HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032111
~~~O~rnL
~/!v~SON 0~~..
c:s 'r~ \~..
=/~ \. ,\~\,
( ;:; ~.N ><
"'~"
District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin
County Administrator: Philip Morley
Clerk ofthc Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of March 21, 2011
Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of
Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Phil Johnson.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens in
attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions:
. Quilcene Conversations' is a community effort to bring back Quilcene through a number of
projects and the residents would like to stay in close communication with the County;
The shellfish aquaculture industry has carefully followed the draft SMP and there is language in
several articles that need to be changed as suggested by DOE or removed altogether;
. DCD staff is acting unilaterally making proposed language changes to the LASMP regarding
shelltish aquaculture;
. Finfish aquaculture is a vital industry in this State and needs to be invested in and approved. We
learn trom our past mistakes and fintish aquaculture can be allowed as a conditional use. This
County needs jobs:
A proposed change to the County Code is on the agenda without a hearing of the Commissioners;
The Sportsman's Club application to add more shooting bays at their facility is being pushcd
through and there should be an assessment of the range before any permit is granted;
A suggestion was made that the people of Quilcene install signs leading people to logging roads
that will take them around the Olympic Peninsula. Tonight is the maximum carthquake dangcr
for the entire year because the moon is the closest it will be to the earth this year.
COMllifISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates
on the following items:
Chairman Austin went to the West End last weck and met \\ith rcsidents to discuss funding
opportunities and etforts to keep the Hoh Road open. He will bc meeting with the Port Gamble Tribe
later this week to talk about DNR timber asset management.
Commissioner Sullivan noted that thc WRlA 17 Committee is now knO\\l1 as the East Jefferson
Watershed Council. There is a watershed management bill in the Legislature that would provide funding
to implement the plan. He has an 11 :30 a.m. conference call with the Executive Board of thc RC&D
today and federal budget implications will be discussed at the regular RC&D meeting on Thursday.
Commissioner Johnson reported that he gave a presentation at the Heritage Caucus of the State
Legislature to advise them of the need for Building 202 at Fort Worden and the problems with the
Courthouse especially if there is an earthquake. He also testificd at a hearing by the State Senate on the
"Vessel of Opportunity" program. He has a drall of a new agreement for the Hood Canal Coordinating
Council which hasn't bcen updated since the group was formed in 1986. This week he will be in
Olympia for a day to attend a committee meeting for the Washington State Association of Counties.
Page I
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 201 J
/C',,~;>.
,,~\,'
("'~::~:
<?;,$
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioncr Sullivan
moved to approval all ofthe items as presented. Commissioner Johnson secondcd the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 11-1!: Increasing Petty Cash in the Solid Wastc Fund from $2,450.00 to
$2,700.00
2. RESOLUTION NO. 12-11: Creating a County Project Dcsignated as CRJ886; Improving
Safety on the County Road System
3. AGREEMENT: Local Agency Agrcement and Fedcral Aid Project Prospectus, Run-Off~Road
and Intersection Safety Project; Project No. CR 1886; Funded 100% by Federal Highway
Administration Funds; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington Statc Department of
Transportation
4. AGREEMENT: 2011 Community Services Grant Funding: In thc Amount 01'$12,500.00; Port
Townsend Senior Association
5. AGREEMENT, Change Order No. 1: Time Extension Irom '\1arch 23,201 J to June 20, 2011
and Change of Scope of Equipment and Serviccs; Jeff Com 911 Radio System Improvements;
Jeff Com; Day Wireless Systems
6. AGREEMENT, Intergovernmental: Schooll\urse Corps Program; In the Amount 01'$7,638.00;
Jefferson County Public Health; Olympic Educational Service District No. 114
7. AGREEMENT, Amendment No.3: Community Information and Education Services; $1,500.00
Decrease for a New Total 01'$24,940.00: Jefferson County Public Hcalth; ARC of Jefferson and
Kitsap Counties
8, AGREEMENT NO. 14F-4130-0116, Appendix' A': 2011 Funding Support for Extension
Agent, 4-H Agent, 4-H Agent (After School Program), Water Quality Educator and Marine
Resources Committec; In the Amount of $51, 730.00: Jefferson County WSU Extension Office;
Washington State University Extension, Office of Grant & Research Development
9. Advisory Board Appointment; Jefferson County "loxious Weed Control Board; To serve an
unexpired four (4) year term expiring Fcbruary 11, 2012: Richard Hefley, Weed Board District
1\0. 3 Representative
10. Payment of Jefferson County VoueherslWarrants Dated March 14,201 I Totaling
$602,790.52
AGREE1WENT, Amendment: 2011 Regional Services for Municipal (District) Court,
Jail, Public Health and Animal Services; City of Port Townsend: County Administrator Philip Morley
stated that this agreement is for Municipal (District) Court, Jail, Public Health and Animal Services. He
then reviewed the amount for each service the County provides the City and the terms orthe agreement.
