take a look at the agenda
and, and then maybe you can leave that. I can probably bump out of sack for an hour
to be at coordinate too. Yeah. Yeah. Ok. Um But why don't you move forward with the
plan to have Mark? And then you can, you can join and you know, it kind of chairs
itself really? And that is my week. Can I just say one thing about the published
agenda? Um I noticed on Thursday it said that Greg was attending Board of Health
and the IC G meeting, but I think Kate and I are both intending to attend that work
on it. Ok. Ok. So they should just say board and she can always check with us, but
I just noticed that when I was doing agenda last night.
All right, great. Uh, Mark, how does? Oh, and I'm, yeah, I'm nice, Mark. How does
your week look? Ok, today, of course with the board tomorrow. Um I'm in on that Brennan
Wastewater meeting. Um pud offices on uh, what is it Auto Street, I think. Yeah.
And then at 11, um I'm gonna meet with uh Wendy housekeeper, uh, with Carolyn and
then I have the a meeting in the afternoon and I'm gonna join the Behavioral Health
Advisory committee meeting at what is it? 230. Um, then on
Wednesday, um, 11 o'clock, the State Auditor Accountability Exit, which I think is
gonna be a, a pleasant affair and as opposed to, yeah, no findings. And
then one o'clock public sector cabinet meeting and then on Thursday uh weekly with
Josh Peters and then uh the Chris Go Goy Celebration of life and then IC
G at five and then a co ordination meeting on Friday.
Great. Thank you, Mark. Um, ok, so,
uh any other items we need to? Oh, yeah, one of the thing I gotta
do. Um
um, anything else folks need to want to talk about this week?
Um, it's a reiteration. We're kicking the agreement on labor relations consulting
services till next, next week in open session.
Any other agenda items or non listed items that folks would like to talk about next
week, seven minutes next week looks very light on my calendar. Probably everybody
else has to.
Oh, yeah. The Thanksgiving. Yes, I am. I am, uh, going to Hawaii that week, so I
am going to be very, very remote. Next week. Is Thanksgiving. Yeah. Yeah, I've not
thought of it that way. I have a KPTZ update for that week, the week after 24th,
the 24th. And I have penciled in chic schools update. Mm. Mm.
I don't remember what I, what that was, what we were thinking that could be but
maybe it's a Lee or I can talk to Scott and see if he's gonna be around. Ok.
Um, at some point we, I do want to get on the agenda, um, narrowing down our, our
legislative priorities, our boards,
our Jefferson County legislative priorities and remind us what, what's on our list
right now. Um Gosh, we had a, a whole bunch of last week's agenda item. I listed
a bunch. So, you know, potentially more forest policy funding for capital projects.
Yep. Um uh some sort of proviso for Brennan, either study or a project, um uh septage
capacity. Uh We could consider a uh recycling um cons uh producer
responsibility, you know, supporting that bill, which is still alive and I'm just
kind of sky is the limit. But um
ok, what's the appropriate time frame for that? Do you think soon? Thank you for
the next week, 230
delivered. Can you type up a little list of them? I'll do a request and compile.
Um Is there anyone else we want to bring for this, any subject matter experts? Maybe
we could invite other electives or department directors and see if they have any
priorities that they would want to. I think that sounds great. Done. Did you process
that Caroline?
Thank you. I need to go under my manner. Great. We'll give you a couple of minutes
to transition. So I will recess us until 130 when we'll be back with D CD. Thanks.
Yeah. Yeah, I know. Just, just for Heidi, everyone else has to stay here.
Recording, stopped
recording in progress.
Go to promo Caroline.
All right, good afternoon. I will call this meeting of the board of county commissioners
back into session. We're joined by Joel Peterson as well as Josh Peters from D CD
to talk about the site specific comp plan amendment, as well as the U DC amendments
that, that, uh, are recommended, uh, for a hearing. Is that right? That's right.
If we don't just adopt them. Yeah. So maybe we can just, uh, delay a little bit.
