HomeMy WebLinkAbout100112_cbs01District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
O ~\ District No. 2 Commissioner: llavid W. Sullivan
~o~O District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin
~\
`~ ~~~, County Administrator: Philip Morley
_ ~ ~ ~'I Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren
~.
Ji
/ MINUTES D
~~_ _. ~/
j~ j ~~ _~°S Week of September 10, 2012
_ _,
Ch~h'nan 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 is a summary of comments made by
citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions:
• Two citizens spoke against the spraying of herbicides on County Rights-of--Way;
• A citizen noted the Chairman has the authority over what is scheduled on the agenda and asked
that a noise ordinance be scheduled on a future agenda;
• A citizen stated a local candidate forum will be held on Wednesday at the Chimacum Grange; the
activities between Iran and Israel were reviewed;
• A citizen stated he volunteered for the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board pulling
weeds last weekend;
• A citizen stated a wheat farmer in Washington sprays his 9,000 acres of farmland with roundup
each year; and
• A citizen stated giving your name and address at the beginning of speaking during public
comment period is optional; the County Administrator conducts serial meetings with the Board;
why hasn't the Board discussed an investigation regarding the County Administrator and
destruction of records?
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGE.~VDA: Commissioner Sullivan
noted that the agenda initially posted showed an incorrect contract amount for consent agenda item no. 4
and has now been corrected to reflect $144,931.10. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve all the
items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 54-12: Creating a County Project Designated as CR1918; Duckabush Road
Pavement Presen~ation
2. AGREEMENT, Supplemental No. 2: Port Hadlock Wastewater Facility Preliminary Design
Sen~ices; Completion Date Extension; Jefferson County Public Works; Tetra Tech
3. AGREEMENT NO. LA-6323, Supplemental No. 4: Larry Scott Memorial Trail Segment 4,
Acquisition Project No. 1069; Re-Allocation of Funds in the Amount of $x,000; Jefferson
County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation
4. AGREEMENT: Larry Scott Trail, Project No. CR1069, County Road No. 860100; MP 6.0 to
MP 7.3; In the Amount of $144,931.10; Jefferson County Public Works, Seton Construction
5. AGREEMENT: Birth to Three (3) Years Program; In the Amount of $6,864; Jefferson County
Public Health; Chimacum School District
Page 1
i ~~`~~~
~~%
6. AGREEMENT NO. C16887, Amendment No. 4: 2012-2014 Consolidated Contract;
Additional Amount of $35,408 for a Total Amount of $730,701; Jefferson County Public Health;
Washington State Department of Health (DOH)
7. AGREEMENT: Joint Plan of Responsibility for Regulation of Water Recreation Facilities; No
Dollar Amount; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health (DOH)
8. AGREEMENT NO. 1263-52714, Amendment No. 1: Early Intervention Program (EIP);
Language Change Only; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social
and Health Services (DSHS)
9. AGREEMENT NO. 1263-52712, Amendment No. 1: Early Family Support Services (EFSS);
Language Change Only; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social
and Health Services (DSHS)
10. AGREEMENT NO. G0800055, Amendment No. 4: Hood Canal Clean Water Project; Amount
Reduced by $41,871.64; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of
Ecology (DOE)
11. AGREEMENT: School Based Health Center; In the Amount of $65,000; Jefferson County
Public Health; Jefferson Mental Health Services
12. AGREEMENT NO. 1263-43173, Amendment No. 1: 2012-2013 Consolidated Contract;
Supports Supervision of Moderate to High Risk Offenders; Jefferson County Juvenile Services;
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS}
13. AGREEMENT NO. IAA13035, Interagency: Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)
Grant for Guardian ad Litem Program; In the Amount of $25,300; Jefferson County Juvenile
Services; Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts
14. AGREEMENT NO. IAA13070, Interagency: Process BECCA Bill Programs and Services; In
the Amount of $42,694; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Administrative
Office of the Courts
15. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants: Dated September 5, 2012 Totaling
$853,911.40 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated September 9, 2012 Totaling $802,949.38
Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the meeting minutes of
August 20, 2012 and August 27, 2012 as presented. County Administrator Morley stated last week two
corrections were suggested for the minutes of August 20, 2012 and at his request the motion to approve
the minutes was tabled. He stated the suggested corrections were incorrect and the minutes were
accurate as presented on September 4, 2012. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous vote.
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFLNG SESSION: The Commissioners each provided
updates on the following items:
Chairman Austin attended a meeting with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
staff and an Olympic Peninsula Coalition meeting last week.
