Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072114District 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 July 21, 2014 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner David Sullivan. 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 commented on volunteer efforts in Quilcene and urged the Board to support the development of 1) infrastructure; and 2) grant funding for safe passage through the community; and • A citizen acknowledged a previous misunderstanding of the use of Proposition 1 funding and thanked Commissioner Sullivan for his detailed explanation; and • A citizen suggested that the residents of Quilcene work with other public agencies on an infrastructure feasibility analysis for wastewater by helping to develop an RFP; and • A citizen requested supplemental funding from the Lodging Tax funds to upgrade the computer system at the Olympic Peninsula Gateway Visitor Center; and • A citizen expressed concern regarding the implementation of Initiative 502; and • A citizen: 1) commented on the recent Commissioner candidate forum; 2) stated a forum will be held with the PUT) Commissioner candidates in August; and 3) urged the Commissioners to promote economic development of Quilcene and the Highway 101 Corridor. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENTAGENDA: 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. RESOLUTION NO. 33-14 re: Establishing Objectives and Procedures for the 2015 County Budget 2. RESOLUTION NO. 34 -14 re: Distribution of Annual PUT) Privilege Tax Revenues 3. CALL FOR BIDS re: Pursuit -rated SUV's; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:15 a.m., or shortly thereafter on Monday, August 18, 2014 in the Commissioners' Chambers 4. CALL FOR BIDS re: Dump Trucks; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:45 a.m., or shortly thereafter on Monday, August 18, 2014 in the Commissioners' Chambers 5. AGREEMENT re: Repair and Replace Windows at Port Townsend Community Center; In the Amount of $45,455.18; Jefferson County Central Services; Aldergrove Construction, Inc. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 X*71 6. AGREEMENT, Change Order No. 2 re: Quilcene Replacement Shop Project, County Project No. 180 543 1868; In the Amount of $307,293.06; Jefferson County Public Works; 2 Grade, LLC 7. AGREEMENT re: Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PSAR) Grant Project for West Uncus Road /Salmon Creek Culvert Replacement Design; In the Amount of $98,200; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) 8. AGREEMENT re: Solid Waste Facility - Closed Landfill Biogas Flare Maintenance; In the Amount of $1,300 per year; Jefferson County Public Works; John Zink Company, LLC 9. AGREEMENT NO. ICA15081, Interlocal re: Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Plan; In the Amount of $14,420, Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts 10. AGREEMENT NO. 1463 -17244 re: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant FFY13; In the Amount of $6,100; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) — Juvenile Justice and Rehabilitation Administration 11. AGREEMENT re: Medical /Relapse Prevention Services to Inmates at the Jefferson County Jail; In the Amount of $38,100; Jefferson County Sheriff s Office; Linda Pederson, MSN, ARNP, PLLC 12. AGREEMENT re: Community Access Services; In the Amount of $19,440; Jefferson County Public Health; Concerned Citizens 13. AGREEMENT, Intergovernmental re: School Nurse Corp Program; In the Amount of $29,277 plus mileage; Jefferson County Public Health; Olympic Educational Services District 114 14. AGREEMENT NO. 1463 -16414 re: Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA); In the Amount of $281,175; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 15. AGREEMENT re: Community Access Services; In the Amount of $7,500; Jefferson County Public Health; Skookum Contract Services 16. Advisory Board Appointment re: Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC); Henry Fly, District No. 1; Two (2) Year Term Expires July 21, 2016 17. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers /Warrants Dated July 14, 2014 Totaling $1,109,566 and Dated July 16, 2014 Totaling $5,639.80 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with vouchers approved and signed by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners are retained by the Jefferson County Auditor and Public Works Department.) Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the regular meeting minutes of May 5, 12, 19 and 27, 2014 and June 2, 9, and 16, 2014 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Attended a State Board of Health meeting last week. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 421 Commissioner Johnson - Attended a Fort Worden Advisory Committee meeting last week. - Reported that the PDA has launched the 2nd phase of its website and developing a strategic marketing plan. The PDA needs to collect $250,000 in park passes for the State. The legislature may be considering other methods to fund State Parks. Commissioner Sullivan - Attended a meeting with other local agencies regarding mental health issues last week. - Reported that the "Festival by the Bay' is taking place in Port Ludlow this weekend. The meeting was recessed at 9:36 a.m. and reconvened at 9:58 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing a No Shooting Area in Port Ludlow (Tala Shore Area): County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed two (2) draft ordinances outlining alternatives for the Board to consider with regard to possibly establishing a No Shooting Area in the Tala Shore area of Port Ludlow. He explained that RCW 9.41.300 authorizes local governments to establish "No Shooting Areas" where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property may be jeopardized. Jefferson County codified procedures in Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.50 for establishing "No Shooting Areas" when safety or property is jeopardized. On November 6, 2012, the Commissioners received a petition from residents along the Tala Shore Drive area requesting the establishment of a "No Shooting Area" which is represented in the ordinance titled "Alternative 1 — Original Petition Area." Interestingly to note, the nearby Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort is an established "No Shooting Area" as is the Paradise Bay area located to the south of Tala Shore. Pursuant to Jefferson County Code, the Auditor reviewed the petition and certified that there were a sufficient number of signatures to validate the petition. Subsequently, the Commissioners held a meeting with some of the petitioners in January 2013 where there was discussion about adjoining property owners' interest in potentially being included in a "No Shooting Area." The petitioners reached out to the property owners to gauge interest and subsequently, the County received a letter in February 2013 from the Tala Point Homeowners' Association representing property owners that indicated interest in being included in a "No Shooting Area" based on a majority vote of 8 out of 13 of its members (8 in favor, 3 opposed and 2 non - responses). A clear majority of the property owners were supportive of being included in a "No Shooting Area." The County also received individual letters from a number of other property owners which are included in the materials provided to the Board. Based on the additional interest expressed by other property owners not included in the original petition, the Board directed staff to look at potentially expanding the proposed Tala Shore No Shooting Area. One concept that was considered was to include not only the original petition area, but all of the properties shown in white on the map attached to the draft ordinance titled "Alternative 1 — Original Petition Area" in order to make a clear and contiguous single "No Shooting Area" that would not present boundary issues. