HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111213District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin
County Administrator: Philip Morley
Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren
MINUTES
Week of November 12, 2013
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 is a summary of comments made by
citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions:
• A citizen suggested that Jefferson Transit move their courthouse bus stop location to Cass Street to
allow for safer bus entry and exit;
• A citizen stated that since the County now has high speed internet access, past audio recordings of
Commissioner meetings and live - stream recording of the meetings should be made available online;
• A citizen stated: 1) There will a presentation this week re: How to be happy and healthy into your
90's; 2) The raising of the solid waste fee would be a hardship to poor families; and 3) Certain topics
of the proposed Bill of Rights is the main reason that the County Charter did not pass;
• A citizen stated that several Charter counties have a process where citizens can draft an ordinance and
the Commissioners evaluate the proposed ordinance publicly. Citizens want to be heard;
• A citizen commented that now that the election is over, there needs to be more opportunities for
dialogues to continue. Support was expressed for the idea of initiative and looking into what is
possible.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Johnson moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products for Bituminous Surface Treatment
(BST) Program for Calendar Year 2014; Bids will be Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. on Monday,
December 9, 2013 and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter in the
Commissioner's Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse
2. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Aggregate for the 2014 and 2015 Roadway Bituminous Surface
Treatment (BST) Program; Bids will be Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 9, 2013
and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter in the Commissioner's
Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse
3. AGREEMENT NO. 12 -1250C re: Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Grant:
Construction of a Segment of the Olympic Discovery Trail, South Discovery Bay; In the Amount
of $500,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO)
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
4. AGREEMENT NO. 12 -1735P re: Non - Highway and Off -Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA)
Grant: Planning Project for Olympic Discovery Trail, South Discovery Bay; In the Amount of
$111,250; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO)
5. AGREEMENT re: Broadband Service; In the Amount of $1,000 per month; Jefferson County
Central Services; Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Economic Development Authority (DBA
Jamestown Networks, JNET)
6. AGREEMENT NO. IAA14122, Interagency re: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)
Program- Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Program; In the Amount of $29,362; Jefferson County
Juvenile Services; Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts
7. AGREEMENT NO. C130725GSC, Interagency re: Provide Non - Criminal Related Fingerprint
Checks on all Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers; Fee for Service; Jefferson County Juvenile
Services; Washington State Patrol
8. AGREEMENT NO. 1363 -78868 re: Evidence Based Expansion Programs; In the Amount of
$38,604; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS) /Juvenile Justice & Rehabilitation Administration (JJ &RA)
9. Advisory Board Resignation re: Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN) Advisory Board;
Timothy Craig; Unexpired Term ending September 17, 2015
10. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 5, 2013 Totaling
$815,659.69 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 5, 2013 Totaling $709,511.21
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners each provided
updates on the following items:
Chairman Austin
- Attended a Veteran ceremony at the American Legion on Veteran's Day.
- Attended a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) meeting and a Port Ludlow Village Council
(PLVC) meeting last week.
- Attended a Red Cross dinner last weekend.
Commissioner Sullivan
- Attended a Veteran ceremony at the American Legion on Veteran's Day.
- Will be attending an Olympic Community Action Programs (OLYCAP) Board meeting, and a
Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) meeting this week.
- Attended a Peninsula Development Authority (PDA) ceremony last week.
Commissioner Johnson
- Will be attending an Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority meeting a Coastal Caucus meeting,
Integrated Watershed Plan (IWP) meeting and a Parks Advisory Board meeting this week.
- Will be attending a Maritime Center dinner this week.
The meeting was recessed at 9:49 a.m. and reconvened at 10:03 a.m. with all three
Commissioners present.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
Discussion and Approval re: Unified Development Code (UDC) TextAmendment: Per
Jefferson County Code 18.40.090, certain types of land use applications require a
"pre- application conference" to assist the applicant in understanding submittal requirements.
Department of Community Development (DCD) Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins discussed with the
Board the proposal of adding certain additional types of applications to those requiring pre - application
conferences due to their complexity and to help compensate DCD for staff time spent in assisting
applicants with the application process. DCD staff finds that the proposed additional types of
applications are also complex and by requiring the pre - application conference, the applicant will benefit
by having the information needed to submit more complete applications and proceed through the
permitting process in the most efficient way possible.
Planning Manager Hoskins stated that currently, pre- application conferences are required for "Type II",
Type III: and some "Type I" applications. Examples of these types are as follows:
Type 1: Applications with more than 10,000 s.f. of impervious surface or more than 5,000 s.f. of
non - single family development.
Type II: Binding site plans, short subdivisions, shoreline substantial development permits.
Type III: Long subdivisions, conditional use permits, major variances, plat alterations.
Commissioner Johnson asked how staff determines what a "major variance" with regard to Type III
permits? Planning Manager Hoskins replied that it depends. It can vary from the bulk dimensional
standards of the code. There are standards in 18.40.090 that differentiate between a minor and major
variance. A minor variance has a certain threshold of typically less than a 10% change or additional
encroachment. Major variance would be for something that was typically new, something that is not
existing, or a non - conforming structure that would be non - conforming to the portions of the Jefferson
County code.
