Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022315_cbs01ON W , � I•, 1 � C •4 \ IL�INCs�O� District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley DRAFT Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of November 24. 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: • Four citizens commented on the proposed Noise Ordinance; • A citizen stated he met with Economic Development Council (EDC) staff who confirmed the need for jobs; • A citizen commented on the proposed Animal Responsibility Code update; • A citizen spoke on behalf of the Jefferson County Democrats and stated: 1) They urged the Board to advocate for the process to establish warfare range; 2) They support an increase in state revenue; and 3) The Jefferson Healthcare Board needs to advocate for healthcare security; and • A citizen commented on the importance of laws. 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. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products for Bituminous Surface Treatment (BST) for Calendar Year 2015; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on Monday, December 15, 2014 in the Commissioners' Chambers 2. FINAL LONG PLAT APPROVAL re: Ludlow Cove II; To Divide 14.74 Acres into a 42 Single Family Lot Subdivision SUB07- 00038/MLA07- 00593; Port Ludlow Associates, Applicant 3. AGREEMENT re: Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) Crew to Perform an Alder Release Project in the Dosewallips and Duckabush Floodplains; In the Amount of $18,000; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) 4. AGREEMENT re: Health Technology Services; In the Amount of $1,600; Jefferson County Public Health; Qualis Health 5. AGREEMENT re: Provide Regional Jail Services; In the Amount of $175,743; Jefferson County Central Services; City of Port Townsend 6. AGREEMENT re: Quilcene Shop Security System; In the Amount of $981 plus a $42 Monthly Charge for Monitoring; Jefferson County Public Works; Guardian Security Systems, Inc. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 7. AGREEMENT re: Upper Hoh Road Culvert Replacement, M.P. 3.338, Project No. CR1896; In the Amount of $733,565; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) 8. AGREEMENT re: Port Hadlock License and Use to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $40,903 per year; JeffCom 9. AGREEMENT re: Port Townsend Tower Sublicense, Station 16 to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $12,000 per year; JeffCom 10. AGREEMENT re: Port Hadlock Tower License to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $12,000 per year; JeffCom 11. AGREEMENT re: Coyle Road Real Property License to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $1 + $3,500 per year; JeffCom 12. AGREEMENT re: Coyle Road Tower and Building Sublicense (Public Works Radio) to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $3,500 per year; JeffCom 13. Advisory Board Reappointments (2) re: Jefferson County Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (JCPRAB); Two (2) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2016; District No. 3 Representative, Mike McFadden; and Two (2) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2016; District No. 3 Representative, Roger Hall 14. Advisory Board Appointment re: Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC); Four (4) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2018; Alternate Representative for Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Environmental Biologist, Neil Harrington 15. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 17, 2014 Totaling $871,114.44 and Dated November 18, 2014 Totaling $3,442.52 16. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 20, 2014 Totaling $72,224.43 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 6, 2014 Totaling $129,325.69 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Viewed a model home in Ludlow Cove last week. - Attended a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) meeting last week. - Reported that a ceremony to swear in the Elected Officials that will be filling positions through the end of the year will be held November 25, 2014. All Elected Officials will be sworn in on January 2, 2015. Commissioner Johnson - Attended a Safe Energy Leadership Alliance (SELA) meeting and a Marine Resources Committee meeting last week where the effect of rail oil transportation was discussed. Commissioner Sullivan - Attended a forum on homelessness last week. - Met with the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) last week. A new ferry is to be named "Chimacum." Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 DRAFT Kc DISCUSSION and HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance: County Administrator Philip Morley stated that as a result of input from the public and County staff, several new sections have been added to the proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would repeal Chapter 6.05 in Title 6 of the Jefferson County Code and replace it with a Chapter in Title 6 entitled "Chapter 6.07 Animal Responsibility," the text of which is provided in Attachment "A" to the proposed ordinance. County Administrator Morley distributed copies of the proposed ordinance, including previous and current edits. The Board has already been briefed on the public review draft of the ordinance. Since that draft, several new additions and provisions have been added to the proposed ordinance. He reviewed changes with the Board. Below are highlights of the proposed edits: • Section 020 Provision banning hybrid animals and the definition of hybrid. Any hybrids that currently exist are grandfathered in. • Section 020 Livestock refinement. • Section 050 Running at large on public property. Language gives flexibility re: park regulations that trump what is in code. • Section 090 Refined howling and barking 1) Borrowing language from