Commissioner Sullivan attended an Olympic Area Agency on Aging meeting and spoke about the
Chimacum Creek gauge.
Commissioner Johnson stated the Parks and Recreation fundraiser at the Wooden Boat Festival did well
and he is working on an education project regarding air quality.
Page 2
Commissioners Meetin Minutes: Week of Se tember 10, 2012 ,~~,i;i
4.. }~. -
•M. "14./I ~.~~.
Commissioners present.
The meeting was recessed at 9:54 a.m. and reconvened at 10:01 p.m with all three
HEARING: Mystery Bay Management Plan: Department of Community Development
Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins introduced Washington State Department of Health staff Mark Toy
and Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staff Brady Scott and Marrowstone
Island stakeholder Mark Hazen who are present to answer questions during the hearing. Ms. Hoskins
stated staff has not received any written hearing comments.
Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony.
Bill Miller: He heard the presentation on the Mystery Bay Management Plan by staff two weeks ago. He
has had an opportunity to read information regarding this plan and recommends the Board adopt it. It is
a balanced way to ensure the shellfish are healthy and the industry stays active.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the hearing.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the Mystery Bay
Management Plan. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the
effort of all the stakeholders involved in this project. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion
which passed by a unanimous vote.
HEARING: South Port Townsend Bay Management Plan: Ms. Hoskins stated the
number of boats is not at the maximum capacity and this plan will help cite new mooring buoys in order
to avoid problems in the future. The adoption of the plan the is first step in order to enact enforcement
to ensure compliance.
Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony.
Richard Broders: He has shellfish beds in the southern portion of Port Townsend Bay and is concerned
about this issue. He vvas involved in the draft plan and it appears to be unintrusive to the boaters and
seems to be enforcing existing laws. He supports the adoption of the South Port Townsend Bay
Management Plan which will ensure the existence of the current shellfish business located in the area in
the future, which has been family owned for 70 years.
Bill Miller: He supports the adoption of a resolution to implement the South Port Townsend Bay
Management Plan. The list of stakeholders is similar to that of the :Mystery Bay Management Plan. He
asked if the moratorium w°ould no longer be in effect when the plan is approved? The plan is
commendable and makes him pleased to be living in Jefferson Count}r.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the hearing.
Page 3
",~',
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of Se tember 10, 2012 ~~~~~
.'~
Ms. Hoskins stated there was a moratorium that was renewed May 7, 2012 which expires on December
7, 2012. Upon adoption of the plan, the moratorium will end so implementation and permitting can
begin.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the South Port Townsend
Bay Management Plan. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
The meeting was recessed at 10:39 a.m. and reconvened at 1:34 p.m with all three
Commissioners present.
COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip
Morley reviewed the following with the Board.
Port Hadlock Wastewater (Sewer) System Project Update: Public Works Lead Associate
Planner Joel Peterson handed out a project summary and schedule to the Board. He stated the
preliminary design for the wastewater facility has been completed. The cost estimate of the updated
design is accurate to the allotted planning estimate of the project. After the preliminary design
documents were completed, a contract for a value engineering study was done. The cost to conduct the
study was $130,000, and in the process of the study, $1.5 million life cycle savings have been identified.
There are a number of additional recommendations that need to be explored by TetraTech, which may
result in more savings.
A special benefit feasibility analysis has been contracted to be done. The assignment is to analyze the
estimated range of probable increase of property value in the first phase of a Local Improvement District
(LID) using a cost versus benefit factor. Commissioner Sullivan asked if that study was available? Mr.
Peterson replied a prepared report has not been completed, but the general cost of the improvement
district would be $12 million. Properties with similar characteristics will be analyzed and the results
will be combined together for broad generalization. The LID area has a bracket of a $12 million cost on
an estimated amount of property value at $16 to $22 million. The study was done to show the need to
move forward on the LID. As progress is made, more individual specific property assessments will be
made.
Land acquisition of five parcels have been purchased which totals an estimated amount of forty five
acres to accommodate the wastewater facility. Currently, the purchase of three parcels is being
negotiated for the infiltration pond area. The value engineering study showed different configurations
for the infiltration pond so there are options available in the event the purchase of more property cannot
be negotiated.
A biosolids agreement with the City of Port Towrnsend to accept the solids from the Port Hadlock
wastewater facility is also being done negotiated. Solids will be transferred to the Port Townsend facility
for further processing. Count} Administrator Morley stated that there is an interlocal agreement in place
with the City of Port Townsend that allows the City to use County land for composting in exchange for
excepting biosolids. Discussion ensued regarding options for transportation of biosolids.