He explained the difference between the services provided by the City and the County and the regional
services provided in this agreement. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the amendment to the
regional services agreement as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carricd by
a unanimous vote.
HEARING: Proposed Resolution Granting a Franchise to Install and Operate Electric
Power Facilities in Eastern Jefferson County; Puget Sound Energy: Public Works Developmcnt
Review Planning Project Coordinator, Jim Pearson, explained that this hcaring is to take public
testimony on a franchise for Puget Sound Energy to operate electrical transmission and distribution
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of:\1arch 21,2011
A~-~
/._rjJ;-;;jN..
1- ,\,
"
\~s:;-;/J/
facilities in County road rights-of-way. It establishes the terms and conditions of that use with a
franchise term of 15 years and an option to renew it for 10 additional years. This franchise is similar to
one that was done for Washington State Parks to operate their sewer efIluent line in Brinnon.
Jim Pearson continued by noting that the PSE franchise is proposed for the eastern side of Jefferson
County north of Mount Walker. The PUD has entered into an agreement with PSE to purchase their
electric utility in Jefferson County and this franchise can be assigned to the PUD in the future. The
assignment would take an action of the County Commissioners. PSE operations are regnlated by the
Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission and by the tariffs they set. The peD is not
subject to eTC oversight or tariffs and that would have to be revised if the document is assigned to the
peD. Utilities in County rights-of~way are governed by Title 13.56 of the Jefferson County Code and
this franchise references meeting the conditions of the Codc. The Board is not being asked to take any
action today. The public commcnt period is open until Friday, March 26, 2011. Staff will summarize
any comments received and bring them back to the Board to discuss, or if no comments are received they
will send the Franchise to the Board for final action.
Tom Brobst, Municipal Liaison Manager for Puget Sonnd Energy, reported that he has worked in
Jefferson County for 23 years. He provided the Board a copy of the franchise briefing book which is an
overview of the franchise. lIe appreciates Jefferson County's time and efforts to get to this point.
Jim Pearson explained that the issue of the proposal by Northwest Open Access Network ("IoaNet) to
bring broadband service into the County came up during negotiations with regard to how this franchise
and PSE's facilities would accommodate the NoaNet proposal. He noted that it is common for other
utilities to co-locate lines on clectric power transmission distribution facilities. This is typically done
through a joint facilities use agreement which allows the rental of these facilities. Section 13 of the
franchise provides that PSE will allow the County to install and maintain County O\vncd
communications equipment on their utility poles provided that the County's use of such facilities shall
be for non-commercial, municipal communications purposes. The County doesn't have to pay a fee for
this. PSE is gaining a benefit from the County for use ofthe County's right-of:way. In discussion with
PSE about NoaNet use of their facilities, PSE was not willing to allow NoaNet to use their facilities
without a co-location agreement at a cost.
Commissioner Sullivan noted that because the franchise is non-exclusive other entities can use the
County's right-of-way or partner with others to share cost. Philip Morley added that the first phase of the
broadband initiative with NoaNet under the federal grant is strictly for serving the public anchor
institutions, however, as part of that grant there is a requirement that this will provide infrastructure that
subsequently could be broadened to piggyback commercial use. Section 13 of this franchise agreement
requires that the service has to be County owned and NoaNet is a coalition of public utilities and not
County O\vned. Ultimately the broadband trunk-line will be used for not only government and non-
commercial use but also commercial use. It would have been nice to have this in place but it was not
possible for this proposed franchise agreement.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2011
/~~~...
I;'I~':
\<:~~;--d:/
Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County, said that he is cxtremely disappointed in the inability to negotiate the
broadband needs in this agreement. It is not speculativc that the PSE poles will be taken ovcr by the
PUD, it is a matter of fact that it will happen. Hc doesn't understand why it isn't possible to put this into
thc agreement? Why isn't it possible to put a guarantcc in this agreement that the broadband facilities
for NoaNet will be carried at no additional cost to the rate payers. How is it going to bc possible to
dilTerentiate when onc bundle offiberoptic cable is running over this serics of poles which part of that
traffic is municipal and non-commercial as opposed to the part that is commercial? Public agencies will
be in effect paying for the use ofthese poles. The fact that PSE is unwilling to budge on this and the fact
that thc County, who is basically holding all the cards on this franchisc agrcement, isn't able to gct
adequate provisions in the agreement is extremely disappointing. He doesn't understand how this can be
allowed to happen. IIe suggested they go back to the bargaining table and get it done right beFore it is
signed. What's the problem, what's the rush?