the proposed Noise Ordinance which includes "clearly heard by a person of normal hearing" between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. lower threshold; and 2) Noise continuance for more than 20 minutes, or intermittent noise more than 3 times. • Section 100, added "injury to person." Entry into food establishment — refined section. • Section 120 Addition: Picking up waste. • Section 130 and Section 140 added people on bicycles. • Section 160 changed to any dog running at large. • Section 170 limited the tethering of animals. • Section 180 alignment between private and hobby kennel. • Section 290 flexibility proving or allowing exceptions for vaccinations of rabies. • Section 370 private kennel definition. • Section 540 Addition: Provisions not exclusive. • Section 550 Addition: Disclaimer of liability and disclosure to give instructions. Sections regarding violations have been reviewed by legal council. County Administrator Morley noted that if the hearing were to move forward, he suggests amending the hearing notice as well. He provided copies of the corrected hearing notice. Commissioner Johnson and Chairman Austin stated that for a person who stays at home during the daytime, or someone with an infant, a barking dog can be just as aggravating during daylight hours. County Administrator Morley indicated that issue could be addressed further at the hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Hearing Notice re: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance as amended; Hearing set for Monday, December 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the Cotton Building, 607 Water Street, Port Townsend. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 �RAfi ,e HEARING re: Proposed Clean Water District Ordinance: Environmental Health Director Jared Keefer reviewed two revisions to the proposed ordinance: 1) Section 2 now clearly defines what parcels would be exempt from the Clean Water District (CWD) fee; and 2) When previously discussing the issue with Assessor Jeff Chapman and legal council, they noted an opportunity to input a lower fee amount for properties such as timeshares, which can be owned by multiple people. The CPI methodology has also been clarified. County Administrator Philip Morley noted Assessor Jeff Chapman is in the audience, should questions arise that he may be able to answer. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated that he is pleased to see that the ordinance has been previously expanded to include properties which were obvious sources of water pollution such as Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and other places. Mr. Thiersch indicated that the current ordinance does not cover the extreme amount of pollution that comes from boats. People live on boats, but the parcels the boats are on, are not included in the current Clean Water District (CWD) Ordinance. They are not assessed a fee on this, and that is a mistake. That is something the County should consider. He noted that he would like an explanation if this is not the case. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Director Keefer asked Assessor Chapman whether boats or boat parcels should incur the CWD fee? Assessor Chapman stated that marinas pay one assessment, individual boats are not assessed. He added that the same situation is true for trailer parks, the park is assessed, but not the individual trailers. The County uses a parcel -based system. Director Keefer stated they erred on using the method that has been practiced to -date. The intent was to keep the methodology simple and not complicate things. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 11- 1124 -14 Amending the Jefferson County Clean Water District Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.65. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Johnson commented that Jefferson County's stormwater fees are currently low and that this may not always be the case. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was recessed at 10:17 a.m. and reconvened at 10:27 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 AFT DISCUSSION and APPROVAL re: Participation in the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Workers' Compensation Retrospective Rating Program: Clerk of the Board/Human Resources Manager Erin Lundgren and County Administrator Philip Morley recapped a previous discussion the Board had with AWC's Retro Program Manager. The following information was provided to the Board: "For several years Jefferson County has participated in the sponsored Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Select Retro Pool and Workplace Safety Alliance. WAC 296 -17B regulates retrospective rating for workers' compensation insurance. Retrospective rating ( retro) is a voluntary financial incentive program offered by the Department of Labor and Industries (L &I) to encourage improvements in workplace safety. Participating in retro creates an opportunity to earn refunds of required premium payments. However, participation involves risk because additional premiums can be assessed when participants are not successful in controlling losses. Employers control losses by preventing workplace illnesses and injuries, and helping injured workers return to work If a sponsored group receives a net assessment for two consecutive coverage periods, the group is placed on probationary status. If a sponsored group receives a net assessment in the following coverage period, that group will be denied future enrollment and the sponsoring organization will not be allowed to sponsor another group in the same industry category for the five years following the third coverage period with a net assessment. Members of the WSAC Select Retro Pool and Workplace Safety Alliance meet annually to review the retro plan and decide whether or not to reenroll in the program. In the