Planning Manager Hoskins stated that DCD proposes adding several more types of applications that
require a pre - application conference as follows:
Type IV: Final Plats and Final Planned Rural Residential Developments
Type V: Special Use Permits, amendments to the comprehensive plan, development regulations, or
master plans
Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs)
The estimated number and annual fees that could result from these new pre - application conference for
CASPs and Type IV and V applications are estimated at 10 /year x $380 = $3,800.
DCD would like to avoid citizens going through the effort of applying for something that would possibly
not get approved. Planning Manager Hoskins commented that a lot of time is spent on applicants before
they buy and people like to get a feel before they spend a lot of money, to see if it's feasible to make a
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
change. DCD would like to provide better customer service while paying for DCD staff time. Planning
Manager Hoskins stated that when people have a pre - application, their applications are more complete
and they tend to go through the permit process more seamlessly.
A public notice was published on September 4, 2013 and the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed amendment on August 18, 2013. No public comments were received during this
time. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment and
voted to approve the amendment and "recommendation with findings and conclusions."
Commissioner Johnson noted that this would be something that would take more staff time up front, but
should balance out with less staff time later. Planning Manager Hoskins stated that being able to talk to
citizens earlier in the process more comprehensively instead of piece meal, would save DCD staff time
later. Commissioner Sullivan stated that it is happening more and more that we are looking at fees for
different things that aren't being paid for by general taxes. The choice out there is to raise taxes, raise
fees, or drop service? He does not want to see service dropped. People want more service from DCD.
They want things to happen faster and they want things more complete. It is a tough choice sometimes
to discern where those lines are drawn. He asked how staff draws the line between asking questions of
the DCD staff and when a pre - application conference is required? Planning Manager Hoskins replied
that a lot of coaching is already provided free of charge to the public thanks to the Watershed
Stewardship Grant. Coaching is more general in nature. Staff can explain what the code is, but when a
customer starts asking how that specific code is applied to their application, which may have a lot of
different variables, certainty cannot be provided without discussing those variables. The
pre - application conference includes planning staff and other relevant departments, such as the Building
Plans Examiner, staff from Public Works, Environmental Health Department and other departments that
will be reviewing the application. Commissioner Johnson mentioned that a pre - application conference
would help resolve some of the issues he has heard about regarding people not getting enough
information in the past.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that people want flexibility, and the result of that is complexity. There are
different circumstances from property to property in this County, and it is a challenge to write that kind
of complex code in a simplified language.
Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the Planning Commission's public recommendation with
findings and conclusions, and approve the proposed amendments by adopting ORDINANCE NO.
03- 1112 -13 Amending the Unified Development Code, JCC 18.40.090 to add certain additional types of
applications that require a pre - application conference, provided as Attachment D. Commissioner
Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The meeting was recessed at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened at 10:31 a.m. with all three
Commissioners present.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Jefferson County Code (JCQ Fee
Appendix: The Department of Community Development (DCD) staff provides thousands of hours of
customer service to the public without charge. In 2012 they provided approximately 5,000 hours of free
service. Present at the meeting was Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins.
Planning Manager Hoskins explained that they are required to update and review their fees and that their
last update of their fees. The fee ordinance was last updated in 2009. DCD is struggling to obtain
sufficient revenue to support its own operations. To help support the staff resources needed to provide
customer service, DCD proposed to begin charging fees for certain services where no fees are charged at
present. The new fees sought can help DCD cover staff time necessary to provide customer service.
Planning Manager Hoskins reviewed with the Board the proposed fees, their purpose and an estimate of
the revenue they could generate. Below is a list of the proposed fees:
• Road Vacation Request (Estimated 4 /year x $228 = $912)
• Pre - Application site visit (when needed) (Estimated 7 /year x $152 = $1,064)
• Customer Assistance Meeting (Estimated 1,000 hours /year x $76 = $76,000)
• Re- submittal of Consistency Review (Estimated 100 /year x $152 = $15,200)
• Scanning Fee (Estimated 400 /year x $19 = $7,600)
Total estimated annual additional revenue: $100,776. The new proposed fees would go into
effect on January 2, 2013.
Planning Manager Hoskins stated there are no plans to eliminate their free service. They would provide
the first 15 minutes free of charge. Commissioner Sullivan asked how DCD arrived at the new permit
fees and if this was a good average? Planning Manager Hoskins stated that DCD looked at how long
each request takes their staff to handle. They found that DCD has been doing review and other types of
work on certain applications, without compensation. For example, they provide review and comment to
Public Works on Road Vacation Requests and a site visit can take on average two hours.
Chairman Austin asked if there was a Public Works fee charged to the customer for their time spent on a
Road Vacation Request? Planning Manager Hoskins stated they do charge a fee. Office Coordinator Jodi
Adams mentioned that the department receiving the application takes in the fees and disperses them to
other departments on the list as needed. This saves the customer from having to go to each department to
pay their fees.
Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony.
Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: The $76 an hour rate that is quoted for services equates to more than
$150,000 for a 2,000 hour year. Who is getting paid $150,000 at DCD? A fully burdened rate at the
hourly rate, that he knows DCD is not getting paid, is not $150,000 a year. In keeping with the opinion
that was cited by the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, requiring all applicants to pay for
services they might not use. If the justification for this hourly rate is the spreading of administrative
costs, then isn't that the same sort of illegal thing, of spreading an overhead cost into an hourly rate?
Things that you're paying for that you're not really using. He believes there is an inconsistency here and
that the hourly fee is too high. That just cannot be justified as far as he can see. Mr. Thiersch had a
suggestion regarding the proposed scanning fee. He mentioned there are periodically grants issued from
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
the Secretary of State's Office to assist agencies with the scanning of existing documents for archival
purposes. He strongly recommends keeping an eye out for those grants and taking advantage of them
when they become available. As for charging people extra for the scanning of documents, it seems
unnecessary because in the end, DCD will be operating more efficiently therefore costs should be
reduced. He sees no purpose in charging an extra fee to improve the efficiency of DCD's operations. It
costs less to manipulate and store documents electronically than it does on paper. Why DCD is charging
more to do something that is actually going to cost less seems illogical to him. It costs more to handle,
store, archive and copy paper documents than it does to do the same thing electronically. Certainly when
it comes time to do research, electronic documents is the superior approach.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing.
Planning Manager Hoskins addressed the concerns brought up during the public comment period. She
stated that DCD is not a paperless department yet, and there are a lot of requirements that it takes at the
state level to become paperless. They are required to archive, handle and store their paper documents.
DCD has used the State's Archival Office in the past for archival needs, but you have to round up the
files and send them to Olympia for scanning. The intent behind the scanning fee is to make it a part of
their work process, and handle and scan documents as they come in. Regarding the hourly rate, she
stated that no one is making over $200,000 a year at DCD. There are certain things that are the cost of
doing business that do make sense to charge an applicant for. When staff does certain things like
obtaining training or holding meetings, those are not administrative costs, it is for keeping staff and
resources up to speed, efficient and moving forward. There is a lot of streamlining efforts and progress
that DCD has made, but there is an endless list of things that move in to take up that time. The demand
for DCD exceeds staff time so they are juggling and prioritizing things. DCD has been improving their
time tracking to accurately track their fees and revenue sources. Office Coordinator Jodi Adams
explained that the hourly rate used to be $55 and was adjusted to $76 by the CPI. She used several
different methods to determine the figure and spoke with Environmental Health and the State Auditor's
Office who agreed with her method on coming up with that hourly rate.
County Administrator Philip Morley stated that in a more perfect world, some of the technical
consultation that is provided before an application is filed, is a public service that we would dearly love
to provide for free and have it subsidized and paid for out of the general fund. With the reduction in
development activity and the value of activity and the constraints to the general fund, DCD does not
have the capacity to continue providing services without these proposed fees. The Watershed
Stewardship Grant is cutting back and the proposed new fees will help to retain a full time employee.
The general fund would not be able to step in and subsidize for this service. Planning Manager Hoskins
added that DCD has checked with legal counsel who determined that the fees they are proposing are
defensible.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the amendments through adoption of ORDINANCE NO.
04- 1112 -13 Amending the Unified Development Code, JCC 18.40.090 to add certain additional types
of applications that require a pre - application conference. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Solid Waste Fee Schedule: Public
Works proposed revising the Solid Waste Disposal Fee Schedules for 2014 through 2019. At a
Workshop on October 21, 2013, the Commissioners reviewed the proposed ordinance which revises the
following sections of the Jefferson County Code:
Appendix, ANNUAL FEE INDEXING
Appendix, FEE SCHEDULES:
III. Public Works Department— Solid Waste Division
III — 010 Purpose -Scope
III — 011 Effective Date
III — 012 Fee indexing
III — 020 Solid Waste Disposal — Transfer Station Commercial and Non - Commercial Rates
III — 030 Solid Waste Disposal Drop Box Site (Quilcene)
III — 040 Hours of Operation
III — 050 Moderate Risk Waste Disposal Facility
The current municipal solid waste disposal fees in effect were enacted in 1993; the current moderate risk
waste fees in effect were enacted in 2004.
Solid Waste Manager Richard Talbot handed out a document titled "Summary Presentation" and read
from it. Below is an excerpt from that document:
1. "The Solid Waste Division is managed as an Enterprise Fund — all operating and capital costs
are paid from disposal fee revenues. Since 2008, current Operations and Capital fund balances
have been drawn down to minimum reserve levels.
2. The proposed Fee Ordinance sets new fees for:
• Transfer station — base per ton fee, minimum fee, special fees
• Quilcene drop box — unit fees per item
• MRW facility (small quantity business hazardous waste) — unit fees per item
It also provides for a 2.5% annual fee increase, for five years; benchmarks for waste tonnage
and fund minimum reserves (12% of capital value and 15% of annual operations cost) are
used to monitor Enterprise Fund performance.