Mike Belenski, Jcflerson County, said that it's not the County's right-of-way it's the public's right-of-
way. For example the right-of-way in tront of his house was identified in the 1932 plat as dedicated to
the public forevcr. That creates an easement across that 30 foot strip in front of his house and the
neighbor across the street also gave up the same 30 foot strip so there is a 60 foot right-ot~way for thc
passage of the public. Thcre is a cloud against his title because he grantcd an easement to the County to
use that 30 foot strip for a road. He agreed with Tom's (Thiersch) testimony. Increased rates are in the
future for people because of what the County is doing.
Hearing no further comment for or against the proposed franchisc, the Chairman closed the oral
testimony portion of the hearing and Jim Pearson reported that written testimony will be accepted by the
Clerk of the Board of Commissioners until 4 p.m. on Friday, March 25,2011.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that this agrcement has been expired for several years and asked why this
has to be done? Why not wait until the PUD takes over? Jim Pearson explained that the PUD is
purchasing PSE's tacilities and on-going business. PSE doesn't currcntly have authority to operate their
business in Jefferson County. There isn't clarity about the terms and conditions about how they operate.
It's important as the PCD movcs ahead to purchase PSE's facilities to have clarity for what they are
purchasing and the terms and conditions for operation. He then explained that having this tranchise in
place is important to help the transfer move ahead and provides assurance to potential PUD bond
holders.
Philip Morley askcd if this franchise would transfer to the PUD or would they be required to cntcr a new
franchise agreement, or is this something the PUD and the County could voluntarily enter into? Jim
Pearson advised that PSE can assign the franchise to the PUD, but it would take written authorization
trom the Board of Commissioners. He anticipates an application to transfer the franchise. Therc arc
some tenus and conditions in the PSE tranchise that would not apply or be appropriate for thc PUD, so
there would be a negotiation about thosc terms and conditions before the tranchise came to the Board for
approval. IfPSE did not want to assign the franchise to the PUD, the PUD could make a scparate
application to the County because the franchise is non-exclusive.
Tom Brobst clarified that the franchise is a contract between the County and PSE. One of the important
tariff's established is Rate Schedule 74 for conversion of overhead facilities to underground. This is a
Page 4
Commissioners Mceting Minutes: Week of March 21, 20 II
~~.
I:~~~~O
shared cost between PSE and thc government cntity and is only available to cities and counties. PSE
would fund this conversion at 60% and the County would pay 40% in addition to trenching and
restoration. The contract betwcen PSE and the County is the franchise and if that is not in place the
County would not be eligible for that cost sharing. This is a bencfit to Jefferson County to have the
franchise in place and have the 60/40 split on thcsc costs during the timc it takes the PUD to complete
the deal with PSE.
DISCUSSION and POSSIBLE DIRECTION: Planning Commission Recommendation
for MLA08-00257; Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment of Sexually Oriented (Adult)
Businesses: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner-Lead, cxplained that this is a recommcndation
from the Planning Commission on proposed regulations for siting sexually oriented busincsses within
the County. Thc Planning Commission made a recommendation on June 2. 2010 that included
provisions for creating a new scction of Chapter 5 of the Jefferson County Code for a business license.
That recommendation is problematic. The moratorium was renewed for another 6 months to allow staff
to look into ways to establish licensing for this type of business. The current moratorium expires May 9,
20 II. The Planning Commission reconsidered their recommendation on thc licensing provision on
February 2, 2011. They removed that provision from the recommendation and voted to approve thc
proposed recommendation. The Board can accept the Planning Commission rccommendation as
presentcd or if not, the Board can hold its own public hearing.
Commissioner Sullivan asked ifthe Planning Commission reviewed the pros and cons of having this
type of business localized in certain areas or dispersed through the County" David Waync Johnson
answered that thc Planning Commission reviewed this the first time and determined that these
businesses need to be separatc from one another to keep from cstablishing a defacto "red light" district.
Having them separated defuses the cumulative impact of that use. Thc Planning Commission
recommendation is to have them separatcd. There are "sensitive" areas that they have to stay a spccific
distance from which is listed in Attachment 2.
Philip Morley noted that previously this ordinance was proposcd with licensing provisions and the Clerk
ofthc Board of Commissioners was to be the administrator ofthc liccnsing and that was an imperfect tit
from a City system to a County system which is what motivated the request for further thought and study
by the Planning Commission. It was not necessarily the intent to have the licensing provisions removed.
David Waync Johnson pointed out that one issue is the fact that the County does not have business
license provisions for any business and to cstablish them just for one type of business didn't seem fair
whi~h is why the Planning Commission revised thcir rccommcndation. Thcy felt that once the County
dccides to have business liccnses for all businesses this could be reconsidered. The Planning
Commission had quite a debate about this and why thc County is even considering the regulation of this
type of business. The discussion turned to whether the County could or could not establish a liccnse for
this type of business after an application is received from a sexually oriented business; and whether
establishing the land use regulation without a business license would have the unintended consequence
of encouraging such businesses to locate in the County.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2011
4:'i~
'YJli. ,.."
