Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/11/2002 Becl~y Upton City Clerl~ COMBINED MEETING AGENDA PORT ANGELES CITY COUNCIL & CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 11, 2002 - 6:00pm City Council Chambers ! 321 East Fifth Street A. CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING B. ROLL CALL C. PRIOR MINUTES FOR REFERENCE 1. Minutes of 4/25/01 2. Minutes of 11/30/00 3. Minutes of 3/23/00 D. PURPOSE- Facilitate Coordination of Policies, Projects, and Programs . E. STATUS REPORT & INFORMATION (30 min.) 1. Solid Waste/Landfill 2. Permit Coordination 3. Prior Meeting Items a. Farmer's Market b. Carnegie Library c. William Shore Pool d. Shared Computer Use e. Health Facilities Location f. Annexation ' Joe Ciarlo & Glenn Cutler Brad Collins & Andy Meyer Dan Engelbertson & Mike Quinn F. REVIEW & DISCUSSION ( 60 min.) 1. Septic System Waste Treatment Joe Ciarlo & Glenn Cutler 2. UGA Standards Dan Engelbertson & Mike Quinn a. Storm Water Regulatory Compliance b. Revenue-Sharing Agreement Policies c. Sewers, Streets, Infrastructure d. Signs, Permits, Services G. ADJOURNMENT . . . . City/County Staff Meeting April 25, 2001 10:00 a.m. City Council Chambers INTRODUCTIONS: / County Staff: Jim Rumpeltes, Ruth Gerdon, Chris Shea, Linda Owens-Rosenberg, Craig Jacobs, Joe Hawe, Deb McDonald, Dan Engelbertson, DriLynn Sadler, Steve Hoff, Marge Upham, Bob Martin, and Dave Meyer City Staff: Mike Quinn, Dan McKeen, Glenn Cutler, Brad Collins, Craig Knutson, Tom Riepe, Marc Connelly, Yvonne Ziomkowski, Becky Upton, Tim Smith COMMON ISSUES: The Staff identified the following issues as ones of mutual interest and benefit to pursue in the future. Separate efforts with sub-groups of staff were encouraged in order to follow-up on progress for these projects rather thanjust identify the proj ect. No set course of action was decided, but it was anticipated that the lead agency on each issue would pursue additional efforts. . Farmers Market - Interest in locating this function at the County parking lot and coordinate permitting with the City. . Carnegie Library / Museum - Interest in seeking support by the County for operations as the City funds renovation/restoration. . William Shore Pool Expansion - Interest in adjacent property such as the School Administration building or Heritage House for possible land expansion. . Shared Computer Use / Coordination - Interest in seeking economics of scale in operations and other efficiencies from shared or coordinated uses. . Health Facilities Location - Interest to move these facilities closer to the hospital and coordinate more with the health community. . Coordinated Permits - Interest in the City and County tracking permits for projects and coordinating permit standards for projects of mutual interest, especially those in the UGA. City / County Staff Meeting: April 25, 2001 Page 1 of 2 . Septic System Waste - Interest in providing the additional capital and operations necessary for the City to treat this additional waste stream from the City. · UGA Sewer Policy - Whit te recent policy change to allow sewer extension into the UGA without annexation, the City and County need to coordinate this impact on future development and existing concern. · UGA Service Agreements - Interest in pursuing water service in the UGA per City standards, especially to cover fire flow impact, and coordinate this impact with the PUD. · Solid Waste Disposal- Interest in coordinating efforts dealing with recycling, yard waste, transfer station, and long-haul trucking transportation of solid waste to help mitigate the anticipated costs of disposal as the City's landfill is scheduled for a 2006 closure. · Annexation - City and County coordination of impacts are necessary in order to fully explain service benefits I changes. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11 :30 a.m. with the next joint meeting to be organized by the County. III City / County Staff Meeting: April 25, 2001 Page 2 of 2 . . . . . . . ... " 4335 '/h . ~~JOINT MEETING CLALLAM COUNTY, CITY OF PORT ANGELES, PORT OF PORT ANGELES November 30, 2000 ~~ ' ~ ' dallam <:ounty: Jim Rumpeltes, Mike Doherty, Steve Tharlnger, Bob Martin, Joe Martin, Andy Brastad, Joe ., i. I ~ Oarlo, Mike Chapman ,AA.~J. ~~ ~ ~ Otv of Port Angeles: Orville Campbell, Lany Doyle, Michael Quinn, Larry Williams, Jiffi'FlUlett;- enn A. Mier . Port of Port Angeles: Leonard W. Beil, Glenn Beckman, Jack Waud, Chris Anderson, Bill James, CUrtis Shuck, Dave Hagiwara Citizens: Darlene Schanfald, Dan Karl (KONP), Mel Rudin, Vied Rudin Commissioner Doherty opened the meeting for the County Commissioner Jack Waud opened the meeting for the Port Mayor Lany Doyle opened the meeting for the City ANNEXATION Mike Quinn presented the aty of Port Angeles's plan for annexation tD the east of the dty. He suggested an Interlocal agreement defining the guiding prlndples of annexation. There were other comments/questions by Lany Doyle, Jim Hulett, Steve l11arlnger, Bob Martin SOUlli FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIAL PARK Chris Anderson Introduced Dave Hagtwara who gave a status report on the South Fairchild Industrial Park and distributed a recent study on the area by Reid MiddletDn. Dave said that a key goal of the