4. Fund minimum reserves are important:
• The ability to pay costs during major service disruptions or disaster events
• To undertake short term capital replacement work on aging facilities without requiring
bonding
5. The fees proposed are sufficient to pay for:
• A projected annual operations budget of $2.49 million with no increase in staffing and
NO REDUCTION IN SERVICE (represents $133 per ton)
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
• Annual contribution toward replacing essential equipment, and refurbishing and
improving existing facilities where they stand (represents $11 per ton)
• This is a lean budget
6. The proposed fees have been reviewed by City and Port management and by the Jefferson
County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC); the SWAC, which includes City and Port
representatives, has sent a letter of support to the Commissioners.
7. Eight written public comments have been received to date; all are concerned with the fee
increase (from $4.95 to $10) and the weight limit increase (from 80 to 140 lbs). The
comments, delivered to the Board of Commissioners on November 12, 2013 can be
summarized as follows:
• The minimum fee increase is too high and will unfairly affect seniors, the poor, and those
who recycle and /or generate small quantities of waste
• The increased weight allowance is significantly more than these customers typically are
able to collect and haul in a reasonable time frame
Why do we charge a minimum fee?
• To pay for costs not related to the amount of waste dumped, such as transaction costs and
other related services including recycling and household hazardous waste
• To encourage fewer vehicle trips, reducing congestion, and opening avenues for cost
reduction in the longer term"
Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated that currently they generate around 9.2% in revenue from the current
minimum fee. The proposed fee would generate around 12% revenue. He noted that it is an increase, but
not an excessive one. He handed out a document titled "Balance between minimum fee and per ton tip
fee ". An excerpt from that document is below:
Estimated cost shifting to maintain required total revenue (subject to review and detailed analysis)
Current minimum weight transactions = 16,000 per year
Current full fee tons disposed = 17,000
CASE
MINIMUM FEE
WEIGHT LIMIT - lbs
PER ON TIP FEE
A — Proposed
$10
140
$144
B
$8
110
$146
C — Current
$5
80
$149
Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony.
Steve Oakford, Port Townsend: He was looking through the different categories and materials and the
fees charged for disposal thereof. He saw fees for refrigerators and appliances, but did not see a category
for electronics. People are getting rid of old television sets as they transition to newer televisions and
electronics. Is this something that you are simply not going to deal with and you're leaving it for
someone else to deal with? Or is there a provision for this? Chairman Austin stated Mr. Oakford's
questions will be addressed after the Public Comment Period.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
Sylvia Bowman, Port Townsend: She stated she is representing elderly people who bring trash to the
Solid Waste facility. Currently, she and others load their garbage into their car trunks, less than 80
pounds approximately, every two weeks and pay $5 per load. The proposed rates would be doubled,
which is a problem as they don't have trucks. She timed her last trip to the Solid Waste facility and it
took her a total of six minutes. Ms. Bowman does not believe that is a great burden to the facility. She
suggested if the fee was a straight eight cents per pound, it would mean that the one ton rate would be
$160, which is higher than the proposed rate. It is not ruinous and could be passed on to the customers.
It would mean that the customers who currently pay $5, their new fee would increase to $6.40, which
she believes is a fair and affordable increase. She mentioned that the elderly are real people, not just
numbers and she does not think they are a great burden. They bring their garbage in and then they're
out.
Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated he has previously mentioned to the Board his disagreeance
with the proposed Solid Waste fee increase to $10 for reasons previously stated. He has read the
correspondence stating the exact same reasons, they come in with one or two bags of trash in their trunk
and they don't come near the current 80 pound minimum. One suggestion stated that a reasonable
increase over time to $6 would be okay, as long as the weight was not increased to such a high level.
Mr. Thiersch suggested reducing the minimum weight to 60 pounds and charging $6 for the first 60
pounds and then charging more in $20 increments. He believes one thing that would help improve faster
trips is keeping the minimum fee at an even dollar amount, since that is 26% of traffic at the Solid Waste
facility. He has noticed it takes a long time to make change, and reiterated it should be made an even
dollar amount. Mr. Thiersch mentioned that a $6 amount would be just fine and 60 pound minimum
would also be fine. He is willing to pay more for more weight as that is reasonable and understands that
tonnage fees have to go up. Let's not hurt the poor people in the County, they really cannot afford it. If
you did a sensitivity analysis as to what the actual traffic is going to be, rather than "seat of the pants"
guesswork, but really do sonic analysis of this, you will find it will do a lot of harm by increasing this
minimum fee to the proposed $10. It's not going to increase revenues as much as projected, and may
even decrease revenue. It will discourage people from going to the dump as often as they need to. It is
certainly going to encourage people to do illegal dumping, which is going to cause a public health
problem by increasing the likelihood of disease factors: rats, raccoons and all kinds of other vermin who
like to feast on your garbage. He believes this is an avoidable situation and with a minor increase in the
tonnage fee this can all be accommodated with retaining a reasonable minimum fee.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson commented that he struggles with the proposed minimum fee and feels that it
may not be proportionate to the other fee increases. Stuffing 140 pounds of garbage into the trunk of a
car may not be easy to do. He anticipates more garbage being dumped along the streets if the fee were
raised to $10.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that storage of garbage until you have enough can be an issue for some
people, especially if they are recycling, composting and do not have a garbage buddy system. He would
like to see a more organized approach to the garbage buddy system, although for people who live in
isolated areas, this could be a burden for them. Solid Waste Manager Talbot pointed out that in the City
the cheapest curbside service for one can every other week is $10.15 a month and in the County it is
$12.75 a month. Charging everyone by the pound, at some level becomes burdensome due to the amount
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
of work processing traffic and payment. He gave a comparison observation that if you sign up for
curbside service, you probably do not generate as much garbage as you are paying for, but you are
paying for the service regardless. Some jurisdictions provide a cheaper rate for commercial trucks to
bring in waste. The County Solid Waste station charges the same for all users.