I-I~.n
\\:~0;/
David Wayne Johnson stated that he had a discussion with thc Sherif I who feels that the possibility of
having a sexually oriented business established in JefIerson County is highly unlikcly. A large
population based is needed to make a business like that work. Stacie Hoskins reported that if the County
imposed a business license requirement after a business was established the business would not be
"grandfathered" from the license requirement. This is not a planning issue and there is no "vesting."
David Wayne Johnson added that a business license ordinance would have to be separate from an
ordinance for siting (land use) ofthis type of business. Stacie Hoskins reminded everyone that in order to
trigger these regulations this would have to be more than 25% of their business. Anyone applying for the
siting of this type of business has to go through a conditional use proccss which requires a public hearing
before the Hearing Examiner, David Wayne Johnson added.
Commissioner Sullivan explained that the development of this ordinance was triggered because the City
of Port To"msend passed this type of regulation. In cities, the City Clerk administers licenscs. David
Alvarez advised that the City requires business licenses. Commissioner Johnson stated that he tends to
agree with the Sheri fT that there isn't enough population in this area for a business like this. The most
likely type of such busincss would be a strip club. The discussion continued regarding the need for this
typc of regulation in this area.
Commissioner Johnson asked why thc County doesn't have business licenses for all businesses? David
Alvarez stated that the County doesn't havc the legal authority to cstablish business liccnsing. Commis-
sioner Johnson then asked if the County could establish a business license provision for a single type of
business? Philip Morley clarified that the County may not have the authority for a generic business
license, but a license could be establishcd to recover the costs for this type of spccific business. Chair-
man Austin askcd if it is legal and ethical to continuc a moratorium as long as the Board is engaged in
efforts to create the zoning and if necessary attendant rcgulations? He fecls it would be in the County's
best intercst to have some regulations in effect before the moratorium is lifted.
The Board concurred that they are not rcady to act on this recommendation. Philip Morley suggested that
this issue bc the subject of a workshop with the Prosecuting Attorney, the Sheriff and the Board.
DISCUSSION: Jefferson County Response to Department of Ecology on Changes to
the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (LASMP) MLA08-475: Michclle McConnell, Asso-
ciate Planner, explaincd that this discussion left off last week with a review of finfish aquaculture
including net pens. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez handed out a document
named "Appendix D Final Report" and an e-mail trom Jeffrey Stewart, DOE, with additional guidance.
DOE had a policy meeting and this e-mail outlines some of the conclusions that came out of that
meeting. A revised version of the County's response on items 13, 14, and IS (matrix datcd 3/21/11)
which is the aquaculture section of the LASMP was used for this review.
Commissioner Sullivan thanked David Alvarez for providing thc 1986 guidelines. David Alvarez ex-
plained that what he has provided is Appendix D of the Bremerton SMP and it is missing pages.
Michelle McConnell advised that the 1986 guidelines were to be interim until completion of the
programmatic environmental impact statement (ElS.) The EIS has been completed, but a copy has not
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2011
"~~~,
I~i~~::
been found yet. Commissioner Sullivan explained how he has used this information in his rcvicw and
that he feels he has more homework to do before anything is decided. Somc of the language in the
Whatcom County SMP deals with aquaculture as a broad issue rather than finfish as a specific issue and
there may be unintended conscquences of doing that.
Stacie Hoskins noted that in gencral when a change is made to a provision for a specific use the rest of
the provisions for that use are affected. David Alvarez added that an attorney for fhc shcllfish industry
pointed out places where this document gavc her concern:
Page I, Ddinition of experimental aquaculture.
Page 2, Number 8 - The last sentence added.
Page 5, Number "xv" and all of "vi" and "vii."
Page 7, Addition of the phrase "or upland aquaculture" in E.l.
The shellfish industry position is that the shellfish portions of this document were hammered out through
a very long and detailed process that they were willing to and gladly participated in. They camc to a
compromisc that they are happy with and therefore they are surpriscd that there were any changes that
would effect that particular type of aquaculture at this late date.
Michelle McConnell pointed out that the DOE has not said that the County can't propose any changes
outsidc what thcy listcd as rcquired or rccommended. Some of the provisions added by the County from
the Whatcom County S:v!P would be broadly applied not simply limitcd only to finfish aquaculture. Staff
included certain provisions of the Whatcom County SMP which were not specific to finfish aquaculture
because that is what the Board directed.