project was to ' provide the costs and elements for development of Industrial property near the ,airport that could be sold. Stormwater management Is an Issue with the property because drainage water held In ponds over 72 hours Is a problem'with the FAA. There were other comments and questions from Lany Doyle, Chris Anderson, Lany Williams, Leonard Beil, Steve Tharinger, and Mike Quinn. AIRPORT AREA STORMWATER Chris Anderson presented photographs and described some of the challenges concerning stDnnwater management in this area. Dave Hagtwara further explaIned the improvement project west of the terminal. Other questions and comments were made by Brad Collins, Bob Martin, Glenn Beckman, Steve Tharinger, Chris Anderson, and Mike Quinn. ' SALMONRerrORATIONANDESAIMPA~ Bob Martin gave an overview of the county's salmon restoration effort and how they are preparing to meet requirements concerning county roads. Other questions and comments were made by Leonard Bell, Jack Waud, Brad Collins, Chris Anderson, Lany Doyle, Mike Doherty, Steve Tharinger, Jim Rumpeites, and Glenn Cutler. STATUS OF PORT ANGELES ~LGlenn Cutler described the status.9W}~ flt,rt rt A Ang, eIes landfill. He said that the City plans to dose it December V- 2006. The current permit expires ~OOl. The City has worked a lot with the Port and County concerning bird, management. He also talked about the future of waste disposal after the landfill doses. Joe Oarlo presented the status of the county's solid waste planning effort. There were other comments and questions by Bob Martin. INITIATIVE 722 Representatives from the City, Port, and County described what their jurisdictions are doing. Other comments and questions were made by Larry Williams, Mike Quinn, Mike Doherty, and Chris Anderson. .. , ~~ JOINT MEETING . CLALLAM COUNTY, CITY OF PORT ANGELES, PORT OF PORT ANGELES November 30, 2000 ADDDnONALCOMMENTS Mike Doherty asked for public comment and there was none. He asked the Port to host the next meeting and suggested the Port and City meet a few weeks before the joint WSAC, AWC toward the end of the regular legislative session. The administrative staff will arrange the specifics. Jack Waud suggested that the tribes be induded in future discussions regarding salmon restoration. Steve Tharinger and O1ris Anderson also commented. Larry Doyle asked about the status of the "road realignment project" or Edgewood Drive. Glenn 0JtIer said he would desaibe the project at the next council meeting. Respectfully submitted, . Jim Rumpeltes, Administrator Oallam County &~~ ~^-,- Becky J.. on,. ity Cle 4337 . . . . . . . CALL TO ORDER- SPECIAL MEETING: ROLL CALL: Economic Development 4162 City Council Special Meeting in Joint Session with the Clallam County Commissioners and the Commissioners of the Port of Port Angeles Port Angeles, Washington March 23, 2000 Mayor Doyle called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order at 4:05 p.rn. County Commissioner Doherty also called the special meeting of the Clallam County Commissioners to order, and Port Commissioner Waud called the special meeting of the Commissioners of the Port of Port Angeles to order. Mayor Doyle, Councilmembers Campbell, Erickson, Wiggins, andWilliams. Members Absent: Councilmembers Hulett and McKeown. Members Present: Staff Present: Manager Quinn, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, G. Cutler, and G. Kenworthy. County Commissioners Present: Commissioners Boardman, Doherty, and Tharinger. County Staff Present: J. Rumpeltes, B. Martin, and S. Hauff. Port Commissioners Present: Commissioners Waud, Beckman, and Bei!. C. Anderson, C. Shuck, J. Robb, K. Sweeney, M. Nimmo, P. Deja, B. James, D. Hagiwara, and C. Boddy. K. Stansifer, L. Green, T. Bell, V. & M. Rudin, J. Elbrader, . and C. Somerville. Port Staff Present: Public Present: Mayor Doyle welcomed all those in attendance to this joint meeting between the members of the City Council, the Commissioners of the Port of Port Angeles, and the Clallam County Commissioners. Manager Quinn made introductory remarks, noting that this meeting was intended to accomplish interaction, dialogue, and idea sharing among the elected officials of the three agencies, with an orientation toward policy direction. He reviewed the proposed agenda and then proceeded with discussion of the first item. Economic Development: Manager Quinn reviewed the City's efforts in economic development as of 1999. With the year 2000 as a project year, one of the goals was to assure the City was working collaboratively with other agencies for the benefit of the entire area. There is a mutual benefit because of Port and County property located in the City, so it is natural for the three entities to work together. Manager Quinn felt the City's role is to partner with the others and to leverage all possible resources, such as grant opportunities. It is important that high tech initiatives move ahead as a ring of influence spreads in the region. County Administrator Rumpeltes felt the newest and most significant effort the County is pursuing is the Opportunity Fund, as a result of State legislation approving funds for rural counties. The fund generates approximately $.5 million per year, and the concept brought forward by Bart Phillips was to create loan and small grant opportunities for public capital facilities to retain and increase jobs in the County. Administrator Rumpeltes reviewed the oversight board created in conjunction with the Opportunity Fund, how the fund was eStablished, and how it would operate. There are two proposals being considered at this time; by definition, any public entity can apply for - 1 - .. ..