Commissioner Sullivan asked if the minimum self - haulers are being subsidized? Solid Waste Manager
Talbot replied they are not. Public Works Director Monte Reinders stated that the County is providing
excellent service. Compared to other jurisdictions, they have a history of providing good service for
small loads at a reasonable cost. There is upsides to that and some downsides to that. At some point the
facility has to be able to accommodate all of those trips.
County Administrator Philip Morley asked how much of a constraint for the tipping floor or the scale
house where payments are made is the self -haul traffic and how close are we getting to requiring facility
changes? Solid Waste Manager Talbot replied that due to the high volume of traffic on Saturdays, there
may need to be some work done to the facilities that may limit hours of operation, or closing the facility
for periods of time. Several years ago, there would be in upwards of 550 customers using the facility
when tonnage was up. That was severely burdening the system, scale operation and tip floor. They are
starting to see a rise in tonnage again. If one of the scales needs re- building or replacing, or if they are
down to one scale, that would be extremely difficult to handle with the current level of traffic. County
Administrator Morley asked if the basis for the minimum fee is mainly due to traffic? Solid Waste
Manager Talbot replied yes, it is.
Commissioner Sullivan asked if the facility is close to needing the equipment replaced? Solid Waste
Manager Talbot replied that the scales were purchased in 1996. Public Works Director Reinders added
that the scales read in 20 pound increments and the percentage of error goes down the heavier the load.
Chairman Austin noted that if there were to be more cases of illegal dumping as the result of a higher
minimum fee, the costs to pick up the garbage are high and the County would not be able to recover all
of those costs. He asked how much prospective income would be lost if the minimum fee were to be $8
or $7? Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated that if there was a decreased proposed minimum amount
charged, other fees would have to be balanced as they need a balanced budget. They would have to raise
the fees somewhere else to make up the difference. For every dollar that you reduce in the minimum fee,
you need to charge more for the TIP fee. What cannot be predicted is how people's habits will change. It
would be hard to quantify at this point.
County Administrator Morley mentioned that due to the tonnages of
self - haulers they were seeing before the recession, they would have had to eventually increase the
operating costs either through the addition of staff, or through capital changes to the facility and traffic
flow.
Replacing the scale facility with a design that would meet current standards, would take around 2/3 of
the Capital Reserves, which is around $500,000 right now. Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated they
currently would not be able to do this. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) reviewed this and
supports the proposed fees. Chairman Austin mentioned that during the SWAC review, there was no
public input.
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
County Administrator Morley suggested not delaying a decision on this issue for longer than a week as
the rates for the County need to be approved by the Utilities Transportation Commission. For Murray's
Disposal and Olympic Disposal it will be a pass through. If they were raising their own cost, it would
require an extensive review. The City also needs a 60 day window of time to allow for DM Disposal to
implement a new fee schedule.
Commissioner Johnson expressed that a lot of this was perception and part of the issue was waiting
many years before facing this issue.
Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Solid Waste department has been doing what they can to keep the
fees low and it is one of those things that is hard to compromise when you look at the numbers.
Solid Waste Manager Talbot stated that at the end of the day, they still have to balance the budget. lie
explained the reason that the current fee is not rounded up to the nearest dollar was due to a tax increase.
Public Works Director Reinders stated setting the fee at a rounded dollar amount would be fine. Solid
Waste Manager Talbot added that tax is included in the minimum fee amount. Public Works Director
Reinders explained that the proposed minimum fee is $10 and includes tax. If a new minimum fee is
proposed, staff will make sure it includes tax and that it will be at a fixed rate so that if the tax rate
changes, the minimum fee does not change.
Chairman Austin suggested giving an advisory to Public Works to come back in a week with a schedule
that would show a minimum fee of $8 and how that would fit in terms of balancing out other revenues?
Commissioner Johnson indicated that the County already has the highest tonnage in the area and
reducing the minimum proposed fee would make the tonnage fee higher. As it is proposed, the minimum
fee stays the minimum fee and the tonnage rate increases by 2.5% a year.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the minimum fees as presented today. Commissioner Sullivan
seconded the motion. County Administrator Philip Morley asked if the fee indexing of 2.5% applies to
the minimum fee as well, or is that set currently in the proposed ordinance before the Commissioners?