Commissioner Dean is not quite back with us yet. So I'd love to have the benefit
of, of, uh, um, going into it all. Um, so let's see here.
Um,
I guess,
ok, I'm not sure how to delay a dead air for a moment. It's good for all of us to
embrace some comfortable silences right here. Good, good. She did
it. All right. Well done home and back. Did you actually eat any food or you just
run there and back? Oh, ok. All right. Well, thank you for your patience, Joel. A
good, good Riffing that we had there. Um, and let's, let's, let's take her off and,
and, and take us through. Do you have a presentation today? Yeah, I do. Thank you
commissioners for this opportunity to talk to you about the, the end game or the,
the end of our 2023 Comprehensive Plan and U DC amendment cycle. And, um, I'm Joel
Peterson, associate Planner Community Development and I'm going to go through the
docket that, um, was established on May 8th of this year and then um report back
to you about the Planning Commission recommendations and community development recommendations
for those sites, specific items on the docket and then the suggested amendments to
our U DC. In your packet, you've received the community development staff report
on the Comprehensive Plan amendment docket and um that goes through growth management
indicators and findings and as well as SEPA review looking at um impacts of different
propo projects and um the cumulative impacts considering all proposals for 2023.
Uh Let's go to the next slide, please.
So as you remember, we were working on the mineral resource land overlay in 2022
and brought that forward to the board. It had already gone through the planning Commission
process and you received recommendations from the Planning Commission after they
had their hearing to approve the mineral resource land overlay. Though, as also
as we went through our amendment cycle rules, we realized that you can amend the
comprehensive plan no more than one time per year as it's a guidance document and
we don't want to uh frivolously change it a lot. G ma requires no more than once
per year. So as as the uh final recommendation of the mineral resource land overlay
came in in early 2023 we found found it prudent to roll it into
the 2023 site specific proposals. So um this slide shows the
difference uh of what we have on our docket for site specific proposals which are,
are site specific rezone proposals and our two suggested amendments. And uh so
are there um uh are site specific proposals along with the mineral resource land
overlay include a rezone request from rural residential 20 to rural residential five
which is on a 17 acre parcel. So that gives you a yield of two additional home sites.
And um our recommendation is to approve that rezone. The third site specific request
is to rezone an area from uh two parcels from rural residential, five to
Egglands of local importance. And our recommendation is to approve that. So I'm going
to go into detail on the site specific amendments and then um follow up with the
suggested amendments, some additional detail of where we are with those. Um You'll
see the um suggested amendment, the item number four. We didn't complete the uh
housing review to the point where we had line in line out changes to the U DC. So
um this is a recommendation from community development and the Planning Commission
to continue this work in 2024 with other housing proposal or reviews that we're doing.
And then the fifth, the second suggested amendment is a docket of 12 housekeeping
amendments to our development regulations that we recommend approval. So, are there
any questions about the difference between the site specific and suggested? Uh any
questions about why we're pulling in the mineral resource land overlay into this
year's um amendment cycle. Ok. Well, let's go next slide. So this is detail
about the mineral resource land overlay. The map depicts uh in the light gray, the
existing mineral resource land overlay for miles, sand and gravel. The proposal are
the red areas which sum up to about 200 acres um expanding from the existing mineral
resource land overlay and this is uh simply to follow the resource. Um There won't
be any additional um development of processing facilities, what's existing there
be what continues to operate, no increase in the amount of truck traffic, they're
just expanding the area that they're extracting from. So, uh in our analysis, we
see it complies with the Growth Management Act in order to protect your mineral forest
and ag resources and uh properly zone them. So you don't preclude the use of those
resources. And um it's a similar level of activity that's already occurring there.
So there wouldn't be additional impacts and um there is a conditional use permit
that would follow this approval. This is just changing the color on the map of identifying
areas that are going to be for mineral extraction versus some other use. So, uh we
did receive two comments during this um uh last hearing. Uh November 1st at the Planning
Commission, one was to be certain to uh take care with the existing wetlands and
streams and um that's been part of their existing conditional use permit and will
be part of their future conditional use permit. And uh we also conferred with the
tribes and um and there is, there was an identification of a possible fish barrier
that miles sand and gravel could correct. As part of this creek Thorndyke Creek.