-...--.. .........._-_......._.,,---_.~_. _._.._~.--,-"-_.....- 4163' CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 23, 2000 Economic Development (Cont'd) funds. Discussion followed, and Port Executive Director Anderson summarized a joint application. involving the City and Port whereby an infrastructure/engineering analysis can be conducted for the Industrial Park south of the airport The ultimate goal is that the costs can be included in the City's long-term capital plan and budget. The City of Forks has submitted a pre-application for an Opportunity Fund grant, and discussion ensued about other types of projects being contemplated. Manager Quinn indicated that, as infrastructure/fiber needs progress, there will be more demand for these funds. He suggested that consideration be given to the parameters that might need to be set in this regard. . Administrator Rumpeltes continued by discussing the timber inventory, and Commissioner Doherty provided timber ~ventory history and a review of the funding entities. Three applications have been submitted to conduct the inventory, but it is likely the project will not commence for another three months. It is anticipated that the inventory can be used as a marketing tool, and the County h9Pes to attract a couple of small mills once the inventory has been completed. The inventory will also focus on the impact of regulations currently in place. To that end, Administrator Rumpeltes noted there are more attempts to make the regulatory process more user friendly in the interest of economic development, and Manager Quinn stated this is an issue for the City as well. Further, he felt it important for the City and County to identifY areas in which they can work together in the interest of making the regulatory process more "seamless" for the public. This could be a consideration especially as relates to the . Urban Growth Area. . Commissioner Doherty felt there is an ongoing battle to protect what we have in terms of quality of life and also managed gro~. However, there are areas in which the communities could work together, such as hotel/motel tax allocations. It would be in everyone's best interest to work together so that the lodging taxes don't create additional overhead. Perhaps the funds could be used more wisely, and Commissioner Doherty identified areas in which cooperation might be accomplished, such as cooperative web sites. Discussion followed on how lodging taxes are allocated by the County, how much has been set aside for capital facilities, and how much is directed toward marketing. Commissioner Tharinger felt there is a need to remember the agricultural aspect of the County, as there are various pieces that fit into the economic. puzzle. He suggested a farmers market. as a venue for the sale for farm products. In addition, as a means of directing tourists, he identified the need for more and better signage on the locations of lavender fields, bike trails, etc. Commissioner Doherty discussed the sanctuary as an example of how additional brochures might be purchased for distnbution to the tourists. Also, the Marine Resources Committee received $25,000 for education and interpretation, and this can be capitalized upon to ultimately help the tourist industry. Ms. Anderson referenced the Port's 100year Capital Improvement Plan, noting the Port is one of the main contn"butors to economic development because of the air and sea transportation ~acilities and opportunities. The Port operates much differently in that it is not regulatory in nature; funding is primarily from operations. Only 8% of the Port's total budget is in taxes. The Port is a landlord in many cases, and Ms. Anderson listed the different properties in Port possession. She reviewed the success in Carlsborg and noted that most of the Port property cannot be sold, as it is restricted to leasing. Ms. Anderson discussed recent property acquisition and related how many companies prefer to own property. The Port now has property available on a lease basis which will result in new jobs. The Capital Improvement Plan was formulated in association with this year's budget and, in conjunction with that effort, advisory committees have been established as relates to the Marina and the Airport. In addition, focus groups are working on harbor use, marine fishing, aiIport usage, and identification of needed land improvements. Brief discussion followed on the implementation of interlocal agreements, how lead agency status is identified, and how roles are established in conjunction with the agreements. Ms. Anderson cited the example of the joint effort between the City and the Port on the Valley Creek Estuary, the Airport Road realignment, and the study on infrastructure needs in the area of the Airport. The associated agreements identify the role of each participating agency. It was suggested that the agencies might