past, the WSAC Retro group has received refunds, as well as net assessments. However, in the last two consecutive coverage periods the WSAC Retro group received net assessments and the group anticipates a third consecutive assessment. During the annual WSAC Retro group meeting held earlier this year it was decided that the group would not continue pooling. As a result, WSAC terminated its contract with Sedgwick, which is the agency that provides retro pool services and third party L &I claims administration services to the member Counties participating in the WSAC Retro group. The termination of the contract with Sedgwick is effective December 15, 2014 and Jefferson County will no longer have third party claims administration services through Sedgwick as of that date. WSAC has been working with the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) on a proposal for AWC to provide retro program services to WSAC member counties. In September, a f nal proposal was agreed to by both WSAC and AWC. AWC's Retro Program Manager Brian Bishop attended the Board's meeting on November 10, 2014 and gave a presentation on AWC's services and pool. " County Administrator Morley stated that if Jefferson County's injury rates are low, the County could potentially get money back. Clerk of the Board Lundgren explained that the cost to participate in the program is 7% of the County's total premiums. Total L &I premiums for 2014 are estimated to be $268,000 for an annual service fee of $18,000. She added that participating in this program allows for the possibility for Jefferson County to receive a refund of a portion of the premiums paid. AWC reports that they typically receive about a 12% refund of the premiums each year. If Jefferson County's claims experience is good, AWC will refund Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 ZAF1 C the annual service fee out of our portion of the premium refund. The remaining balance of our portion of the premium refund is handled as follows: Half of the balance of the refund would be kept in a reserve account and the other half would be distributed back to Jefferson County two years after the claims period has closed. Clerk of the Board Lundgren stated that by participating in this program, the County will receive third party administration of L &I claims through AWC. Other services provided by AWC include onsite visits, onsite training, return to work program, hearing conservation program and a Safety Academy. If four County employees (one employee from Admmistration/HR and three employees from other departments) graduate from the Safety Academy, the County would receive a 15% discount off the service fee. County Administrator Morley noted that if the County decided not to participate, we would need to acquire a third party to administer L &I claims. He added that joining the AWC Retro Pool should ultimately not cost the County anything. On the downside, if the County's experience level goes up due to a rise in claims, or as a pool, if the group's claims go up, it could expose Jefferson County to an additional assessment down the road. The AWC Retro Pool is working on building up a reserve so in the event the pool has a bad year, there will be money set aside to assume that loss. He indicated that AWC is eager for Jefferson County to join their retro pool because of our excellent rating in the past. Commissioner Sullivan stated that there is no "zero" risk, but there is a risk in doing nothing. County Administrator Morley stated that AWC is committed to accident prevention and that they care about keeping staff healthy and safe. He recommends joining AWC's Retro Pool. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve executing the application for group membership and the participation in AWC's Retro Program Pool and L &I Claims and Administration Services. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Johnson asked how much of a reserve should we carry to be comfortable? Clerk of the Board Lundgren replied that AWC is working to reserve 1.5 times the maximum assessment that they could be exposed to. County Administrator Morley clarified that AWC is building that reserve up over time, not the County. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was recessed at 10:36 a.m. and reconvened at 11:01 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Proposed Noise Ordinance: The Board held a public hearing on a proposed noise ordinance. County Administrator Philip Morley stated that due to the size of the audience and the amount of individuals giving testimony, he suggests that the Commissioners not make a decision today so they can deliberate further on the issue. He added that the hearing is on a proposed noise ordinance and currently, the County has no such ordinance. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez was present and stated that over the years, residents were the ones who have been asking for a noise ordinance code. He indicated that there is a Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) which the County adopted under Resolution No. 67 -85, but it is not useful. The WAC requires a decibel meter and the County does not possess one. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez noted that the Interim and Elected Sheriff both agreed that having a noise ordinance with actual teeth would be a useful law enforcement tool. Borrowing language from Skagit County and seeing parallel language in Kitsap County and Pierce County Code, the proposed ordinance tries to protect the peace and quiet. Living in a primarily rural county that has low population density with the ordinary activities of daily life ranging from barbecuing, operating an ATV on your own property, to the discharge of a firearm, the ordinance has to have balance. In that regard, the ordinance creates a category of noise known as a public disturbance noise. A public disturbance noise is defined in the ordinance under Definition 5. He read the definition into the record. "Public disturbance means a source of sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors." The noise has to interfere with the peace, comfort or repose of the claiming person. The operative word is "unreasonably." For certain noises, the noise has to occur at certain hours of the day. Usually noises fall under the public disturbance category at night after 10:00 p.m. Public disturbance noises are laid out in some detail in the public ordinance. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated that he has been advised that the Interim Sheriff intends to propose the elimination of Section C of the ordinance. Such a noise category is otherwise exempt in the daylight hours unless in extreme circumstances it rises up to the level of a public disturbance noise under Section K, which is a catchall section. The point of the amendment would be for equipment with internal combustion engines such as ATVs or a Public Works road truck undergoing repair, needs to be turned on and revved during the daytime. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez anticipates another proposed amendment by the Interim Sheriff which would include the addition of the term "reasonable" person to Section K. While this may seem like a rather subjective standard. The term "reasonable" person is a long accepted concept in the law. It means the noise would have to be unreasonable to a reasonable person. Basically, a reasonable person is your average person of normal hearing and normal understanding. There are many layers that protect a citizen from arbitrary enforcement of the code: 1) The noise has to unreasonably disturb the person or persons who want to complain about the noise. This recognizes the undisputable fact that our modern technology, and even our older technology like vehicles and generators make our life easier, but they make noise. 2) A Sheriff's Deputy who shows up has to hear the alleged noise that is causing a disturbance. The Sheriff Deputy has full judgment to decide whether or not that the noise is unreasonable. 3) If the Sheriff's Deputy finds that the noise is indeed a disturbance, than a warning is given. 4) If the Sheriff s Deputy has a subsequent visit to the same person causing the noise disturbance, then an infraction could be written. The infraction would be heard in District Court. 4) The Court Judge is also a layer of protection for the person who feels that their noise was reasonable and the infraction should not have been issued. There are many exempt noises that are exempt 24 hours a day, every day and no matter where they occur. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez noted that the exemptions were drawn from a similar ordinance in Skagit County, a county that has towns and cities, but also many rural areas. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 u�AFT Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez explained that RCW 9.401.290 is the law in which Washington State preempts firearm discharge rules. In Section Q of the proposed ordinance, as the County's attorney, he would like to make an edit. Under Section Q it should read "The lawful discharge of firearms." He would like to see the rest of the section on firearms deleted, which include Section R and Section S. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated there has been some concern over agriculture properties and noises. They are covered by Section M. For instance, a farmer could hay all night to save the crop from rain. Agriculture would be covered on any type of property. It covers any location at any time. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez indicated that there could be situations that we cannot quite conceive of today. They included a catchall, Section K for this. They will be adding in the term "reasonable" person. This is a legal concept. He gave an example for this term by explaining that every time you are driving in a car and you decide not to tailgate, you would be driving like a reasonable person. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment. Due to the number of speakers, each speaker was allotted two minutes to comment. Steve Crosby, Jefferson County: He stated that he lives on the City limits, half of his house is in the City and half of his house is in the County. At times, he has been bothered by amplified sounds coming from the County side. His past experience as a dispatcher for the Sheriff s Department and as a long -time resident leads him to believe that 99% of noise complaints in the City are resolved by having an officer show up at a residence and asking them to turn down the noise. In the County, his experience is that the deputies do not respond because there is no ordinance and they cannot do anything anyways. If the Sheriff adopted a procedure in regards to keeping the peace by contacting people, there would be a better shot of keeping everyone happy, without an ordinance. Lance Rosmever, Jefferson County: He stated that he resides off of Prospect Road and he is in the direct flight path of the Jefferson County Airport. When he and his wife were searching for property to build their home, they exercised diligence in discovering the following that their property was overflown by aircraft of various size and propulsion methods. At the time, there was not a no- shooting zone on their property, Naval Air Station Whidbey.Island flight activity was audible and neighbors included younger families whose interests included motorized sports. They purchased their home site knowing in advance there were activities in the area which would generate noise. Establishing a noise ordinance is concerning to him. The ordinance analysis states that citizens benefit from overall rural quiet, yet many of your