Was there tribal consultation? Uh not formal. I I spoke to their tribal council with
talking about the project and the SEPA review that we go through and the permitting
process. And so they had a comfort level with our conditional use process as identifying
these areas
and they were out several times. I know. So there was some at least ad hoc consultation.
Yeah. Yeah. Um
That's all I'm going to say about any questions, about miles, sand and gravel, one
question and maybe I'm asking the wrong people, but I'm reading through the materials,
I saw that it's still taxed as forest land. And I guess I'm just wondering, are mineral
lands taxed at the same rate that forest lands are? I don't know the answer to that.
So, I mean, that's just, you know, a fraction of the taxes collected. I'm just unaware,
but yeah, it's not pertinent really. And resources sold in the county would collect
sales tax for the county sales tax revenue. They don't actually.
Yeah, destination, destination sales tax. Ok. Um The applicant reports that they
do have sales in the county. And yeah,
next one please, but unlike timber where we get an excise tax,
our second re zone is in the map, you'll see this uh bright cross hatched area. That's
not a zoning designation. That's just to identify the parcel. It's zoned, rural residential
one and 20 as is the area to the top and to the left or west of this property. That's
right. It's just east of the SKP Park. Right. That's correct. And it's across the
road from, ok. And across the road from a street, Carroll Park is the green area
that you see cat a corner. And um the proposal is about 17 acres in size. So you
get two additional uh home sites from a 17 acre parcel zoned at real residential
five. It looks like almost all the other rural residential land around is RR five.
Yeah. Yeah. And that's the the point I'd like to highlight is to the north, although
it's zoned real residential 20 those are less than five acre parcels to the north
and then the SKP Park to the west uh are is kind of a binding site plan with small
uh areas for camper trailer sites and to the south. It's real residential five. So
in one level of analysis, we look at how it changes or uh would encourage future
up zones in the area. And this would not um they would be also uh the plan is to
from left to right to split it in thirds. And those two new parcels to the west would
be required to have a shared driveway to limit the number of access points onto Anderson
Lake Road. And um we did the analysis of uh level of service and traffic counts.
And Anderson Lake Road is uh can accommodate any uh that new uh average daily trips
that would be generated. Are they in public water? Uh Yes, they're in the um Quimper
water system area. So, uh and also no issues with critical areas on the site. So
we w just pothole.
I've been there three times. My recommendation is to approve this rezone proposal.
Thanks. Can you make him fit the fix the pothole? Is there a condition?
Ok. The last one for site specific rezone proposal is Midori Farm and there are two
parcels that are currently zoned r residential five and the proposal is to change
it to agricultural lands. And we did an analysis on what type of agricultural lands
and um found that the most appropriate to call it A L 20 which is Egglands of local
importance versus A P 20 which is prime agricultural lands. When we look at the top
diagram, it's a little zoomed out showing the zoning. Uh You can see that there are
other agricultural lands in that light green color. And um and it just outside of
the Quilcene rural village center area, um This has the benefit of protecting ag
soils from development. And so complies with Growth Management Act. It's compatible
with the surrounding areas and prevents loss of ag soils there will still be two
parcels. Yes, yes. These two parcels will be rezoned A L 20. And um was the did
the soil not meet the, was it not one of the prime soil types? It correct? It it
was matching the the designation of surrounding Egglands there? Ok. So our recommendation
is to approve this rezone proposal. I'm curious um why would, why would the
applicants apply for this? Does it have to do with um current use or taxation status?
That's a possibility that would be a benefit of zoning it as agriculture. So you
can take advantage of that current use designation. Also, we do have provisions in
our code for agricultural uh designated Egglands. Um As far as storm water
or um um um agritourism, different, different provisions that are allowed on egg
land zone irrigation issues too and like uh an irrigation channel that I think they
might have the control, the source of that that has, are there people on it as well?