Chairman Austin stated that the overall policy guidance from the Board is that they don't want any
changes in the LASMP that will have a negative impact on shcllfish aquaculture. The original LAS:v!P
provisions regarding shellfish were approved by DOE and wcrc vetted by our local industry and the
Board. If the Whatcom SMP deviates from that in such a way that it impacts our local shellfish
aquaculture we don't want to follow the Whatcom SMP. Commissioner Johnson suggestcd that
provisions from finfish and shellfish aquaculture be separated. Michellc McConnell noted that this draft
docs have subsection D that is regulations speci fic only to finfish.
Commissioner Sullivan asked that staff provide the background information so they can read and digest
it. He'd like the missing pages to the 1986 document, and the EIS document. He is interested in any
unintended consequcnces that anyone sees. After they know what guidelines are out there, the Board can
give guidance to stall. When the public hearing is held the public will provide feedback on anyihing
that's missed, what they feel the regulations and guidelines should be and what thcy should be in
Jefferson County. The real question is what should be put out for the public hearing? Thc discussion
continued regarding the review of the guidelines, siting guidelines, commercial salmon netpen
operations as opposed to other commercial netpen operations, and marine finfish aquaculture.
Stacie Hoskins noted that the Board has requested information that may not be available today and even
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting \1inutes: Week of March 21, 20 II
~~.\
ur;: 1'-1
\~-,~~~1'~/'
if it is the Board will necd time to review it so shc asked if the Board wants to continue this review
today? Chairman Austin suggested that the review continuc in the afternoon for discussion of other areas
of thc document.
The meeting was recessed at II :31 a.m. All three Commissioners were prescnt whcn thc
mecting reconvened at 1:32 p.m.
DISCUSSION: Jefferson County Response to Department of Ecology on Changes to
the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (LASMP) MLA08-475: County Administrator Philip
Morley advised that regarding finfish aquaculture, the Board has asked for a number of documents
before thcy arc ready to resume their rcvicw of those sections. This afternoon's discussion is to review
shcllfish aquaculture provisions.
Chairman Austin stated there has been concern expressed by the shellfish industry about the definition of
experimental aquaculturc. The original definition in the LASMP was limited to new species. Michelle
McConnell confirmed that thc LASMP on page 2-14 does include a definition for experimental aqua-
culture and it is limitcd to species that have not been previously cultivated. When staff made revisions to
the proposcd language to integrate the Whatcom County S\1P provisions it seemed appropriate to
changc that definition so that it was consistcnt with thc rcst ofthc rcgulatory text. Chairman Austin
asked if this term would be clcar in Court? David Alvarez said that this definition allows a lot of
discrction for the Administrator. There's not any way to clearly delincate what is experimental. Staff
suggestcd that thcy continue to look to see if there is an existing statutory or WAC definition. The
discussion continued about thc diffcrence between the previously approvcd definition and thc suggested
dctinition and how it would impact shelUish aquaculture which then led to discussion of how changes
can be made to the LASMP if something is being changed that was previously approved by the County
and the DOE and if wording isn't changed ifit could be updated after the LASMP is adoptcd by DOE?
Chairman Austin stated that he feels more material is being introduced that will be subject to lcgal
challenges or at least may make it more of a hassle for the aquaculture industry if the last three para-
graphs are included (page 5 on the 3/21/11 draft; xv, vi and vii). Michelle McConnell explaincd that
thosc are General Regulations that apply to all types of aquaculture. On thc ncxt page, Section D only
applies to tlnfish. Stacie Hoskins clarified that thc text that applies to shellfish will be left as it is and
text that applies specifically to finfish will be placed in the "Finfish" scction (Section D.)
Chairman Austin suggcstcd that on page 7, Section E.I rcgulations the upland aquaculture reference be
dcletcd. That wasn't in the LASMP. Michelle McConnell explaincd that this text was added because
\vithout it that provision doesn't apply to upland. Upland aquaculture wasn't included originally in the
LASMP because upland finfish aquaculture was prohibited thcreforc no provisions were needed. With
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 2011
~~\
I=I~I~I
\":Z~?p'
the wording as changed the County can require information from any aquaculture applicant regardless of
the type of aquaculture. This information would assist in the application review and for a conditional use
permit the information is helpful in devising conditions. This is information that would be provided from
other agencies. The discussion then turned to what regulations (aquaculture or agriculture) would apply
to upland aquaculture if the wording remains as changed.
Chairman Austin reminded the Board members that if a hearing notice is going to be approved today it
needs to be done to get it to the newspaper by the deadline. Stacie Hoskins advised that the DOE
appreciates the work Jefferson County has been doing and they feel we're making progress. It's
important that the process continue, that progress is made and that the Board is comfortable with the
final version before setting a date of the public hearing. StatT will continue to track dO'.'.TI the requested
documents.
COUNTY ADMINiSTRA TOR BRIEFiNG SESSiON: County Administrator Philip
Morley reviewed the following with the Board.