work cooperatively in the timing of some of their projects, and Manager Quinn felt it would . . -2- 4165' CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 23, 2000 Break StonnwaterfWatershed Management Other Issues The meeting was recessed for a break at 5:25 p.m. and reconvened at 5:55p.m. StormwaterlWatershed Management: Director Martin su:nunarized the regional approach to stormwater/watershed management, especially as relates to the 4(d) Rule. The County received a DOE grant for its stonnwater management plan; a draft plan was established and has since been rewritten. A good resource has been the existing manual for Puget Sound, which has been helpful in such areas as pennitting in critical areas, other development pennits, and also identifying which management practices make sense in different parts of the County. Director Martin noted that, as the County continues to grow and more development takes place, there is more concem between landowners about the patterns of stonnwater drainage. There is also the added issue of the NMFS 4( d) RUle in that storm water must be managed better because of the need for salmon recovery. He was encouraged by where the County is on this matter, as work has progressed with the Dungeness Watershed Management Team. Efforts are proceeding in the implementation of policies to reduce the impact on waterways. He felt the County is in reasonably good shape, as it can work with all watershed management groups, the City, and the Port on these issues. Councilman Campbell inquired as to the nature of feedback from the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Director Martin felt the NMFS would rely on local government to protect habitat.. Further discussion ensued on this regulatory process and the expense and frustration of the City as regards the biological assessment for the Airport Road realignment. Public Works Deputy Director Kenworthy summarized the CitY's efforts in stonnwater management The City adopted its own clearing, grading and drainage ordinance and has moved through Phase I with the adoption of stormwater mles. Phase IT will involve how the City deals with the water quality aspect, and Deputy Director Kenworthy indicated the City would be adopting the Puget Sound manual. He discussed the drainage of water from the County to the City to Port property. The City has partnered with different entities to address stormwater issues in such areas as Big Boy Pond, Lincoln Parle, as well as the "seven streams project". The City is attempting to get City streams back in shape, which can seem like an overpowering issue. Further, the City is dealing with its combined sewer system, which Deputy Director Kenworthy noted will ultimately cost as much as the secondary treatment plant in the next few years. The inflow/infiltration project will take some of the drainage out of the sewer system and into the storm drain system. Also, the City is working towards correcting drainage into the harbor. In the ensuing ~sion,Deputy Director Kenworthy indicated grant funding is difficult on stormwater projects, and the City's biggest challenge will be to meet stormwater rules for Phase n. Councilman Wiggins felt the only way the City could obtain grant funding would be through Federal assistancc; however, hc noted these regulations are currently unfunded mandates. Thc discussion that followed centered around the costs associated with these regulations, and Ms. Anderson indicated that developers are also experiencing increased costs in this arena. Further, the Port has revise4 its budget for the Airport primarily becaUse of the ESA listing as it relates to stormwater management The group then discussed the purpose of the Marine. Resources Committee, its importance, and the need to maintain representation on the stormwater and watershed management issues. Ms. Anderson had promised more Port involvement, as there is a regulation against ponding within 10,000 ft. of a ruilway where birds would be attracted. Discussion also involved the three entities doing some offsite mitigation as part of the watershed planning issue.. CommiSsioner Tharinger felt the natural infrastmcture has been neglected, and that the account has been drawn down to a level where it needs to be rebuilt. . . . Other Issues: Mayor Doyle directed attention to the removal of the Elwha dams and the fact that the Port Angeles water system will be affected. There has been discussion about a possible regional water system, but it is unknown as to how this will play out. Manager Quinn added that, in addition to water quality, the matter of water rights must be addressed. Director Martin pointed out there are many Type A and Type B water systems that are presently out of compliance. On another matter, the group considcred the advantages of the three entities working . together. in shared services and shared purchasing. Discussion was also generated on the matter of fiber optics and how the agencies can work cooperatively. . - 4- FORTANGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: June 11, 2002 Subject: Andy Meyer, Clallam County Planning Director Brad Collins, Community Development Director ~ UGA Permit Coordination To: From: The Growth Management Act (GMA) required the City and the County to