I don't know, what would it, what would this do? What would the changing zoning designation
do to? Um I like water rights vis a vis irrigation. I'm not
specifically sure that's um we could contact Department of Ecology and see what rights
are existing. It would it would be considered um existing agriculture uh as
it's been used for that purpose, existing and ongoing. As far as our critical areas,
ordinance goes for water rights, I don't believe it changes that um as far as the
state is concerned, it's it's the beneficial use you're putting that water to and
it, it wouldn't necessarily be changing that though. There could be some water right
provision about um designated agricultural lands. I'm not sure there is there. I've
never heard of one. And then they were also in the documentation, it looked like
they were trying to make a like a value added processing kitchen or something and
that, that uh designation would help them with that.
OK. Next slide. Mm OK. So um I'm going to kind of go quickly over
this amendment proposal because we can end up in the weeds. And I don't wanna take
too much time of, of those things that away from those things that we're making a
decision on. But I did want to report out what we are doing with the Planning Commission's
proposal for some housing amendments. And um
basically uh is there a preceding slide to this? Did we go to two slides perhaps?
Mm
There we go. Uh So this suggested amendment, we were, we were grappling with a number
of things. Uh workforce housing, affordable housing, um ecofriendly cluster housing
on an individual parcel. So we were um having some uh effort at
either uh defining what this proposal is exactly and, and zeroing in on one thing
we can work on. So um we did that with the following slide here. Go ahead to the
next slide. Please uh looking at rural low impact housing overlay and this would
mimic what we already have in our code as a planned rural residential development.
Our pr RD part of our code is an overlay that allows you to um consolidate lots and
take that resulting density yield and putting it into a high density cluster thereby
uh affecting some better open space and and resource protection and more efficient
development as a low impact development cluster. So we were thinking how could this
apply to an individual parcel where our current PR RD process is a subdivision process?
And um this would be uh asking the question, how much development can we allow on
an individual parcel and um not get crosswise with other requirements. So the
um the approach is is novel and we're looking for uh examples or supporting
analysis to define the allowed density by performance standards of what that parcel
can support versus dwelling units per acre, which can be somewhat arbitrary in some
circumstances. Next slide.
So uh we developed the data set of all of our parcels or residential parcels in the
county. Uh much like what we did with the legal lot of record data and look at impervious
surface and uh had some reduction factors of critical areas to come up with a uh
level of development that is occurring on residential parcels in the county. This
is a subset of things that are half acre to five acres, just to get uh zero in on
um parcels that don't have development conflicts by being too small yet are within
our highest density residential development of real residential. Five, the red line
depicts our maximum impervious surface that's allowed 25% uh uh from our code now
and you'll see that largely when we get up into five acre parcels, um 25%
leaves a gap between what's allowed and what we might be able to put on a parcel.
I'm sorry. The uh the X axis is the size of the parcel. Is that what you're saying?
It's the number of record by size. Yes, it's the number of rec record number by size.
So we have 2640 parcels. The smallest is number one at the ordinance and then the
largest is um on the the end of the X axis. And this shows the relationship between
size, partial size, the amount allowed of impervious service. And the actual
next is the amount allowed
and the red line is the amount allowed. So the square footage impervious and then
the percentage impervious is the red line. Yeah, the percent allowed showing that
there's a disparity or some room to further develop a five acre parcel. The the goal
is to look at conventional development and this is what we call conventional development.