Calendar Coordination
Legislative Cpdate
Continued Planning for 2011
. Miscellaneous Items
. Future Agenda Items
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn at 3:47 p.m.
until the next regularly scheduled meeting or properly noticed special meeting. Commissioner Johnson
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
\1EETI1\'G ADJOURNED
, ,1.
>', ~.......\ -;'
'".r...7,,:.' 'ii
. " I
). ,: .(;
....J
"
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIOJ\"ERS
. I) II:/"
I'\-\/,~ ,A ,;.:Ji..,......
JO~11 A'ustin,''Chair
-)
" f'
SEAL: ',:' ,..
..... . \ '--~'.
-,:} ',_.J.,-'
",) If! " -"
".. \ oJ.
'r.... '...../,
.
,..: i
'<.....
,
A TrEST:
cYCY241QM~
Lorna Delaney, C'v1C 0
Clerk of the Board
. I
c ( l L^---.
Phil Johnsqn, Member
//1
" . l /:' /y'"
t' ,., .... L'/'A :2:'/'
// ,./~/
" ~' "
" J c- 'f
~. C'".O:"-''''"tf ~ ".-{-li," -i,-..,-~
David Sullivan, Member
Page 9
Page 1 of 4
Leslie Locke
From: Jim Pearson
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. franchise, public hearing comments; PSE response to comments by
Tom Thiersch
Jim Pearson
Jefferson County Public Works Department
623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9162
(360) 385-9234 Fax
HEARING RECORD
From: Jim Pearson
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 2:29 PM
To: Commissioners
Cc: Philip Morley; Frank Gifford; Monte Reinders; Jon Watson; 'Brobst, Thomas M'
Subject: FW: Puget Sound Energy, Inc, franchise, public hearing comments; P5E response to comments by Tom
Thiersch
Commissioners.
Mr Tom Thiersch submitted comments to the Jefferson County PUD and the Board of Commissioners by email
on March 24, 2011 regarding the proposed Puget Sound Energy franchise. (See below) Public Works was copied
on those comments and provided them to Puget Sound Energy. Public Works also requested information from
PSE regarding tariffs for Joint Facilities Use Agreements which is an issue that was discussed at the public
hearing.
Attached for your consideration and to be included in the public record for the hearing is an email from Mr. Tom
Brobst, PSE Olympic Region Municipal Liaison Manager. Mr. Brobst responded to Mr. Thiersch's comments. He
also provided citations in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that relate to tariffs for Joint Facilities Use
Agreements.
After the close of the public comment period Public Works will review the comments received through the close of
the public hearing and submit a Regular Agenda Request to the Board that formally responds to the comments
and makes a recommendation to the Board.
Jim Pearson
Jefferson County Public Works Department
623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend. WA 98368
(360) 385-9162
(360) 385-9234 Fax
From: Brobst, Thomas M [mailto:tom,brobst@pse,com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 11 :58 AM
To: Jim Pearson
Subject: RE: OPPOSE PSE Franchise Agreement
Jim:
Here is the supporting information for pole contact issue. Pole contacts or attachments are covered by RCW (and
3/28/2011
Page 2 of 4
.'ie
and FCC (fed 0 f'<-1 !
i (,3\'(; aL~o adoeo COrT"lIilents tc. Torn's slate'T;'::', ts ceicrvV i wli! be out of tile
Jjflce next week If you have any
that time piease contact l Jr<la
36U-475-7045
Tor::
RCW 80.54.020
Regulation of rates, terms, and conditions - Criteria.
The commission shall have the authority to regulate in the public interest the rates, terms, and conditions
for attachments by licensees or utilities. All rates, terms, and conditions made, demanded, or received by
any utility for any attachment by a licensee or by a utility must be just, fair, reasonable, and sufficient.
RCW 80.54.030
Commission order fixing rates, terms, or conditions.
Whenever the commission shall find, after hearing had upon complaint by a licensee or by a utility, that
the rates, terms, or conditions demanded, exacted, charged, or collected by any utility in connection with
attachments arc unjust, unreasonable, or that the rates or charges are insufficient to yield a reasonable
compensation for the attachment, the commission shall determine the just, reasonable, or sufficicnt rates,
terms. and conditions thereafter to bc observed and in force and shall fix the same by order. In
determining and fixing the rates, terms, and conditions, the commission shall consider the interest of the
customers of the attaching utility or licensee, as well as the interest of the customers of the utility upon
which the attachment is made.
RCW 80.54.040
Criteria for just and reasonable rate.
A just and reasonable rate shall assure the utility the recovery of not less than all the additional costs of
procuring and maintaining pole attachments, nor more than the actual capital and operating expenses,
including just compensation, of the utility attributable to that portion ofthe pole, duct, or conduit used
for the pole attachment, including a share of the required support and clearance space, in proportion to
the space used for the pole attachment, as compared to all other uses made ofthe subject facilities, and
uses which remain available to the owncr or owners of the subject facilities.