coordinate land use planning policy through consistent Comprehensive Plans. Both the City's and the County's plans do that. In particular, the County's Port Angeles Regional Comprehensive Plan adopts the City's urban service standards as applicable to development in our Urban Growth Area (UGA). As a practical matter, implementing development regulations has not always been as doable. I believe that the City and the County have worked together in good faith on major developments inside the UGA as well as inside the City. An early example of development review in the UGA under GMA was the Shotwell industrial park. The County requested the City's review comments, which we provided as ifthe project was located in the City and required infrastructure improvements such as sewer and water. However, the Hearing Examiner found that the project could reasonably obtain these improvements and approved the development without the required concurrency (i.e., sewer and water systems "at the time of development). While the City';" commented, we did not appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision, and the development went forth. Over time,i similar major development projects have gone through the, same review process with more or less the same, results (i.e., approval with conditions but not concurrency at the time of development). As more development has taken place in the UGA and as the City and the County have endeavored to reach interlocal agreements on urban service provisions outside the City limits, a better approach to the issue of concurrency is needed. A much simpler example of this need for a better approach can be seen in the requirements for subdividing land in the City versus in the County. Both the City's and the County's Comprehensive Plans encourage increased residential development in the urban area, but in the City the cost of providing sewer and water systems favor continued land division in the County where such costs to the developer can be minimized. The City has recently begun rethinking its urban service standards to make it easier for the infrastructure to be provided in the UGA and to lower the development standards, which have been required in the City for many years. In comparison to other cities in Western Washington, the Port Angeles urban standards are fairly middle of the road, not exceptionally high. However, residential development in Port Angeles has been slow in comparison to that which is taking place in Clallam County. GMA policy recognizes the desire to direct more residential development into cities, but our UGA development standards and approval processes have not implemented that policy. Herein lies the problem of urban service standards and development regulations. ,~ City/County Permit Coordination June 11, 2002 Page 2 ., The City and the County development approvals are suppose to follow growth management policies. The need to incorporate not only consistent development standards but also consistent improvement requirements in urban areas (i.e., in the City and in the UGA) must be addressed through a better approach to the issue of concurrency that is written down and approved in an interlocal agreement between Port Angeles and Clallam County. Our collective, good faith efforts at permit coordination have been laudable, but we need to take concurrency to the next level in development approvals. I believe that the City has been and will continue to take a practical approach to urban service standards, which the County can support. An interlocal agreement on development requirements and permit coordination should be a priority to both our jurisdictions, if we are going to accomplish a better approach to concurrency. cc: Michael Quinn, City Manager Dan Engelbertson, County Administrator .\ I., ,~ \'; -:' Company: Now dumo at: Cost: Local site good idea? Comments: Acme Septic Shelton $.l1/gal Definitely, if price is competitive Would like to be kept informed of Pumping progress 457.8766 Arrow Septic Shelton Probably $.11 Not necessary-currently city can't Pumping; take septage during the rainy ~ controls 50-60% I season of sewage; cost Dale (owner) would be happy to of tanker truck is work with board and provide $125K answers; very knowledgable 457.8481 Fair Deal No answer/just 457.5494 machine Good Man Shelton $. l1/gal Yes - if cost is same; doesn't Must be able to accept grease as 457.5596 always drive to Shelton-uses well as septage tanker services too Roto-Rooter - Shelton $. l1/gal Yes-would save time and could Seems that we're giving money owner Darian reduce equipment he has to have; away that we could keep in the Sofie - would presently charges about $300/ to community; thinks all septage would love to talk to empty 1000 gal tank eventually go into local system; you wonders what we would do with all 457.1206 the water as we have way more water than solids Good Man Shelton $. l1/gal Absolutely/would be really good Sanitation news for them if price were 457.4121 competitive Jefferson Co. Has dump site Charges $.15/gal Apparently they are offering a to dump lower rate now of $12.5/gal but local pumpers want it @ $.12 or less oer qal . )~.::'.r;,~~~;-::, ~:. r}:'\ Last printed 06/11/02 4: 10 PM J: \users\pthornto \septage information 1.doc I .