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 Pursuant to Jefferson County Code, County staff conducted outreach to the Tribes that are members of both the Point -No -Point and Point Elliot Treaties. Input from the tribes was received regarding treaty rights for hunting. Strong input was received from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and the Suquamish Tribe stating that while they are supportive of protecting developed areas, they want to make sure that areas which are largely undeveloped remain open for hunting. In particular, they noted a large 80 acre timber parcel which is owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The tribes have an established relationship with DNR to explicitly allow tribal hunting within DNR property boundaries. The tribes are very concerned that the 80 acre parcel and other undeveloped parcels not be included in the proposed Tala Shore No Shooting Area. As a result of the input from the tribes, and in further consultation with the Commissioners, County staff developed an expanded "No Shooting Area" which is shown on the map attached to the draft ordinance titled "Alternative 2 — Expanded Area." The expanded area extends the western boundary of the original Tala Shore petition area to E. Ludlow Ridge Road which clarifies the boundary to the west. The northern boundary as shown on the original petition for the Tala Shore No Shooting area remains unchanged, but the smaller developed lots in the northern part of Tala Point have been included. The larger parcels remain unconstrained with regard to the scope of the proposed Tala Shore No Shooting Area. It was noted that there are some smaller undeveloped parcels located directly north of the Port Ludlow No Shooting Area which are not included in the proposed Tala Shore No Shooting Area. County Administrator Morley noted that a hearing notice was published on June 18, 2014 and July 9, 2014. Additionally, notice of this hearing was sent to all of the property owners and street addresses within the proposed Tala Shore No Shooting Area, as well as to property owners and street addresses located within 300' of the proposed Tala Shore No Shooting Area. Notice was also sent to both the Point -No -Point Treaty Tribes and Point Elliot Treaty Tribes. Included in the materials provided to the Board are two letters received from the tribes which were considered in developing the draft ordinance "Alternative 2 — Expanded Area." The two draft ordinances are presented to the Board for consideration and both include a finding pursuant to State law that there is a risk to safety and property within the designated "No Shooting Area." Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. David Reid, Port Ludlow: His residence is out on the tip that was identified as a "No Shooting Area" in "Alternate 2." Phil referenced a letter from our Association President supporting this. She is not here today so I am somewhat speaking on her behalf as well. As Phil said, there was a clear majority supporting this. But, in fact, supporting a larger area, so I think that the message I want to communicate is that we are disappointed that the entire Point is not being included in one of the alternatives. Somewhat supporting that is another situation, and that is, the larger white area on map. The largest land holder is Olympic Property Group which is a subsidiary of Pope Resources. They have been actively pursuing development of that area. They have 250 acres there. They basically surround the 80 acres that the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns. They have developed a plan for developing 50 homesites. So we are really talking about development that is pending. They expect to complete the septic design this year and by the end of the year have a preliminary plat approval for their development with these 50 homesites. So we are really talking about a situation that requires something now for the entire Point or that it will happen very soon in the future; a "No Shooting Zone." I don't know how to Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 deal with the DNR property as far as the Native American tribal concerns. I see that as an issue certainly, but I don't have a solution for that. Let me just make one personal note. I am very comfortable around guns. In fact, I had my first 22 -Rifle when I was 10 years old. The situation was different, however, than what we are talking about here, because we can control, not who owns guns, but where they are used and proximity. I grew up where the nearest neighbor was 2 '/2 miles away. Thank you. David Schwartz Port Ludlow: I live on the Point as well. I am a neighbor of David's. I originally supported the vote that our Association had in support of the "No Shooting Zone." I have since changed my mind and have talked with a couple of the other neighbors and just want to make a point that though it is a majority, it is not unanimous. Much of David's concerns about the length of the road we do walk. It is a gated community. That whole length of the mile is gated, so it is not open to the public. People walk it, so in that regard people were concerned that as they are walking down that mile long road that they would find that they might be within either earshot or in direct danger. My question was, and I am a new resident, is that in the 20 some years that that development has existed out there on the tip, has there ever been an issue? I don't believe so, although there has been gun sounds. I am not so sure what we are trying to do here on the Point. Again, I originally voted for it. I have changed my vote. Just thought I would make that point made known. David Neault, Port Ludlow: I have lived here for 24 years. In that 24 years I have seen it grow from a small community where we saw hunters on the road, they would drive down and have their guns in the car. It was a little uncomfortable. There was a guy with a gun on the road at 5:30 a.m. Was I uncomfortable? Certainly. Could I do anything about it? Not a thing. Would I have loved to have had a "No Shooting Zone" at that point? Certainly. Houses started to get built up. It is no longer an issue. No one would take a place and start target shooting if they were sane or not drunk. This is not a problem for that road. What this is, is people that want to restrict hunters. This is not a target shooting issue. Paradise Bay had a target shooting issue with the gravel pit and that is why they needed that. There is not a problem. When I spoke to Administrator Morley, he said you guys would be checking the JCSO records and I am sure that has been done, to see whether or not there has been issues and 911 calls documenting that there actually is an issue, because the Commissioners, in order to act, have to have a clear and present, there has to be a danger under 9.41.300 for you guys to act. If there is no documented issue, there is really a failure for you guys to be able to implement a "No Shooting Zone." So, I don't know how you could act if there is no danger there documented. I am sure that within the record you guys are going to document how you came to that decision. That is something of course we will be looking at. Those of us that are not in favor of this "No Shooting Zone." My concern here is that we are doing something that doesn't need to be done. I'm also concerned about JCC 8.50 itself, because it doesn't provide some of the protections that I would expect. Administrator Morley said: Well you have the right to shoot an animal on your property. I read JCC 8.50 and I don't see that it provides me the protection. I don't see that in the law and I would like the Commissioners to actually have somebody look at that and see where under State law it says that. Under JCC it does not reference any of the State law. So my concerns here are the Commissioners don't really, you know, if there is a danger, go ahead and act. But there is no danger that has been documented that I am aware of in the Sheriff s record under JSCO. If you guys had done the research and it is there, go ahead, do this. If not, I am concerned. Shari Irwin Port Ludlow: I live at the end of the road on a gravel private road. I have heard gunshots through the years behind me. I used to feel comfortable walking the trails. I don't anymore. I appreciate what you have done and the time you have taken to look at all the issues and I hope that you will consider following through with this "No Shooting Zone." Our area has gotten more dense with people Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 and recently, on the white area of the map, Pope Resources has just started doing some logging and they have a "No Shooting" sign on one of those parcels. I guess I am just concerned for our rural community and being safe there. Thank you for your time. Ted Riley Jordan, Non - Resident Port Ludlow Property Owner: We bought our home 14 years ago and we enjoy the community and are hoping to make it our permanent residence soon. While I am not opposed to the "No Shooting Area," I do have questions with the County Code itself, the vagueness of it. As Mr. Neault brought up, the exemptions do not clearly state and comply with the present Washington State regulations where you have the legal right to put down a diseased or injured animal or one causing property damage or for public safety. Also, the other problem I have with it, or question I have with it, is the enforcement. It actually says in there you can actually be cited by registered mail. And I perceive that and understand it myself as if someone hears what they even assume to be a gunshot, a warrant could be mailed to you and you could be cited. Personally, I hold a security clearance with the Department of Homeland Security. Even a false accusation could cost me my security clearance, and then I would have to go through the legal process. Due to some federal records that my wife sent me last night, even if it is expunged, I may have a hard time getting that clearance back. So, actually, the verbiage I feel of the County Code itself really needs to be clarified and examined. Another thing that may be simple, JCC Chapter 8.50 states "No Shooting Areas" and all the signs say "No Shooting Zones." Now days within the letter of the law on warrants, that one word could actually make you wonder if this ordinance would be thrown out because one says "Area" and one says "Zone." Those are basically my concerns, because yes, the houses are close together and no one should be just target shooting anywhere. There already is a State WAC that covers target shooting and you are not allowed to shoot within 500 feet of a residence. There is also a Revised Code of Washington 77.36.30 that allows you to trap and kill wildlife threatening human safety and causing property damage. There is also the Washington Administrative Code 232.36.50 which addresses killing wildlife for personal safety that really needs to be closely looked at. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Mvron Hillman, Port Ludlow: I understand some of the technical aspects that these two gentlemen brought up. You gentlemen are faced, not with the enforcement of those technicalities, that goes to the legal department, your duty is to have the zone, whether it's a "Zone" or "Area." We are not dealing with technicalities, we are dealing with public safety. Public safety as a whole. That is what the jurisdiction is basically about. I am like Mr. Reid, I grew up with a 22 in my hand at about 10 years old and lived in the country. But, my father was an iron arm man and if I did anything wrong it was taken away from me. We have had some irresponsible activity in the area. We have lived there 14 years. I do hear an occasional gunshot up on the hill. Maybe that is related to the fact the coyotes are gone, the bobcats are gone, bunny rabbits are increasing, I don't know. But, I am in favor of the area. I agree with Mr. Reid, I think it should be bigger on the Point. But, then that can be amended after this is adopted as that area develops. So yes, I am in favor of it. I think the technicalities they are bringing up are moot at this point. You have to have the area. You have to have a case brought in those refined halls of law. Thank you. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Chairman Austin stated that the one thing that testimony "for' and "against" has demonstrated is that it takes time and it takes deliberation to come up with Codes that are protective. Almost always there are two sides of an issue. An issue of basic freedom and how does one person's freedom start to impinge Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 upon the rights of another person. That is where government has a tough task ahead of it and that is what we are going to attempt to do today. Commissioner Sullivan stated he thought that protecting yourself from dangerous animals and those kinds of situations was an exemption covered in the Jefferson County Code (JCC). County Administrator Morley stated JCC Chapter 8.50.020 lists exemptions. As a follow -up to this hearing staff can look at the WAC and RCW citations referenced by Mr. Ted Riley Jordan with the intent to mirror any exemptions in State law. If further refinement of the JCC is necessary we can certainly address that at a later date. As pointed out by Commissioner Sullivan, there are a number of exemptions already in the JCC which perhaps need to be expanded. He read the exemptions as outlined in the JCC: "1) The use of firearms by citizens pursuant to RCW 16.08.020 regarding dogs or other animals, endangering livestock; 2) The lawful use of a firearm by law enforcement in the performance of their duties; 3) The use of firearms to lawfully slaughter farm animals; 4) The lawful use of force by citizens; 5) The continued operation of the legally established private or public gun club facilities." Exemption 44 may be a "catch all" that might include what Mr. Ted Riley Jordan was citing, but staff will need to confirm that. County Administrator Morley stated that both alternatives presented focus on areas where there are residences. Other comments made by citizens during public testimony is that in the event that there is additional development in the area, either citizens could petition or the Board could look to potentially expand either of these alternatives to include any future additional development. Chairman Austin stated one of his concerns is to try to avoid further delay. The petition was submitted more than a year ago. They have been very patient. If we were to try to expand beyond Alternative 2, then we would need to engage in further public testimony, which may not technically be required, but it would be conducted and would mean a further delay. Commissioner Sullivan asked if any comments were submitted by Pope Resources or Olympic Property Group? County Administrator Morley replied that he is not aware of any comments. Commissioner Johnson stated he has lived here his entire life and he has watched as the hunters keep getting pushed out the door. But the hunters keep getting pushed out the door because people want growth and people keep moving in. He has mixed feelings about this. He understands the issue with the tribes and feels that it should be clear that they should have the 80 acres as part of their hunting grounds and perhaps more. He does not think he is ready to vote today. Commissioner Sullivan stated that JCC does not cover bows at all. One of the things that was suggested was keeping it to bows and muzzle loaders and shotguns, things that you do not worry about going great distances, because there are some firearms that can go a great distance. That is one thing he would consider. In terms of delay, he understands that issue. It is difficult when the outer boundary of these areas are not identifiable or defined. Commissioner Johnson stated that State law prohibits shooting within 500 feet from a residence. Without an identifiable boundary it is difficult to determine an exact distance. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he wished Olympic Property Group would have provided comments on this issue because of the future development possibilities. He is inclined to go with the whole area Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 -, �, Etc except the DNR land and leave it to DNR to enforce their regulations on their property. The Board could do part of this now and leave that open to possibly add in the future. Chairman Austin stated that to his knowledge the County does not have a request from Olympic Property Group to start permitting. He is uncertain, at this point, if the zoning would allow it. Commissioner Sullivan added that it is their private property and it is their right to prohibit shooting. They could actually put that in their covenants. Chairman Austin expressed his concern about sending this back to staff to make more changes and causing a further delay for property owners who live in relatively dense residential areas. The County has heard from the tribes. A distance of 500 feet as a protective zone for shooting does not seem very far. Commissioner Sullivan stated that is why it speaks to allowing muzzle loaders and shotguns which have a shorter range. There is also an issue of expanding the "No Shooting Area" with a limitation of establishing an identifiable boundary and how to enforce it. Chairman Austin questioned how a citizen can distinguish the difference between a shotgun vs. a 30.06? It can be argued that if a person is around weapons, they can make the distinction. He noted that the bow and shotgun exemption are not included in other established "No Shooting Areas" in the County. Commissioner Sullivan stated that bows are not covered and are allowed everywhere. Commissioner Johnson stated he understands the Tala Point issue. He would feel more comfortable if there was a buffer, but there is a road which is a definable boundary. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he is supportive of Alternative 2. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt Alternative 2 — Expanded Area ORDINANCE NO. 06- 0721 -14 establishing a No Shooting Area near Port Ludlow to be known as the Tala Shore No Shooting Area. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. He stated he is reluctant in some respects, but there is strong support from the neighborhood and it leaves substantial property open for hunting and satisfies the tribes. Commission Sullivan confirmed with County Administrator Morley that staff will review the RCW to determine if there is a need to update the ordinance. County Administrator Morley stated that he will also review with legal counsel the other issue regarding the enforcement procedures and notification. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:49 a.m. and reconvened at 10:58 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HFARING re: 2nd Quarter 2014 Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following three requests for budget appropriations and extensions which have been submitted: Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 1) GENERAL FUND: Superior Court is requesting $20,000 to cover psychiatric or psychological evaluations and related to high profile criminal cases that required the appointment by the Court of expert services which are constitutionally guaranteed for indigent defendants. These are unanticipated, but required costs that need to be covered. This appropriation replenishes that budget line item for Superior Court and hopefully will allow them to carry forward for the remainder of the year. 2) GENERAL FUND: An operating transfer to the Capital Improvement fund in the amount of $450,000 is being requested due to the fact that PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes from the Federal government) revenues received were $847,000 higher than budgeted for 2014. This appropriation places additional funding into the Capital Improvement fund that can be used both for debt service coverage in future years or for a subsequent transfer out of the Capital Improvement fund into another capital fund such as construction or renovation for a capital project. 3) ROAD FUND: Public Works is requesting a transfer to the Emergency Road Reserve fund in the amount of $75,000 for emergency repairs to Oil City Road. This project was not originally included or funded within the Road Fund. Earlier this year, the Commissioners declared an emergency by Resolution due to the bank erosion threatening Oil City Road at milepost 8.8. Public Works has subsequently received permits and secured bids to stockpile emergency rip rap (large rock) at this location to protect the road. The Road Reserve fund was established to cover emergencies such as these and should be used for that purpose. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Hearing no comments for or against the 2nd Quarter 2014 Budget Appropriations /Extensions for various County departments, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 35-14; ORDER re: 2nd Quarter 2014 Budget Appropriations /Extensions for Various County Departments. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Closed Session re: Strategy or position for collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings: A Closed Session was scheduled from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. with the Commissioners, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board/Human Resources Manager to discuss strategy or position for collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, as outlined in RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). The actual period of time the Board met in Closed Session on this topic was from 11:09 a.m. to 11:27 a.m. At the conclusion of the Closed Session the Board resumed the regular meeting. HEARING re: Surplus County Property: Interim Treasurer Janet Holbrook and Foreclosure Specialist Sabrina Hathaway were present to discuss the surplus of County property. Ms. Hathaway stated that various departments have requested the need to dispose surplus equipment. Staff is requesting the Board approve a resolution to allow this property to be sold at auction. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 County Administrator Morley stated that a substantial amount of the property to be declared surplus is ER &R Fleet property. Ms. Hathaway added that the Assessor's office is requesting to surplus a Ford Escort and Public Works Solid Waste Division is requesting to surplus a 1993 Trailer Jockey. Chairman Austin stated this is a lot of equipment that will be disposed by the County. He asked what is the County's plan to replace this equipment? There is only so much space at the County Shop. Looking at the list of surplus items, it appears that the County Shop will be cleared out. He asked if the County has replacements for this property and how all the needs of the County are going to be taken care of after disposing of this property? ER &R Manager Matt Stewart responded that the property has all been replaced. Property is building up since it has been almost two years since the last auction was held. This property has already been removed from the fleet and there are working replacements in the field. Chairman Austin asked where is the property stored? ER &R Manager Stewart replied that most of it is stored at the County Shop. It is taking up too much room and needs to go. Commissioner Johnson asked if the vehicles on the list are being replaced with hybrid vehicles as much as possible? ER &R Manager Stewart replied that he can speak to the replacements from here on out. The trailer jockey is the only item that has been replaced since he began working for Jefferson County. All the other items have been out of the fleet for at least seven months. Not all of the vehicles were replaced with hybrids, although ER &R is endeavoring to do that where it makes sense. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Bill McIntyre: Stated he is the President, Manager, and maintenance person for the Jefferson County Fairgrounds. He is showing an interest in a John Deer 4400 Tractor with a mower. I would like to see that handed down to the Jefferson County Fair Board on the grounds that we can mow our grass without having to bring our personal mowers out there to get ready for our event coming up here in the middle of August and also during the course of the year. Now I have not looked at this tractor, Matt. I was out there Friday, but I did not realize you were off on Fridays. (ER &R Manager Matt Stewart responded: We are open on Fridays, actually we would be happy to have you come back.). Ok, well maybe I can come out tomorrow or Tuesday to take a look at it. I am showing an interest in the John Deer 4400 for the Fairgrounds to be handed down or wheeled on the trailer, or whatever we have to do. I would like to see this piece of equipment on the Fairgrounds and not come up for auction. Chairman Austin asked Mr. McIntyre if he is committing himself to purchasing the tractor and mower? Mr. McIntyre responded if the Fairgrounds have enough cash flow. Cash flow for the Jefferson County Fairgrounds is really tight and real minimal. So that is the reason I don't want to see it go up for auction. Commissioner Johnson asked if the County can legally transfer title? County Administrator Morley stated that when the County declares property as surplus, there are adopted procedures that allow the transfer of property to other public agencies or non - profit agencies where the property has diminimis or no value. The Fair Board is a registered non - profit agency. County Administrator Morley asked ER &R Manager Stewart if the value of the tractor /mower has been assessed? ER &R Manager Stewart stated that they would assess the value if the County agrees to Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 X� proceed with Mr. McIntyre's request. The County uses 10% of the original value of the property for purposes of calculating a basic residual value at the end of its life. The tractor /mower is a Public Works department asset. The amount the Public Works department paid in rent over the life of the piece of equipment is based on that 10% coming back to ER &R at the end of its life. County Administrator Morley noted that the resolution does not directly specify how the Treasurer would dispose of the property, it simply says that the Board makes a finding and determination as required by RCW 36.34.050 to declare the property surplus and allow the Treasurer to proceed with the disposition of said surplus items. That will allow the Treasurer's office to work with the ER &R department to look at the appropriate procedures for disposing of each of those items, including the tractor /mower. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see the County look at giving the best deal possible to the Fair Board. The Fair Board performs a great function for the County. Commissioner Sullivan added that the Fair Board has made good use of equipment in the past. The voters approved Proposition 1 which increased the amount of funding the County could give to the Fairgrounds and 4 -H which is a big part of the Fair. He believes this is in that spirit. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 36-14 re: Determination to Declare Certain County Property as Surplus. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 11:39 a.m. and reconvened at 1:36 p.m. Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan were present. Commissioner Johnson was absent due to another commitment. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Director of Community Development Carl Smith was also present. Miscellaneous Items: • Arrow Lumber — Permit was issued with no appeals, contained a variety of conditions including contractor sales /wholesale only with up to 10% floor space for incidental retail; no retail to general public; right in right out access only as required by Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT). Retail limitation under current zoning is recorded on title. • A project to develop and adopt ordinance revisions to sunset very old land use applications (similar as now in place for building permit applications) will be included by the Department of Community Development (DCD) in its Comprehensive Plan update and the accompanying Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments as part of periodic update. • Tala Shore No Shooting Area: discussed the value of considering prior to making future land use Comprehensive Plan revisions, their potential impact on creating future conflicts with shooting, and the need to be sensitive to retaining areas where shooting remains safe and open. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 • Marijuana issue update and July staff meeting coordination by Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance; also discussed compliance information to Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and Board of County Commissioner (BoCC) request that the County forward local compliance information to the WSLCB. • Ag /CAR meeting on July 17, 2014 - next meeting August 14, 2014. Last week's July 17, 2014 meeting was attended by Sierra Club, Conservation District, Dana Ecelberger, a farmer, Al Latham; Jefferson County -WSU Extension's Bob Simmons, Laura Lewis, Kate Dean, and Planning Commission members Richard Hall and Gary Felder. Planning Commission Brinnon meeting - very little attendance: Joy and Joe Baisch; Kathleen Kler. • Memorial Field/Recreation Center status update. • JeffCom Interlocal Agreement (ILA) status. • Pending: Barking Dog Ordinance and Coyle No Shooting Area. • Jefferson Mental Health - Commissioner Sullivan reported on a meeting held July 18, 2014 with Jefferson Mental Health, Jean Baldwin, Tom Locke, and representatives from Jefferson Healthcare. Calendar Coordination: • Chairman Austin and County Administrator Morley will attend a Finance Committee meeting on July 22, 2014. Interim - Treasurer Janet Holbrook will Chair. • Chairman Austin will attend a Washington State Board of Health meeting on July 23, 2014. • Chairman Austin and County Administrator Morley will attend a JeffCom Board meeting on July 24, 2014. A Quarterly meeting with Directors and Elected Officials will be held on July 28, 2014. • A public meeting on the Port Townsend Paper Mill permit will be held on July 28, 2014. Chairman Austin may attend in audience. • Chairman Austin will be out of the office August 5 -10, 2014. • The Jefferson County Fair will be held August 8 -10, 2014. • The Jefferson County Employee Picnic will be held August 14, 2014. • The All- County Picnic for Jefferson Port Townsend Response Emergency Planning (JPREP) will be held on August 17, 2014 - (recruiting for Head Honcho booth, shifts). Chairman Austin will certify the primary election on August 19, 2014. • Chairman Austin will be attending the EcoSystem Coordinating Board meeting on August 2, 2014 and will not be attending the Jefferson County Board of Health meeting. • Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Johnson will attend the Jefferson County Board of Health meeting on August 21, 2014. • Chairman Austin and County Administrator Morley will attend a JeffCom Board meeting on August 28, 2014. Chairman Austin will attend a tribal meeting on August 28, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. • Chairman Austin will attend a Hargrove meeting on September 2, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. County Administrator's Briefing Session must conclude by 3:00 p.m. • Commissioner Sullivan will attend a Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Legislative Steering Committee (LSC) meeting on September 18, 2014 which conflicts with the Jefferson County Board of Health meeting. • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Johnson will attend the Jefferson County Board of Health meeting on September 18, 2014. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2014 ' • Chairman Austin may leave the JeffCom meeting early on September 25, 2014. • There will be no Board of County Commissioners meeting on September 29, 2014 as it is a 5 t Monday. • Commissioner Johnson will be welcoming the Northwest Straits Commission at the Northwest Maritime Center on October 7, 2014. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:38 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. ✓°:Qk ATTEST: rin Lundgren, CC 4 Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BI lrb Pl lit. David Sulhvan, Member Page 13 jeffbocc Torn: Melanie McAllester [mac906 @earthlink.net] ent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:16 AM To: To: jeffbocc HEARING 3��d �iyj[�/� Subject: Tala Shores / Point No Shooting Area I am a property owner on Ludlow Bay Rd and received the letter from the County describing the proposed no shooting areas. I support the expanded area in alternative 2 and appreciate the County's effort to further improved safety in this rapidly growing recreational area!! Melanie McAllester 961 Ludlow Bay Rd Sent from my Wad • • cc: A c &07)/y ieffbocc From: Theresa Stirling [tstirling @apollomt.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:04 PM fit$ �p� To: jeffboc 9 g ' 4 ' Subject: shooting rights ludlow 11 N Attachments: Theresa Stirling.vcf Please, no shooting or hunting rights on Tala Point. Bad for wildlife, delicate ecosystems, noise and residents. Port Ludlow residents Theresa Stirling Apollo MT, MedCal[Ass st Managing Partner 1- 888 - 457 - 1711 4', ork (360) 471 -7600 mobile tstirling@apollomt.com 250 Cushman St. Ste. 4J Fairbanks, AK 94701 www, m e dca llas s i st. c cm HERRING From: Riley Jordan [riley.jord @gmail.coml Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 10:01 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tala Shore Drive No Shooting Area Proposal comment. Attachments: Tala Shore Bear 6- 5- 2014.jpg Jefferson County Commissioners, My name is Ted Riley Jordan, I sent a certified mail letter in March of 2013 regarding the proposal for the creation of the new Tala Shore No Shooting Area. My wife and I own two properties on Tala Shore Drive, 333 & 370. We currently live out of state, but I am planning to attend the public hearing on July 21, 2014. I have read the article that was published June 25, 2014 @ 3:30 am on ptleader.com, "County seeks comments on proposed no- shooting zone ". While it addresses the topic, it still leaves several vital points vague. In the article David Neault states, "It's not a bad thing, necessarily," and "I'm opposed to restrictions that would make me feel that I have to justify protecting myself or my family. You just can't wait for Fish and Game (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)." The article then states, "County code does make an exception for use of a firearm when protecting livestock or personal safety from dogs, wild animals or an armed attacker. State law also carries such provisions." Then the article states, "The purpose is to protect life safety or property," said Morely. "If you need to use a gun to protect yourself, you can still do that. If you need to protect your livestock from a wild animal, you can still do that." Which brings me to my point. I have read Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.50 No Shooting Areas. There should be a clearer plain language exemption in the Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.50.020, one that states that it is legal to discharge a firearm in a No Shooting Area to protect oneself from aggressive wildlife, or the destruction of predators, or humane dispatch of diseased or injured animals. One that would be pursuant to Washington state law RCW 77.36.30 Trapping or killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage, as well as WAC 232 -36 -050 Killing wildlife for personal safety. In the last three years there has been increased activity of Black Bears and Coyotes on Tala Shore Drive. Some residents have lost their cats. And it is known that bears have raided compost bins and bird feeders repeatedly, and (just this past week) the garbage cans that were put out on the street as required for pick up. This year it is also evident that a full grown bear is loosing it's fear of humans, as seen in the attached photograph file. There are non lethal means of using a shotgun as bear and other wildlife deterrent, i.e. rubber bullet shells. Also, if or when this new No Shooting Area is