Public Works Director Reinders replied that it does apply. Commissioner Johnson amended his motion
to adopt the proposed ordinance and that the 2.5% annual increase not apply to the minimum fee and
that it stay at a fixed rate for four years. Public Works Director Reinders and Solid Waste Manager
Talbot stated this would not be a problem. County Administrator Morley suggested the Board make a
motion if the Board agrees to direct Public Works staff to bring back a revised ordinance reflecting that
change for their final action next week. Chairman Austin asked if this was acceptable to Commissioner
Sullivan who seconded the motion? Commissioner Sullivan replied that it was. Chairman Austin
repeated that it was moved and seconded that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance with the
amendment that the increase per year not be applied to the minimum fees. County Administrator Morley
suggested that a revised ordinance be brought back that has been signed off by the Prosecutor that would
be adopted next week, and that the motion today would be giving direction to staff to prepare that
ordinance change. Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan agreed to the suggestion.
Chairman Austin called for a vote of the aforesaid motion which carried unanimously.
Page 11
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Jefferson County Code Establishing a
County Enhanced 911 Excise Tax: JeffCom 911 Director Karl Hatton proposed an ordinance to amend
Chapter 3.20 of the Jefferson County Code to extend an Excise Tax supporting Enhanced 911
emergency communications to include prepaid wireless telecommunications services. JeffCom Director
Hatton stated that the proposed ordinance would not generate new taxes or revenues.
As authorized by state law, the County presently has a $0.70 Excise Tax on telephones, cell phones and
VOIP to support Enhanced 911 emergency communications provided by JeffCom. During the 2013
Legislative Session, the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed Second Engrossed Second
Substitute House Bill 1971, which gives counties the authority to set an excise tax of up to $0.70 on
prepaid wireless telecommunications services. By exercising this authority, the County would be
evening the retail playing field for different telecommunication providers, and also providing additional
revenue to support emergency communications service by JeffCom to the growing number of citizens
using prepaid cell phone services.
JeffCom Director Hatton explained that the 911 excise tax would be collected at the point of sale and
sent to the State Department of Revenue (DOR) for disbursement to individual jurisdictions based on
sales. Industry analysis shows that 33% of cell phones are prepaid. If the ordinance were not to pass,
there could be a potential annual loss of around $60,000 to JeffCom's budget. The request is to change
the wording of the ordinance to include prepaid phones and contain language for retailers to charge tax
at the time of sale and forward it to the DOR.
Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment period.
Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He asked how tax is applied to refillable phones that are not on a plan
and not just burners, how is the tax applied? Is it each time you refill it? Can you explain the mechanics
of how and when this tax is collected?
JeffCom Director Karl Hatton replied stating that legislature is working on this issue as they speak. If
refillable minutes are purchased online, the 911 tax is currently being collected, but it is not benefitting
individual counties. Currently, online retailers of refillable cell phone minutes are not forwarding the
collection of the tax on to the state who would then forward to JeffCom. He added the legislature is
trying to keep up with technology.
Tom Thiersch asked when do the subscription phones pay the tax?
JeffCom Director Karl Hatton replied that all subscription phones collect, pay and forward the 911 tax to
counties. They are also working towards making it mandatory for all pre -paid phone services to do the
same.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 05- 1112 -13 Establishing a County
Enhanced 911 Excise Tax on the Sale of a Prepaid Wireless Telecommunication Service to an End User.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 12
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
The meeting was recessed at 11:59 a.m. and reconvened at 1:36 p.m. with all three
Commissioners present.
LETTER: Commissioner Johnson moved to send a condolence letter to the widow of
local volunteer Bob Helander. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Etc
AGREEMENT re: Training services for Public Works shop employees; Peninsula
College: Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt an agreement between Peninsula College and Jefferson
County for training services. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip
Morley reviewed the following with the Board.
Calendar Coordination
• Chairman Austin will be attending a Knotweed Conference in Port Townsend on December 11,
2013
• Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (PRTPO) meeting in Shelton on November 15, 2013
• The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) will be meeting on November 15, 2013
• Chairman Austin will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on November 19, 2013
• All three Commissioners will be attending the Washington State Association of Counties
(WSAC) Conference in Vancouver, Washington November 19 -21, 2013. Commissioner Sullivan
and Commissioner Johnson will be attending all three days. Chairman Austin will be attending
November 20, 2013. Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Coastal Caucus and Timber
Counties meeting
• Chairman Austin will be attending a Cooperating Agencies Conference in Vancouver on
November 22, 2013
• Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Northwest Straits Commission Conference in
Bellingham on November 22 and 23, 2013
• Community Impact meeting will be on November 22, 2013
• The HCCC will be meeting on December 11, 2013 and January 15, 2014
Miscellaneous Issues:
• HCCC and release of hold on 2013 grants
• WSAC election
• Barking Dog Ordinance
• Parks: Parks and Hospital meeting; Parks and City meeting
• Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF): Quincy Street; Building 202; Quilcene
• JeffCom space license and tower agreements
• Coyle Cell Tower
Page 13
Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
Kc
• Scout Cabin
• ER &R candidate
• Budget 2014 and message
• Charter. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) as a nuisance ordinance like San Juan; Charter
meeting Saturday
NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting
at 3:16 p=. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner
StaW.an%seeoV4�2the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
4 .