Page 4
Commissioners Meetin Minutes: Week of Se tember 10, 2012 ~" ,_~i=
,,~~
4~;,....
Chairman Austin asked if the Port Hadlock facility would be able to handle items like pharmaceutical
products? Mr. Peterson answered the best that can be designed for pharmaceutical and personal care
products ~~~ill be installed via the membrane process.
Mr. Peterson stated a letter of intent has been received from Public Utility District (PUD) No. 1 to run
the wastewater facility and discussion continues that with that entity.
A Public Works Trust Fund Loan agreement for $10 million has been approved. Currently Public
Works is applying for an additional $11 million as part of the 20141egislative biennium cycle. A
Special Appropriations Act Project (SAAP) Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology is
financing part of the final design of the wastewater facility.
Work completed to date includes the creation of the LID coordinating team. Foster Pepper has been
contracted to work with TetraTech, Katy Isaksen and Triangle & Associates, while community outreach
continues.
The project schedule outlines the facility benchmarks and the LLD process. Four main items that are
scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012: I) final facility design; 2) contracting with N1BR vendors;
3) land acquisition; and 4) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. The LID resolution
that is to go before the Board is a benchmark that is currently being worked on by staff.
Letter from Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) re: Shoreline
Master Program (SMP): Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez stated the only legally defensive
position is to allow in-water net pens (marine net pens) aquaculture. Three types of industries are a
protected status under the Grov~~th Management Act (GMA), extraction of minerals, the harvesting of
trees and the harvesting of agriculture products. There are no legal remedies for the adjacent rural land
owner, therefore, giving those three industries an exalted status. There are categorizes in the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) that are preferred uses, marine net pens included. Preferred uses in the SMA
are water dependent uses. Marine net pens are a water dependent use as fish need water to survive. DOE
considers upland net pens as a separate water dependent use compared to in-water net pens, neither
which can be legally banned. There is no case law on water dependent uses.
Commissioner Sullivan asked if both types of net pens (up land and in-water) are considered water
dependent uses; and if the upland water dependent use is allowed, can regulations against in-water net
pens be implemented by the Count<-? Mr. Alvarez stated that both types of water dependent uses must
be allowed. Commissioner Sullivan asked where DOE derived the definitions for both water dependent
uses? He cannot find it in the VVAC or RC~~'. Mr. Alvarez stated it's not in the RCVV or WAC but
having separate water dependent uses makes sense because they are different.
Mr. Alvarez stated to allow one upland water dependent use does not free the County from prohibiting a
distinct water dependent use nor does the County have sufficient scientific evidence to support the
conclusion that it is not possible to authorize marine net pens without also suffering a net loss of
Page 5
Minutes: Week of September 10, 2012
~;,
~,;'~J
~/
ecological functions within the shoreline jurisdiction. The County cannot prove that marine net pens
cannot be operated safely no matter how they are permitted.
County Administrator Morley stated that the Board cannot prove that marine net pens will cause harm
and that there is a risk of harm and there is no evidence supporting that no harm will happen. The
burden to regulate would require showing necessary harm cannot be prevented or mitigated which is a
legal hurdle the County is not able to successfully jump.
Commissioner Sullivan stated the risks that are involved with in-water net pens are not acceptable and
he has not seen any conditions that would make the risks acceptable.
Mr. Alvarez stated that if the County does not respond to DOE by the October 1, 2012 deadline, the
County will be in violation of the statutory duty to have a compliant Shoreline Master Plan. Rulemaking
by DOE could occur through the Administrator Procedures Act which would make the process go on for
one or two more years. Rulemaking could change all of the other policies that the County has changed
in the revised draft SMP, a cost benefit analysis may have to be done and more hearings are likely. Once
the County resumes control over the SMP, the County can adopt the SMP that is in compliance with
DOE.
In addition to rulemaking, a superior court lawsuit maybe filed before the Growth Management
Hearings Board against the County because of the prohibition of marine net pens. There has to be a
nexus between the identified public problem (IPP) and the regulation. The regulation has to be roughly
proportional to the IPP that it was created to mitigate. Nexus can be resolved because according to
RCW 90.58.020 the shoreline is of the most valuable and fragile of natural resources, great concern
throughout the State relating to their utilization, protection, restoration and preservation and
necessitating increasing coordination of the management and development of the shorelines of the State.
Coordinated planning is necessary to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the
State, at the same time protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. Lses shall
be preferred which are unique to or dependent on the uses of the State shoreline. Industrial and
commercial developments are also preferred which are particularly dependent on or the uses of the
shoreline of the state. A prohibition on marine net pens will unlikely be founded as a identified public
problem.