This is, this is what happens on the landscape in Jefferson County and uh identify
what we might be able to do by performance standards that meets or exceeds conventional
development in ecological protection. So you want to get the wave form closer to
the red line. Uh just showing that we have some room between existing impervious
surface development or conventional development. And what's allowed, we have some
room to perhaps allow additional development in impervious surface. This is just
one larger loss. Uh Yes, there's one characteristic and uh there are other many other
things we're looking at, but I just wanted to show you um the uh initial data set
where we can do some analysis. I don't want to get hung up on this really. But the
takeaway is that most lots between half an acre or parcels, between half an acre
and five acres are not coming close to hitting the um impervious surface
threshold down at the smaller side, right? Because the smaller side it does. Yeah,
you see it goes over the red line. So it exceeds the 25% threshold with smaller half
acre lots. And then as you get up to the five acre lots of which there are many,
right? There's 2600 out of the total 2640. There's, you're saying there's 20,611
5 acre and greater lots, five acre in size and greater. Uh we, the whole data set
is over, there's about 9000 parcels. So I'm just taking a subset here of where the
constraint is the greatest to show what conventional development yields and the potential
for defining through performance standards versus dwelling in its per acre. Some
additional development capacity of a five acre parcel got the space on the right
hand side of the graph is the potential.
Ok. So we also looked at water connections. Um an individual well can support two
connections. Typically we have a single family residence and an AD U. We also sometimes
have people with a single family residence and, and um satellite bedrooms which I
uh labeled B on there. Thinking of um how you can have a larger family or defined
family uh for more people to be accommodated in a single family residence. Uh The
third option on the very top is looking at congregate housing with an AD U plus satellite
bedrooms. We get into an area where we need to look more at uh water capacity and,
and uh water rules depending on where you are, which area you're in the second uh
two party. Well, example in the middle um demonstrates that you can have on a shared
well, a two party, well, a house, two houses per parcel or to duplexes per
parcel is allowed in in the county. Well, this is coming from state regulations for
water use. The examples on the bottom. If we get more than two connections per parcel,
then you have to be on a public water system for multifamily or duplex and a triplex,
you you've got to be on a public water system. So this uh gets us into and analyzing
our Lambers looking at uh what where our water surface areas are and the uh level
of development that we can accommodate. So specifically, we're looking at an example
of congregate housing in the Chimica corner area. Uh We've got a water system, we've
got uh we can use that perhaps as um affordable housing or farm worker housing.
What can we do with a congregate de housing development? So we're also looking at
building um code, a national building code for congregate housing and how they define
a boarding house. Our goal is to insert this as an example into or as a provision
in our U DC. Would a boarding house under our current code be able to do an individual
well, use an individual. Well, no boarding house. You have to be on a water supply
or public water supply. I mean a boarding house is just different bedrooms in one
kitchen, right? Um Yeah, I'm quoting the the state regs for water
providing water. I took that slide out but we could go into greater detail with that
later. Not even what we're talking about. Really the next slide.
All right. Some words up here.
Yeah. So uh these are the recommendations we have for this second or this um suggested
amendment for housing is to continue this into the 2024 amendment cycle and 2024
we're going to be um accepting site specific amendments from the public, but we're
also working on the scope of work for the Comprehensive Plan periodic update. And
um we'll be coming back to the board in the future for a proposed resolution to
not accept site specific amendments in the 2025 cycle the same year as we're trying
to complete our periodic review. So this is uh one we want to move, uh continue to
move forward on these issues in next year. Can I give you one other potential recommendation
really for the 25 periodic update? But I'd love to see incentives in here too if
we want to try to get folks into uh more multifamily housing options. And I don't
know what, you know, multifamily tax exemption or other other kind of incentives
to get people to actually use it. You know, I look at our stock plans and I'm afraid,
you know, we put all this work. We want people to actually want there to be some
benefit of the work. So yes, that's a good point. Um And we number three here, we
want to facilitate our housing using stock plans and maybe an incentive would be
a bonus density if you have a certain um level of environmental planning on the site
to show that you are uh achieving this with less impact than conventional development
is the is one idea. OK, look light.