t Q ;pr' +Y •i'�� JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OMMISSIONERS
111
z. Jo A in,C r
� 71
ATTEST: Phil
od,4v�4o�' J
Carolyn Avery Dav
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Page 14
P1 72
jeffbocc
From:
Joel Janetski Doel_janetski @byu.edu]
Sent:
Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:01 PM
To:
jeffbocc
Subject:
waste fees
E IS r
Sir:
Doubling the minimum trash fee is excessive. If the amount of trash has decreased, then it shouldn't cost as much to run
the program. I suggest you examine ways to reduce costs internally and consider a more modest increase. The Waste
Disposal facility provides an important service and, as a county resident, I am grateful for that service.
I looked on the web site provided in The Leader and didn't see a draft ordinance on this increase.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Joel Janetski
Emeritus Professor of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
432 Sunset Blvd
Port Townsend, WA 98368
cell: 801.319.0542
Joel Janetski(o )byu.edu
Jefferson County Commissioners
PO Box 1220
Townsend, WA
RE: Solid Waste Disposal Fee Increase
Dear Commissioners,
1jN-,4 RECORD
October 30, 2013
PO Box 340
Port Townsend, WA 98368
! "T 1, ')r
C J LL
I urge you vote against the proposal to double the minimum solid waste
disposal fee from $4.95 to $10.00. This specific increase has at least two
negative policy implications in exchange for a small gain in revenue.
First, this fee increase discourages residents from properly disposing of
small waste amounts and encourages illegal dumping. Additionally, this
fee increase penalizes residents who conscientiously recycle and thus
have minimal household garbage.
A more productive proposal may be to decrease the weight allowed under
m fee. Such a proposal would continue to encourane the
appropriate disposal of smaller amounts of waste as well as supporting
household recycling.
nnifer Stankus
FARING
jeffbocc .
From: judithwalls @q.com
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 12:36 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Garbage rate proposed changes; COMMENT
Greetings,
I am writing to object to your raising the MINIMUM rate from the (say) $5 as it is now. I am a senior, and can
only handle one garbage can in my car (I have no truck so must make mini -runs) -- plus, I recycle most of my
waste stream thereby minimizing my impact on the environment. Many other seniors I know follow this pattern
and your proposed new minimum rates will penalize instead of reward this practice. We should be rewarded
and not have to subsidize heavier dumps. Further, if you make the minimum punitive, the problem of dumping
in the woods and side roads will prosper. I saw a young man dumping @ a public area gate last month. He was
tossing garbage bags & kicking stuff out the back of his pickup truck for someone else to deal with.
Best regards, Judith Walls
Port Ludlow WA 98365
ph: 437 -2394
From: Michael Smith [msmithlodi @gmail.coml
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:57 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Proposed increases in solid waste fees
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
October 27, 2013
e EA, i ?' �
M
RE: Comments about proposed fee increases for depositing solid waste at the Transfer Station as described in
the Leader of October 23, 1913
Dear Commissioners:
I do not object to the increases in the base tonnage rate, especially considering that the rate has not been
increased since 1993. I do, however, object to the proposed increase in the minimum drop -off fee from $4.95 to
$10.00, even though the proposed increase would be coupled with increasing the amount of trash covered by the
minimum from 80 to 140 pounds. I think this particular proposal is poorly thought out and unfair to single
persons or couples who do not normally bring a large amount of trash at a time. My wife and I regularly take
our accumulated trash to the Transfer Station. We often do not exceed the current 80 pound level, and thus pay
the minimum. If we do exceed the minimum weight, it us never by very much, and we pay at most $1.00 or so
over the $4.95 minimum. Further, I think it is unfeasible for people like us to accumulate enough garbage to
justify paying the new $10.00 minimum. First, one would need to have enough cans, etc. to store that amount
of trash. Second, the trash would begin to seriously smell before one accumulated the 140 pound amount.
Third, one would almost need to have a truck or trailer to be able to haul that much garbage, thus unfairly
penalizing people who do not want to or cannot afford to have such a vehicle.
In conclusion, I would support increasing the base rate as proposed. As to the minimums, I think it would be
fair and sensible to increase the minimum fee by the same percentage as the base rate is being increased, or 22
per cent, thus making the minimum about $6.00 including tax, and leave the amount of trash covered by the
minimum at the sensible amount of 80 pounds.
Thank you for your consideration.
IF
Michael W. Smith
131 E. Rhododendron Dr.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
From: Elaine Nye [eenye @cablespeed.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:28 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Trash price rise
Dear Sir,
Please read this!
A lr,� S1
I read in the local paper about the proposed price rise at the transfer station.