The public problem must be identified. The contents of the Shoreline Management Act states no net loss
of ecological functions within the shoreline jurisdiction. There is an absence of evidence that a marine
net pen would cause net loss of ecological functions and there is no evidence that a marine net pen
cannot be conditionally permitted in such a way that there will be no net loss. Therefore, a public
problem cannot be identified regarding the shoreline other than the proper regulations of the shoreline.
IPP's associated with a marine net pen operation could possibly result in the IPP to be mitigated to be no
net loss.
A prohibition on marine net pens leaves the County vulnerable to a lawsuit alleging regulatory taking.
The Board may be reluctant to send DOE a SMP that includes net pens as a conditional use, but State
la~v forces the Board to do so.
Commissioner Sullivan stated the lavti~ forces the Board to submit an SMP allowing net pens under
certain conditions, but what are those conditions?
Page 6
o ~ ~,~
R ,:
F
Week of Se tember 10, 2012 ~,.~
~~~
County Administrator Morley stated the conditions that the County could require would be more
protective than what DOE would require if rulemaking were to take place.
Department of Community Development Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins stated that when DOE sent
back the draft SMP to the County, they replaced the section of prohibition of in-water net pens with a
clause that was generic to allow in-water net pens according to the conditional uses and use standards for
aquaculture. In requiring a conditional use approach, staff would analyze what sites would be limited
appropriately and address the Boards concerns.
DOE's letter is not asking for the Board to adopt the SMP but to communicate whether the Board will be
adopting a SMP which is allows in-water fin fish with a conditional use permit or adopting a SMP with a
prohibition of in-water net pens. DOE has stated if the SMP with the prohibition is adopted, they would
deny the SMP and the County could appeal through the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board. Another option would be to adopt an SMP and approve a moratorium on in-water net
pens for further analysis.
Ms. Hoskins reviewed the Board' concerns regarding performance standards relating to conditional uses.
County Administrator Morley stated if DOE found the conditions acceptable, DOE would take the lead
on defending it based on the science and substance, should the County get challenged. Mr. Alvarez
stated he has not confirmed their role in that situation but DOE could possibly be a co-defendant.
Chairman Austin asked if a conditional use would include net pens being a certain distance away from
marinas due to boating activity? Ms. Hoskins answered yes, it has to be a certain distance from
recreational uses, but the specific distance will need to be determined. Chairman Austin asked if it
would have to be a certain distance from commercial shellfish? Director Carl Smith stated that
protective buffer zones have to be established for wildlife habitats, but it could be applied to commercial
shellfish and language could be added to strengthen that regulation.
Discussion ensued where in-water net pens could possibly be located and the water boundaries of
Jefferson County.
Chairman Austin stated the Board's option must be decided. County Administrator Morley stated since
there is not sufficient proof of harm by in-water net pens; conditions should be made for the permitting
of them so DOE does not result in rulemaking.
Commissioner Johnson stated a condition should be made that DOE agrees to assume all financial and
legal responsibility in hill for any and all ecological legal damages made by in water net pens to
Jefferson County. Ms. Hoskins stated that the land owner is responsible for all catastrophes that occur
on their land. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) representative Scott Brady
stated if someone were to have a lease with DNR, insurance, bonding and financial securities are
required. A lease from Washington State Department of Natural Resources would be granted after a
permit is issued from the Count}~, the Army Corp of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
Page 7
Week of
DRAFT
~~~~~
~~~~
4
Ms. Hoskins reviewed how not having an approved SMP has impacted the Department of Community
Development financially and the majority of public opinion.
The Board concurred to schedule this as a future agenda item to make a decision on which option the
County will pursue.
The meeting vas recessed at 3:41 p.m. and reconvened at 3:46 p.m with all three
Commissioners present.
COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION (Continued):
- Miscellaneous Items:
Discussion with Department of Community Development Staff and
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Alvarez re: Boulton Farm Boundary Line
Adjustment
Possible Goat Cheese Farm in Rural Residential Zone
- Calendar Coordination:
• The Board will be participating in the Quilcene Parade scheduled for
August 15, 2012
• Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a
local candidate forum on September 10, 2012
- Budget Update:
• Sales Tax
Real Estate Excise Tax
- Future Agenda Items:
• Possible Executive Session on September 17, 2012
Possible Shoreline Master Program discussion on September 17, 2012
NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting
at 4:10 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner
Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
MEETNG ADJOURNED
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SEAL:
ATTEST:
Raina Randall
Deputy Clerk of the Board
John Austin, Chair
Phil Johnson, Member
David Sullivan, Member
Page 8
~ DRAFT