OK. The, the last amendment proposals from community development. We're looking at
uh suggested amendments to our U DC and uh we've had a number of them that were identified
during our last periodic review of our Comprehensive plan, but deferred and another
uh set of things that come up as far as um updating code references. So uh these
include uh just simple corrections or adding some clarity and interpretation to the
code or updating a reference, code references. I wanna identi or drill in a little
bit more to number four, implementing the Comprehensive plan. Um The ones I'm going
to highlight with you now are ones that are spelled out in our comprehensive plan
to achieve and uh where we've gone with those. So there's a total number of 12 and
many of these things are clarity and corrections. But um let's go to the next slide.
Uh uh In addition to our code here would be what we call a highway visual corridor
overlay. Currently in our code in uh 1830 table 6-1 list the bulk and
dimension standards and setbacks uh that um develop developers have to comply with.
We simply had a footnote in a long list of footnotes in our code that mentioned to
comply with the policy in this 1988 policy that the board brought forward for um
protecting a visual corridor on highway 20. Uh Unfortunately, at times that footnote
was missed or um or not directly implemented. So the thought is let's
identify it and make it a an overlay that we see on the maps when we're doing a project
review and enact that policy. That's been simply a footnote for many, many years
um as, as something more tangible as an overlay. And so we did uh that
implements a couple of items in the comprehensive plan that are mentioned. Exhibit
1-12. We have um direction in the summary of overlays to enact a highway visual quarter
overlay that we're doing. Now, it also appears in our land use action plan to address
this highway 20 view corridor overlay, uh which we're doing the next slide.
So on the left, there is a diagram uh that came from this policy of where we're talking,
the southern boundary is Fort Warden and uh the northern boundary is the city of
Port Townsend. And um the, the aerial photograph uh has an arrow that's
pointing to implementation of this 50 ft setback with a 30 ft vegetated buffer. So
that shows you what it does on the ground. And uh that's the the new mini ST development
of sound storage that we permitted a few years back and shows the effect of this
um this overlay and the setback. So had that been enforced,
there would have been a much wider forest and buffer. It's showing that this is the
result of enforcing it. This is, this is the Yeah, yeah, this is the good application
of that uh down south of there, the U haul was courtesy Ford and has a long history
of probably preceding this policy. Even of not having um that buffer in place has
long since been plucked up. And um but we do have some vegetation requirements. You
can see between these two mini storages. Uh We have landscaping requirements to provide
a visual separation of the two businesses which they've done. Yeah, next time and
many of the properties in Glen Cove, like the county owns a lot of those properties
in that forest, that highway buffer, right? I mean is that that was a, you know,
was that were those purchased just for this purpose as well? I I I don't know the
history of those, but I think they're also coincident with the railroad alignment
or some, some past land use. But um yeah, so I can't say specifically I know I know
some parcels were purchased by the land Trust to preserve this buffer uh 15 years
ago. Yeah, the Yeah. Ok, great. Other U DC amendments that implement our
comprehensive plan are um repealing the Forest transition overlay, which is um stated
in one of our policies of uh in the Natural Resources action plan. And uh as you
recall, the forest transition overlay was thought to create a buffer between forest
lands and high density residential along forest lands. Um It did as it was written,
take uh some forest lands away in order to create some low density, residential buffering,
the high density. So we didn't feel that it really complied with G MA in that nature.
Um Also it had never been implemented. So we thought it would be um as we went through
the Comprehensive Plan periodic review in 2018, that was put in there as a goal.