approved, the county should be required to inform and educate the residents within the area, in writing, of the final encompassed areas, and what is or is not the legal discharge of a firearm. Already, one neighbor called another neighbor when my motorcycle backfired thinking it was gunshots! Thank you for your time and consideration, Ted Riley Jordan Y 878 Copper Ridge Drive Cantonment, F132533 850- 857 -1335 From: P hawk [pehawks @hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:48 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support Proposed No Shooting Zone Tala Shore, Tala Point Dear Board of County Commissioners, We support a no shooting zone in the Tala Shore and Tala Point areas of Port Ludlow. In fact, we support a no shooting zone that would extend from the Paradise Bay No Shooting Zone, completely north to the Port Ludlow No Shooting Zone. We live at the corner of Tala Shore and Paradise Bay Road (2965 Paradise Bay Road). The question presented is whether property or human life is in jeopardy. Most importantly human life is clearly at risk. There are adults and children walking trails and playing in the neighborhood. Areas are heavily wooded. From reading comments on the matter and discussions with my neighbors, there seems to be some confusion, that a no shooting zone means you cannot protect yourself, and that is not the case, nor the purpose of the no shooting zone. In addition limiting the types of weapons used is not a reasonable solution either according to scientific research. It is a matter of common sense for public safety to enact broad no shooting zones in this area of Port Ludlow. Sincerely, Patricia Hawkins Charles Nation 2965 Paradise Bay Road Port Ludlow, WA 0-c'. boc 0- ft 1 OOV In u h -6s�s Come o+•rEv -fig 5�-F �.. C1tit�Yl S 1�' jeffbocc EARIN G RECORD From: Brenda Ng [bng @thetriogroup.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:44 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments Supporting Tala Shore and Tala Point NO- Shooting Zones Proposal Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, 1100%, whole heartedly support the proposed no- shooting zone proposal for Tala Shore and Tala Point As a home owner on 250 Tala Shore Drive, we have a young daughter and golden retriever puppy. As a young family, we represent the future growth and profile of the residential neighborhood and certainly wish for our daughter and puppy to not be in range of a single shot. Imagine the irreversible loss and headlines if either one of them were harmed by a 'stray' bullet. We frequently walk and play as a family up and down the entire length of the street and beach as it's a natural, common outdoor activity for a family to do. How is it even plausible, in the interest and common good of public safety that hunting and residential dwellings overlap? Please address the situation of today and tomorrow, that Tala Shore and Tala Point are residential areas and should be no- shooting zones. Thank you for your consideration and leadership Regards, Brenda Ng 250 Tala Shore Drive From: jeanneoj @aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:49 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: hpevans68 @q.com Subject: Tale Shore Proposed No Shooting Area, Public Hearing on July 21, 2014 July 17, 2014 The Honorable John Austin Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 VIA email atjeflbocc@coJefferson.wa.us Dear Mr. Austin: My husband and I are the owners of 2 properties on Tala Shore Drive to be included in the proposed No Shooting Zone. As this is not currently our primary residence, we are not registered voters in Jefferson County, and were therefore omitted from the initial notice of the proposed ordinance. However, we have owned our home and been taxpayers of Jefferson County for more than 14 years. It has been a 2nd home for us, and we recently purchased a second parcel on the street to facilitate our permanent relocation. I hope this background provides sufficient standing in this matter for our views to be considered. While I do not disagree with the proposed ordinance, there are several issues I would like to see addressed and considered before enacting any ordinance. I highly urge the Board to consider several additional factors when deciding upon the ordinance, and, specifically, its language. I respectfully submit the following as my analysis. I feel that this proposed ordinance does not reach the cause of, nor resolve, the problem in general. If I understand the issue in the petition correctly, the problem is the shooting done by non - resident tenants on property they lease for a weekend, or even longer; the owner- occupied residents do not "target practice" on their properties because we are cognizant of the close proximity to neighbors. I simply don't believe a No Shooting Ordinance is the best means to address this. (As an example, consider whether you investigate local ordinances before you plan your vacations, and how easy it is to miss or overlook a posted sign when driving in an unfamiliar area.) My initial reaction is to question whether the property owners are even aware of this activity, and what is their response. The simplest solution would be to request they include a statement within their rental agreement, such as a "no shooting" policy or specify no shooting or firearms pursuant to Chapter 9.41 RCW - Firearms and Dangerous Weapons, Title 9a RCW - Washington Criminal Code, and WAC 332 -52 -145 - Firearms and Target Shooting. Unless the property is being advertised for hunting or shooting rental, (which I doubt), this action may solve the problem with the least expense and effort. From a landlord's perspective, the potential for liability may be sufficient concern for them to take action. 2. Since this petition was filed more than 1 '/z years ago, I question whether there is still a need for any relief or action. Perhaps intervening conditions have rendered the petition moot. When was the last incident, and its cause? Has there been any incidents of shooting at all since the filing of the petition? Are those tenants which generated the initial concern for safety still living in the proposed area? 3. I also have several concerns about the sufficiency of petition itself a. While the petition met the requirements of Jefferson County Code, it contained only the minimum number of required signatures of elector- residents. There are a considerable number of property owners who are not elector- residents on Tala Shore Drive, yet will be subject to the ordinance. (Some are owner- landlords, while others maintain a primary residence elsewhere and use their property secondarily or part- time.) The signatures on the petition represent only approximately 25% of the total properties within the proposed zone. In fact, it has been my understanding that residents who were considered to be ones who would oppose this no- shooting zone were intentionally omitted when filing of this petition. b. Jefferson County Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.50 establishes the process for creation of a no shooting zone. The JCC requires "a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property maybe jeopardized." It further states that "The petition or request must be based on a definable threat to the public health, safety or general welfare." I do not believe that the petition meets these specific requirements. It is simply too vague. What evidence has been provided to establish a reasonable likelihood of jeopardy, or a definable threat to our safety or general welfare? Target shooting in our Tala Shore neighborhood is already prohibited by, and enforceable under the provisions of WAC 332 -52 -145. How often has the Jefferson County Sheriff s Office been notified of a shooting complaint? How many times has a deputy responded to our location for shots fired? Have any persons been cited or arrested for a violation of the Washington Administrative Code, or RCW Title 9, Chapter 9.41? 4. Enactment of a no- shooting zone has the potential of causing significant problems for residents. 5. If enacted, the county should be required to provide complete & thorough education, in a town hall meeting or similar format, of all the residents within the zone. 6. I request that language be included in the ordinance which specifically addresses those conditions under which the ordinance does not apply. RCW 77.36.030 provides for lawful "Trapping or killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage;" RCW 9A.16.020 governs cases of lawful "Use of Force." While these laws, and others, already authorize the use of firearms under specified conditions, I believe these appropriate circumstances should be explicitly cited within the actual no- shooting zone ordinance, so as to minimize the chances for any ambiguities or errors. My concerns regarding these last three points are overlapping. Sounds often carry in an unusual manner due to the area's topography and adjacent forest lands. Most of us cannot differentiate one gunshot from another, and already, the backfire from a motorcycle engine has been confused as shooting. A no shooting zone should not increase the workload of deputies every time a car backfires, nor should anyone be reluctant to call to report an offense or discharge a firearm under lawful conditions. Additionally, the continued presence of large bears in the neighborhood seems inherent in ongoing development and the loss of their habitat and food sources. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is reluctant to take any responsive action, merely addressing repeated complaints by telling callers to remove attractants and food sources before they consider alternatives. This is much easier said than done in reality. Residents must still place trash cans out along the street for pickup, some residents compost, and some maintain fruit and vegetable gardens. In June, these large bears were seen twice, and beat the disposal company to the trash cans on another occasion. Clearly, their innate fear of persons is dwindling. I feel more of a threat to personal safety from this source. Clearly, these circumstances are not violations. JCC 8.50.060 grants law enforcement officers, having probable cause to believe that someone violated the ordinance, the authority to arrest the person. Per JCC 8.50.070, enforcement procedures may include service of process by "mailing by registered mail" of warrants, citations, or other processes to the last known place of residence of the person charged. I am very concerned about the potential for errors, and its ultimate effect upon the individual. Having worked for police departments in both Washington and Florida, I am familiar with criminal history reports. It has become routine procedure for prospective employers to conduct these checks as part of the hiring process. Several high profile mass shooting incidents have brought heightened scrutiny of an individual's background to many situations which might have overlooked such in the past. The mere arrest for any firearms violation, whether adjudicated guilt or not, nowadays sends up red flags. The person is perceived differently. It could be sufficient reason to cost an applicant the job. It could cause an individual's security clearance to be revoked. It could cause various government agencies, including our military, to revoke licenses, permits and other authorizations. Conceivably, all because a motorcycle backfired. Dramatic? Remote? Yes, but, none the less, quite possible. Though you may think otherwise, I am neither for nor against the petition. I believe it is unnecessary, and merely want to ensure that equal consideration is given to all related issues before a determination is made. I already conduct myself in accordance with the Washington Administrative Code's prohibited shooting, and do not plan to change that. I will not be able to attend the public hearing on July 21, 2014, though my husband will be there. We look forward to your response to our concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne A Jordan 878 Tala Shore Dr. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 JeanneOJ @aol.com jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Richard Preisman [rpreis11440 @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:45 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: evans homer and peggy Subject: Gun safety on Tala Shore Drive, Port Ludlow Unfortunately other commitments make it impossible for me to attend the hearing on 7 -21 -2014 in Port Townsend concerning guns on Tala Shore Drive, where my wife and I have lived since 2003. It is the best neighborhood we have lived in over the years. What I wish to say is not anti -guns or anti - hunting. Several of the neighbors introduced me to the bounty of their hunting and fishing, and I am very grateful. Also, by nature I am more libertarian than communitarian, and believe in allowing individual citizens to regulate their own behavior where possible, rather than having government intervene. But safety is a complicated concern, and many individuals underestimate dangerous activities. For example while guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths a year, the best estimate of gun injuries and deaths combined is 130,000 people per year in America. Medical care has allowed a much larger survival rate. Some of the worrisome human contributions to this staggering statistic include excessive alcohol consumption, drug use, accidents, people with inappropriate maturity and training, mental illness, cognitive decline, medical illness which impairs emotions and reasoning, and impulsive behavior under stress. Recent information suggests that few people are trained in an ongoing way with moving targets. Many people don't store weapons safely so that children can get to them without proper adult supervision. The average citizen severely underestimates these issues, and views only infringement of personal rights as the concern rather than also considering sensible gun regulation for safety. Roughly one in two families have significant behavioral problems at some time, and one in three individuals will have emotional problems. Some sort of sensible regulation is certainly in order, not to limit freedom but to provide a safe, responsible environment for hunter and non - hunter alike. I spent over 30 years in medicine and psychiatry before retiring, most of the time working in general hospitals, emergency rooms and intensive care rooms. The toll from gun accidents is staggering. Our neighborhood has many elderly, some with cognitive impairment. Some of the neighbors overuse alcohol, and a number have significant stress and emotional problems. This wonderful neighborhood is typical in this regard. How to deal responsibly with hunting and guns should be seriously thought about. With freedom always comes responsibility. From the inception of the country citizenship implied responsibility. No serious discussion of freedom can go on without discussion of the inherent responsibilities that go with freedom. One example of irresponsible behavior in the past year involved a young neighbor who had multiple parties at night involving alcohol and automatic weapons being fired. This occurred within a few hundred feet of my house. There have been numerous guns fired nearby between 9:30 PM and 2:30 AM but not clearly on our street. I cannot imagine any parent, hunter or not, with teenage children coming home at night, or people returning from work at night, wanting stray gun shots a possibility. Sensible, carefully considered regulation of guns is necessary for safety. If done carefully these regulations won't limit freedom and will benefit all of us. Richard Preisman jeffbocc From: Ellen Preisman [epreisman @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:17 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments gun safety ... Tala Shore Drive I am a resident on Tala Shore Drive. I am concerned about gun use and safety in our neighborhood. It is distressing to hear neighbors bragging about their intent to shoot nonspecific threats to themselves without thought of others around them..Our community is becoming more and more densely populated... making the likelihood of accident more prevalent. I suppose the individuals in question have perfect control and have never made a mistake, but perhaps, there are others claiming the same rights who might have other handicaps. I think that there is a responsibility to consider all residents of a community in decision making,certainly when safety is in question. Our neighborhood has in the past been supportive and sympathetic ....it would be a tragedy if each of us had to become more and more fearful of gun accident or misuse . There are certainly appropriate and safe places for the use of weapons.... personal safety against threat is already accommodated. It seems only appropriate and logical to strive to make a community safer .... not to insure an additional redundant opportunity to fire at will. Sent from my Wad i jeffbocc From: John Hall Bohn. hall @asu.edu] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:50 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: connieha1142 @hotmail.com Subject: no shooting zone, Tala Shore Dear Jefferson County Commissioners My wife Connie Hall and I are owners and residents of our home at 30 Tala Shore Drive. This note is to offer our strong support for the proposed Tala Shore "No Shooting Zone." We urge Jefferson County Commissioners to approve and implement this ban on shooting in our neighborhood as soon as possible. Actually, we had no idea that it was legal to shoot firearms on our street when we bought our house in 2006. Had we known that, I am not sure we would have gone ahead