BC 2007 01 22 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 22, 2007 (Regular Meeting) Page 293 Support, Adult Protective Services and Guardianship, and Child Protective Services and Foster Care/Adoptions. She reviewed the standards adopted by the American Bar Association for the practice .of law in child welfare agencies and the recommended caseload amount according to the National Association of Counsel for Children and the National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy. Potential problems associated with high caseloads were also identified. She reported currently, the two individual staff attorneys manage the cases assigned to them with no oversight regarding legal performance and identified several problems with this arrangement. She identified the benefits a managing attorney would offer the Agency, summarized the problems associated with failing to address identified problems, reiterated her request for an Attorney II position and stated her availability to answer questions. Ms. Russell responded to numerous questions-from the Board Several Board members expressed concern about having to manage a professional employee. Chairman Carruth suggested this item be tabled until February and to receive input from the Social Service Board of Directors. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Mynatt, seconded by Commissioner Privette with Chairman Carruth, Vice Chairman Juba and Commissioners Mynatt and Privette voting for and Commissioner White voting against, the Board tabled the request to establish an Attorney II position for the Department of Social Services until the February work session and invited the Social Services Board Chair to attend the meeting. (G-3) Request for Refund of Rezoning Fees by Archie Smith At the Board's request, Jonathan Marshall, Commerce Director, reviewed the statutory requirements concerning notification procedures used in large and small-scale rezonings, including the use of direct-m.=flings, newspaper advertisements and posting signs on the affected property A copy of these statues was previously provided to the Board. With regard to Mr. Smith's property, he reported the notification procedures outlined in the statute were followed and the property owners were notified by direct mail using a postcard. He said he has no reason to doubt that the property owners did not see the notification that came to them. He recommended all affected property owners be notified by direct mail with an actual letter and envelope, should the Board want to change its notification procedures. However, he pointed out there would be a cost and time consideration associated with this option with no guarantee the property owner will read the direct mailing. Second, he recommended the County continue to use half page advertisements in the local newspapers in addition to posting the public hearing notification on the County's website. He also commented on the impracticality of posting rezoning signs on property affected in large-scale rezonings. In conclusion, he reported these changes would need to go through the -Planning and Zoning Commission and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Marshall responded to a question from Commissioner Mynatt concerning the use of automated telephone messaging to notify property owners. There was a brief discussion on the prudence of notifying affected property owners by direct mail and whether to use regular mail or certified mail. Mr. Marshall verified the procedures for adopting a text amendment as outlined by Chairman Carruth. Next, Mr. Marshall addressed the refund itself. He reported initially, there was discussion on how to classify refund requests and how to develop a methodology and criteria for the Board to consider. He stated there had been no requests for refunds in the past 19 years and it is difficult to categorize the request. Since all property was originally zoned through a mass rezoning, he said the Board may want to only consider refunds for mass rezonings and place a time limit on the request. He pointed out that the Smith's refund request was received a year after the property was rezoned. He suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission be authorized to consider refund requests since they have been entrusted with the rezoning initially and statutorily has the final say on the rezoning. He further reported the Board may receive two more refund requests from property owners affected by the 2005 mass rezoning.