So we're implementing that here and then last, the super code implements um the goals
and policies of our urban growth area in our comprehensive plan and provides a developer
the ability to um apply for permits in advance of sewer availability so that they
can better time uh their development when sewer is available to connect and then
get their certificate of occupancy. So this spells out uh more clearly the process
that we go through to um develop in advance of a uh sewer availability. Does that
mean the site specific uh comp plan amendment that was pulled this year because of
that very reason could actually move forward in 24 if this was approved. Are you
talking about the Bayside housing? Um that, that was a little different issue. Um
They were wanting to develop residential in a commercial zone which wasn't in the
code as a mixed. We don't have the mixed use provisions in our code and we did work
with them and identified a conditional use process that they can as an unnamed use
go forward with developing housing. And then um we will be looking at at mixed use
code provisions on a broader scale for our urban growth area in 2024. Next year's
thank amendments. Ok. Next slide. So um with these
recommendations for approval from Planning Commission and Community Development,
uh we have in front of the board now, a decision um decision one and two and I've,
I've also included the remaining project schedule and color coded them of what the
results would be based on either decision. So the first decision would be that the
board um vote on a motion to approve these rezone proposals and the U DC amendments
as presented and um instruct community development then to draft an ordinance reflecting
that for your final action. And according to the calendar here in these green areas,
um we do have in this G MA Comprehensive Plan amendment process, a 60 day review
by the Department of Commerce which um expires just before December 11th. Um
Our code provisions say that the board shall take action by the second meeting in
December. And so, um we've set up the project calendar for December 11th. Alternatively,
we could go with number two if you wish to hold a public hearing. And that would
mean you're, if you want to make amendments to these proposals um and not follow
planning commission and board and community development recommendations, you can
make changes, but then you would need a public hearing. And so I've scheduled in
the public hearing what that would look like. Um, we would probably have our final
action after the second meeting of December. Um, but I think there is precedent where
we've done that in the past when things pushed past the second meeting. So that's
what that decision would look like. And historically, the summer 26th meeting might
be canceled. We're gonna hold a special meeting after that. Yeah, I think I, I put
Tuesday in there as the date. I believe so. Yeah, that does create a, a meeting close
to Christmas. But uh so that is the, that's the decision in front of the board now
and the and the schedule and if you have any questions about any of the amendments
or proposals, I think we're asking as we went through, I read it all. Thank you for
all the great documentary of it.
Um Well, what do you guys think? Do you have any changes needed or these all make
sense to me? Yeah, I was nervous about the up zoning. Um and uh needed to be convinced,
really needed to take a look at the map that you showed. Um I just take very seriously
when we choose to up zone um largely because I think it it it's then easier for other
people to say, well, you up zone there, why can't you up zone here? And um but I
think this this parcel is clearly surrounded by parcels of similar sizes and we only
expect more services to be coming to that area. So it's a natural area of expansion
for an urban growth area or um pardon? Yeah, adjacent too. So um I
am fine with that. Yeah. No, I'm um certainly supportive of Missouri being on egg
zoned land, um been supportive of the mineral resource overlay. So for years. All
right. So do we have a resolution or do we just moved to approve the, the to
approve the docket as, as presented? Yes, you move, move to approve the, the uh zoning
proposals and the U DC amendment proposal technicality. Perhaps moving to prove the
Planning Commission staff recommendation on the dock and then enables us to work
with the prosecuting attorney's office to prepare the Oh. Right. Right. Right. Thank
you.
I am happy to make a motion to approve staff and planning commission recommendations
regarding three site specific um amendments and the omnibus housekeeping amendments.
Um and ask the community development drafts an ordinance for final action at a future
Bocc meeting one second. Ok. It's been moved and seconded. So it's already
on our agenda. I don't think we need public comment on this. So all in favor of the
motion on the floor, indicate by saying I I, all right. Nice work. Good work guys.
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. Yeah, looking forward to meeting with them
and in our January meeting, we're doing it together. Right. That's right. OK. Look,
looking forward to that and, and good luck on the 15th. Thank you. Ok, thank you.
Um Can I just ask a quick question? Um Josh, did you get my email about Thursday?
Ok, great. Thank you. Sure. Did you get a response? I didn't because you're here.
So I think that's great that just opening up communication. Obviously there, Matt
was asking me about what they said. Yeah, it's been uh, yeah. Yeah. All
right. He, he, it's hit the road. Yeah. Yeah. As soon as I can. All right. Um, any
other business that we need to take care of today,
do they mark from you? No. No. Ok. Well, I think we'll get out here early and take
care of some other stuff. So this meeting of the board of County commissioners is
hereby adjourned. Have a great week.