with the purchase. We have discussed this with several neighbors and have found no one who supports current policy allowing lawful target practice and other use of firearms. Protection of life with firearms is possible and legal under extreme circumstances but does not by any stretch justify allowing target practice and other hobby uses of firearms in a densely populated neighborhood. Most residents of Tala Shore live relatively close to each other on narrow lots. Many walk and /or jog on the street, hike on trails off the street, children ride their bikes and many of us spend substantial time outdoors working in our yards and gardens and generally enjoying this very pleasant environment. The last thing any of us wants is to have a gun related tragedy on Tala Shore. Far too much of our society is now impacted by gun violence that often spills over to innocent victims; far too many reports of gun related heartbreak and "collateral damage" fill our news. This proposed ban is the right kind of action to take in this time for this place. We applaud the Jefferson County commissioners for developing this policy and assume that given the importance and prudence of this action, you will do the right thing and proceed swiftly with this ban. Thank you for your service. John and Connie Hall 30 Tala Shore Dr. Port Ludlow, Wa. 98365 John Stuart Ha!!, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs Arizona State University iohn.hall @asu.edu 602- 284 -4616 (mobile) http: / /resilience.asu.edu �1N,C R >) jeffbocc From: L. Peterson [cam ppetersonI03 @g mail, com] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tala Shore Dr No Shoot zone proposal I am 100 percent in favor of the proposed No Shoot zone that will include the whole of Tala Shore Dr. My reasons are for Safety only; I do not harbor any objections to hunting in unpopulated area. It is my understanding that my address: 103 Tala Shore Dr is currently in a "No Shoot" zone. If this is correct, it gives me little comfort of being safe from a stray bullet that could come from a near by property or while I am walking the length of the road which I do frequently. A neighbor recently told me that they shot their gun at a bear that was near their back door. It was to scare the bear off not to hit it. It was in the middle of the day. This attitude is frighting to me .... my husband and I both work out side on our wooded property .....the thought of bullets flying around alarms me more than running into a bear! We have seen bears on our property in the last several years. It is our experience that a few taps on a window or just the noise of opening and closing a door scares the bear off. The bear has been in our neighbor hood again this year, but we have not seen it on our property. Our line of defense was to discontinue putting out bird seed or trash. If a resident is under attack by human or beast I would have no objection to the use of a gun, which I understand will be allowable even if the area is designated a No Shoot zone. Linda Peterson RDjeffbocc From: jeanneoj @aol.com Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tala Shore Dr. Proposed No Shooting Zone, Hearing today July 21, 2014 The Honorable John Austin Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 VIA email at ieflbocckco.jefferson.wa.us Dear Mr. Austin: My husband and I are the owners of 2 properties on Tala Shore Drive to be included in the proposed No Shooting Zone. I submitted an opinion letter on July 17, 2014, and would like to provide supplemental support for the complex issue of enforcement. I request that the Jefferson County Code at Chapter 8.50 JCC be simultaneously amended to include language which (1) specifically addresses the lawful use of a firearm within the zone, already enacted by laws, (2) clarifies probable cause for arrest and enforcement procedures. In the alternate, I propose that the ordinance does not take effect until such time as the amendments can be made. My chief concern is the potential for mistaken arrest, and the ramifications upon the individual. Already, the backfire from a motorcycle engine has been confused as shooting. If a report had been made to which an officer responded, and the individual was not present, the potential for a citation by mail could exist. The continued blatant presence of large bears, to which the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is reluctant to relocate, presents another situation where a firearm could be discharged lawfully for self defense. As sounds are often amplified and carried in an unusual manner due to the hilly nature and adjacent forest lands, it can be difficult to pinpoint to location of a shot. There exists ample opportunities for mistaken arrest. The majority of the petitioners are retired, and not active in today's employment environment. A mistake of this nature could easily cost a person their job, security clearance, and other licenses. Background and criminal history checks are routinely conducted, and decisions may be made without knowledge of dispositions or extenuating circumstances. This could be devastating. Just one example: The Adjudicative Guidelines issued by The White House "are established for all U.S. government civilian and military personnel, consultants, contractors, employees of contractors, licensees, certificate holders or grantees and their employees and other individuals who require access to classified information. They apply to persons being considered for initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information, to include sensitive compartmented information and special access programs, and are to be used by government departments and agencies in all final clearance determinations. Government departments and agencies may also choose to apply these guidelines to analogous situations regarding persons being considered for access to other types of protected information." GUIDELINE J: CRIMINAL CONDUCT 30. The Concern. Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 31. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (b) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; (d) individual is currently on parole or probation; (e) violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court- mandated rehabilitation program. I respectfully request consideration of these points when determining an ordinance which will affect all the property owners in the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jeanne M. Jordan 370 Tala Shore Dr. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 JeanneOJna aol.com From: Brandon Bird [bbird @orminc.com] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 9:31 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: David Reid (reidiviva @yahoo.com); joyce.francis @q.com; Wendy Lycklama; Jon Rose Subject: No shooting area in the vicinity of Tala Point Attachments: Ltr to BOCC - No Shooting Zone in Tala Point. pdf Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, On behalf of OPG Properties, LLC, Olympic Property Group and Pope Resources please submit the attached for public comment concerning the no shooting area in the vicinity of Tala Point. Thank you, Brandon Bird Manager of Rural Development and Sales, Real Estate Broker Olympic Property Group, a Pope Resources Company 19950 7th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Poulsbo, WA 98370 P 360- 394 -0573 / F 360 -697 -1156 / C 253- 432 -1130 bbird(d�orminc.com A Pope Resources Company July 21, 2014 Submitted via email to: ieffbocc @co.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: No Shooting Area in Vicinity of Tala Shore and Tala Point Dear Board of County Commissioners: OPG Properties LLC (OPG) would like to support the No Shooting Zone in the Vicinity of Tala Shore and Tala Point, Near Port Ludlow. OPG respectfully requests that all of our properties shown on the attached map be included within the No Shooting Zone. Sincerely, Jon Rose President Olympic Property Group A Pope Resources Company — Olympic Property Group — Avenue ®J� Jl 19950 7th enue RE, Suite 200, Poulsbo, WA 98370 (360) 697 -6626 • Fax: (360) 697 -1156 BrahLSlud lHC] EnaFfisbed lB(] Alternative 2 - Expanded Area Tala Shore No Shooting Area 0 ,62 5 WS 1 850 Fee, M- OPG Properties, LLC Ownership Port Ludlow Bay Puget Alternative 2 iala Shore No Shooting Area Sound Paradise Bay No Shooting Area (Existing) - Port Ludlow No Shooting Area (Existing) Hood Canal 13 jeffbocc 'I NJ G R F, 1 From: Myron Hillman [mhillman @olypen.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tala Shore no shooting area hearing July 21, 2014 To Whom It May Concern: Myron and Margaret Hillman owners of Tala Shore Plat lot 212 wish to state that we are in favor of the no shooting area zoning in all proposed designated areas. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail Thank you, Myron and Margaret Hillman mhillmanoolypen.com