RCW 80.54.070
Uniform attachment rates within utility service area.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a utility as defined in RCW 80.54.01Q(3) and any utility not
regulated by the utilities and transportation commission shall levy attachment rates which are uniform
for all licensees ",'ithin the utility service area.
From: Jim Pearson [mailto:jpearson@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:09 PM
To: Brobst, Thomas M
Subject: RE: OPPOSE PSE Franchise Agreement
Is there a tariff for Joint Facilities Use Agreements?
Jim Pearson
Jefferson County Public Works Department
623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend. WA 98368
(360) 385-9162
(360) 385-9234 Fax
3/28/2011
Page 3 of 4
From: Brobst, Thomas M [mailto:tom.brobst@pse.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 2.4, 2011 4:57 PM
To: Jim Pearson
Subject: Re: OPPOSE PSE Franchise Agreement
Thanks Jim. Are you going to need to respond to these items? How can I help?
Thomas M. Brobst
From: Jim Pearson <jpearson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
To: Brobst, Thomas M
Sent: Thu Mar 24 16:49:56 2011
Subject: FW: OPPOSE PSE Franchise Agreement
FYI
Jim Pearson
Jefferson County Public Works Department
623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9162
(360) 385-9234 Fax
From: Tom Thiersch [mailto:thiersch_public@us-regulations.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:21 PM
To: jmcmillen@cablespeed.com; kinghyd@olypen.com; barney@burkedigitalpix.com
Cc: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; Jim Pearson; Frank Gifford
Subject: OPPOSE PSE Franchise Agreement
Commissioners,
As I hope you all know, PSE and Jefferson County have been negotiating a new 15-year franchise
agreement to permit PSE to operate in the county (odd as this seems, given that there has been no
agreement at all for the last several yearsl) T JP!caliy "3 a matter of the expired franch'se
t,erms appiy' until a renewal IS enacten. HDV\/S''ier, \Nfthout a curn.,::.nt fiancrl:5C n,e \r,,'ouid not be eli9ible for
Seh 74 conversions.
I urge you to speak out in strong opposition to the proposed franchise agreement for the
following two major reasons:
1. There is nothing in the agreement that guarantees it will be transferred to the PUD as part of
the sale of assets. The fr8n(;~TSe eQuid be assigned or ternniated b:3sed on \V!12t tt1e County desires
a. Clearly, a franchise agreement. even a non-exclusive franchise, ~ an asset. The
hanCh'se nas nD Vf::iILj(~', it is a contract
b. Without a guarantee that the franchise will be transferred, PSE could very well attempt
to raise (once again) the price that you have already agreed to, claiming that this
franchise adds value and that the PUD should pay for that add. P:"fC has agreed to s'cii the
assets at a f!X81 unc.::' Ji'(j te(!'tis axce:::;{ for c3o!tal add:tK.inS To aC:~h,- rrJar,ce vvith the Asset
Purcl18se Agreement \.I;';~i!ch ,s en the PULis V'Jeb SitE: ail ;]r\(} J~tefests, except for
excluded asset:~;, v,,'/ oe
c If this franchise is retained by PSE, they will be able to compete against the PUD without
having to go through any new franchise application process; that would be prejudicial
3/28/2011
Page 4 of4
against any possible competitors. See answer for .tem t) abovo
2. The agreement as written would allow PSE to charge rent for the use of its poles to carry the
new NOANet broadband fiber, even though the agreement does have a provision that would
permit Jefferson County (only) to use its poles without charge for non-commercial purposes.
This ability to charge rent to NOANet (a quasi-public agency), or to any other public agency,
needs to be explicitly prohibited in the agreement. See' "ewe aL<iVfC it rs rrnocrtant to
rlote tJ:at the consumer oavs U:!" ;:OS~ TO( services that are to tne end user if PSE cr' the PUU ()i;]
not d'!~1['ge a fee for pole attachrnen;:s to the communications curnuani8;'., U'e cust for those cOrrloanies to
contact tile poles lilfet!(-ne operations and maintenance cosrs. make !E'3(Jy costs to prepare pOles fo'
addltionai space etc.) WOUjd hcl've t:) ce borne directiy by" tne rate 03'fi?;S nigher rares The
\lVUTC and the State of V',jashingtor~ c'eatea iavv's to protect the rate paye(~j .,3nd keep rates low bj'
passing or, the cost to the ccn"ilnunlcakJns companies are and have 10 prove vvhat thel"
costs are for operating and :ate oaSf:i. The goals is to shar"e that space so eacn does not need to
have the'f own Dole i,ne vvhIC:- \Nouic ouplicate faCilities In Hl8 row crlC :rIC~^2aSe cos'ts to Vl8
consumers/rate payers.