It seems to me that doubling the price is extreme and would cause customers to go elsewhere in other
businesses. But in this case we don't have a choice (except to "lose" our black plastic bags at the end of a dark,
rural road!).
Commercial haulers can pass the rise to their customers, people with big trucks can maybe go to the dump less
often with a larger load.
But many rural folks like myself have a passenger car and save money by taking our 2 bags of trash to the dump
in the back of the car, To raise the weight limit won't help us. We are way below even the present $4.95 limit.
An extra $5 will actually be a financial burden for some people on fixed income. Maybe trash collection is a
city service in Port Townsend, I don't know, but it is not in Port Hadlock or Port Ludlow.
How about having a small price rise, say to $6, for less weight (60lbs). $10 for 120lbs then looks like a
bargain!
Sincerely yours
E Elaine Nye
Port Ludlow
From:
Tom Thiersch [thiersch - public @usregs.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:37 PM
To:
jeffbocc
Cc:
Philip Morley
Subject:
Proposed solid waste fee schedules - Nov. 12 2013 hearing
Commissioners:
This email is testimony for the public record of the hearing scheduled for November 12, 2013, regarding the
proposed solid waste fee schedules 2014 -2019.
I object to the proposed $10 minimum fee, which is more than double the current minimum fee, for the
following reasons:
• It will harm the poorest people in the county
• It is highly regressive; those who can least afford it will be hurt the most
• It is likely to threaten public health
• There will be more dumping of trash, which will lead to an
• Increase in disease vectors (rats, raccoons, etc.)
• Raising the minimum fee will discourage customers and could well lead to a net decrease in revenue
I recommend that you retain the existing $5 minimum fee and reduce the current 80 lb. allowance to 60
Ib.
Tom Thiersch
Jefferson County
ASAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.
From:
Roger Andersen [randers48 @g mail. coml
Sent:
Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:08 PM
To:
jeffbocc
Subject:
Solid Waste Fee
Dear Commissioners,
I returned from vacation to learn that you are considering raising the rates for disposing of trash at our transfer
facility. I'd appreciate your considering my comments.
I understand the need to increase revenue and that the minimum rate has not changed in some
time. Nonetheless, doubling the rate seems extreme.
My primary concern, however, is the move to increase the amount of garbage covered by the minimum fee from
80 pounds to 140 pounds. At first blush, this seems reasonable -- increase the price, but give users more. The
effect, however, would be to increase the subsidy small contributors give to large operations. We regularly use
the transfer station, and we seldom exceed the 80 pound level. We fill two 40 -gal cans and bring them to the
facility. We have neither the room, nor the desire, to accumulate more garbage before making the trip. You'd be
doubling our cost without adding any benefit, but the increased revenue would go to support the facility
generally, thus benefiting larger haulers.
Moreover, by increasing the weight covered by the minimum fee, you would be encouraging wasteful practices
by small - volume individuals. With little risk of going over the new 140 pound limit, individuals would have
less incentive to recycle items that they might as well just dump in the regular trash. You should be rewarding
folks who don't generate much trash.
Instead, I suggest you keep the first -level maximum at 80 pounds, but simply increase the charge, say to $7.50.
If you scale increased charges from the 80 pound level (instead of 140), you should be able to generate more
income.
Thank you,
Roger Andersen
251 Sunset Blvd
PT
Gordon James
3447 Oak Bay Road
Port Had lock, WA 98339
360 437-0422
October 31, 2013
Re: Proposed rate increase for solid waste
Commissioners Sullivan, Johnson and Austin:
Prior to offering my comments on the proposed solid waste rate increases, let me first
say that Richard Talbot has been most helpful in providing me with information and for
his willingness to discuss the needs for an increase. I ask that you consider the
following comments prior to adopting a rate increase program.
First, I do believe that a rate increase is needed at this time. As a county resident who
has hauled both garbage and yard waste to the transfer station for 18 years, I have
exceeded the current minimum weight on less than 10% of my transactions. Mr. Talbot
advised that the average weight for less than minimum transactions was 56 pounds. In
fact, 28% of all transactions including commercial are less than minimum weight.
Being a senior citizen in a county of largely seniors, I doubt that many of us will want or
be able to handle loads of 140 pounds in order to take maximum advantage of a $10
minimum rate. In fact we would see our effective rates increase by 60 -75 %.
I would recommend that you consider an interim rate classification and the following:
1. A minimum rate of $7.00 for 100 pound or less.
2. A rate of $10 for 100 -140 pounds.
3. Over 140 pounds as recommended by Mr.Talbot.
4. Payment should be by cash or credit cards. No checks - handling is too costly.
While I do not have enough data to know if these rates would meet your revenue target,
I feel that they should come very close. Minimum load transactions are off - loaded and
transacted more quickly than larger Ioads.A rate increase from $4.95 to $7.00 is a 41%
increase and an increase of 16.4% per pound for 28% of the transactions. The average
weight for other individual transactions is 239 pounds and would be charged at the
higher rates.
I believe that these suggestions warrant your consideration.
Sincerely,
4-
(Gordon mes
Cc: Richard Talbot