The agreement should not be signed until the above issues have been addressed and corrected.
Sincerely,
Tom Thiersch
Jefferson County
thiersch _public@us-regulations.com
.J.J SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-marl unless absolutely neoessary
3/28/2011
jeffbocc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
jim parker Oparker@jeffpud.org]
Thursday, March 24, 20114:15 PM
jeffbocc
Jim Pearson; kinghyd@olypen.com; barney burke; Ken McMillen
FW:
Attachments:
20110324155614085pdf
~1
~
HEARING RECORD
2011032415561408
5, pdf (97 KB)
BOCC,
The PUD has reviewed the proposed franchise with PSE and where we would have
preferred a recognition of our purchase from PSE of the utility, we feel that fact that it
is non exclusivE, and the recognition of the Board that they will enter into a franchise
with the PUD for electrical utilities is sufficient.
Jim
-----Original Message~--~-
From: scanner@jeffpud.org [mailto:scanner@jeffpud.org]
Sent, Thursday, March 24, 2011 3,56 PM
To: Jim Parker
Subject,
This E-mail was sent from "RNPEEIECBH (Aficio MP C2800) .
Scan Date, 03.24.2011 15,56,1} (-0700)
Queries to: scanner@jeffpud.org
1
Public Utility District #1
Of Jefferson County
March 24, 2011
Board of Commissioners
Barney Burke, District 1
I,en McMillen, District 2
Wayne G, I<ing, District 3
Board of County Commissioners
J effcrson County
PO Box 1220
1820 Jefferson St
Port Townsend Washington 98368
James G. Parker, Manager
Dear Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to provide a written response from the PUD acknowledging
that we have receivcd and reviewed thc proposed franchise agreement bctween the County and
Puget Sound Energy, Inc, (PSE),
As the County Commissioners and staff arc aware the PUD and PSE have entered into a
purchasc sales agreement where the PUD will takc ovcr operational control and ownership of the
PS1O's electrical facilities in Jefferson County no later than Jtme of2013, Part of that process
will include the PUD entering into a separate franchise with the County, cither as an extension of
our existing water and sewer franchise, assumption of the PS10 county electrical franchise, or the
creation of a new franchise document
The Board of County Commissioners recently held a public hearing (21 March 2011) for
thc proposed electrical utility Franchise between the County and PSE. The PUD has reviewed
the franchise and agrces it seems flexible enough to allow for the transition of the h'ansfcr of
operational control (ownership) ofPSE's electrical facilities in Jefferson County to thc PUD,
We do rcquest a letter confirming the County's rccognition of that the PUD will be the electrical
utility for eastern Jefl'erson County in the near future and the County's willingness to support
that action in general and entcring into a new franchise agreement in particular.
If you have any questions, please call
~
J mes G, Parker, PE
Manager
230 Chimacllm Road I P.O. Box 929, Pori Hadlock, WA 98339
PH (360) 385-5800 FX (360) 385-5945
Page 1 of 1
jeffbocc
From: Tom Thiersch [thiersch_public@us-regulations.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24,2011 321 PM
To: jmcmillen@cablespeed.com; kinghyd@olypen.com; barney@burkedigitalpix.com
Cc: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; Jim Pearson; Frank Gifford
Subject: OPPOSE PSE Franchise Agreement
HEAR'NG* RECORD
Commissioners,
As I hope you all know, PSE and Jefferson County have been negotiating a new 15-year franchise agreement
to permit PSE to operate in the county (odd as this seems, given that there has been no agreement at all for
the last several years I)
I urge you to speak out in strong opposition to the proposed franchise agreement for the following two
major reasons:
1. There is nothing in the agreement that guarantees it will be transferred to the PUD as part of the sale of
assets.
a. Clearly, a franchise agreement, even a non-exclusive franchise, is an asset.
b. Without a guarantee that the franchise will be transferred, PSE could very well attempt to raise
(once again) the price that you have already agreed to, claiming that this franchise adds value
and that the PUD should pay for that add.
c. If this franchise is retained by PSE, they will be able to compete against the PUD without having
to go through any new franchise application process; that would be prejudicial against any
possible competitors.
2. The agreement as written would allow PSE to charge rent for the use of its poles to carry the new
NOANet broadband fiber, even though the agreement does have a provision that would permit
Jefferson County (only) to use its poles without charge for non-commercial purposes. This ability to
charge rent to NOANet (a quasi-public agency), or to any other public agency, needs to be explicitly
prohibited in the agreement.
The agreement should not be signed until the above issues have been addressed and corrected.
Sincerely,
Tom Thiersch
Jefferson County
thiersch_public@us-regulations.com
rJi SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.
3/28/2011