constituents participate in activity that this restriction seeks to regulate. Public disturbance noises, Section 1; D and other places in the ordinance refer to normal hearing and the ability to discern noise at a distance of 150 feet. He submits that this is a subjective definition and should not be the standard. The ordinance also does not support whether or not the offending noise would be determined from inside a structure or outdoors. Does the Board consider any differentiation in that? Has there been such an outcry on the part of County residents or overall failure of the Sheriff s Office representatives to even cause consideration of this ordinance? Koya Leyden, Jefferson County: He stated that from what he has heard, using the term "a reasonable person's hearing" makes no sense at all. If you're going to do anything at all, you're going to need a reasonable decibel level. If he were to listen to his music, one neighbor may not hear it, but another neighbor with a hearing aid may hear it and call law enforcement. One neighbor may have better heating Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 601 Iris a HK than the other and a decibel level number should be inputted into the ordinance if it should pass. He does not agree with the proposed noise ordinance. He has been living in this County for 30 years and there has not been a noise ordinance and there is no need for one. Bill Leavitt: He stated that he does not know much about the proposed noise ordinance as he does not know how to operate a computer. This puts him at a disadvantage in regards to not having knowledge of the Board's actions. If they needed to work on a bulkhead on the beach, they have to work with the tides. They would need to be working on the boat at 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m. maybe even 3:00 a.m. There would be rocks banging out of trucks and excavator noise. What will you do about that? Send the Sheriff and make us stop? Hello. He takes his bus to a piece of property he has where there is no power. He needs to turn on his generator and may not want to go to bed until 1:00 a.m. You going to come out and yank me out of my place? He could go on and on. In regards to shooting, the ordinance needs to make clear that you can still shoot. This is another attempt — like a camel getting his nose under a tent — once he's under there, he's in with you. In no time. He anticipates the next step is a County -wide No Shoot Zone. He said with this type of ordinance coming through, he knows it is coming. We do not need to go there. He makes a lot of noise, but his neighbors and him have a good relationship and it's never been a problem. He believes there has never been a call where his neighbors have complained about noise he makes. The proposed noise ordinance would give neighbors a tool to harass other neighbors. He could go on and on, but for now he will end his comment. Colby Martin: He has lived in town for the past 18 years, which is his whole life. He has never heard of people complaining about noise. He believes Port Townsend is becoming more of a retirement area. He explained that he drives a big truck and has to work on it consistently. He does not like the idea of not being allowed to work on his vehicle after work. Sometimes he works on his vehicle up to 1:00 a.m. He has a neighbor who does not like him and he anticipates the Sheriff's department will be called over absolutely nothing. It is wrong in so many ways to tell him that he cannot do something. He considers it a violation of the amendments if you are going to tell him he cannot do something that he wants to do. He does not accept it. He gets it to an extent. He understands you cannot just go out and shoot someone. He does not agree with not being able to make noise after 10:00 p.m. That is outrageous and a lot of other people think so too. He attended the High School here, hung out with friends and grew up in this community. His friends like to be able to do things after 11:00 p.m. As long as they are not outrageously loud and causing a problem for the whole neighborhood, he does not see why it is a big problem. Art Burke, Cape George: He read from a written statement he submitted. (See hearing record). Glenn Richardson, Jefferson County: He stated that he did not have a statement ready. His grandson is seventh generation in this County. Many years ago when people first started coming here, they welcomed them. Now he knows how the Indians feel, we welcomed in too many of you. He believes the County is going to do whatever they want to do with or without the public speaking. You really do not care about the people who have lived here all of our lives. He truly believes that statement. He has been the Jefferson County Fair Board President, Head of the Tri-Area Business Club and the Lyons Club. He keeps seeing more and more changes happening here that he does not appreciate. His family lives on 100 acres with the intent on being able to do the things he wants to do there. He believes that the ordinance is taking some of his rights away. A little bit at a time, continually pinching and pinching. People who live next to a school will start complaining about the school kids. People who live next to an Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 airport will eventually start complaining about the airplanes. Now you have moved here and are complaining about us. Please do not let this go through, it is as simple as that. Interim Sheriff Joe Nole: He thanked everyone in attendance. He stated that he is the Sheriff of Jefferson County for one more day. In the last five years, there have been 337 noise complaints which average out to about 6 a month. He addressed a previous comment regarding the Sheriff's department being dispatched to a noise complaint. While a noise complaint is not something they search out or want to go to, he noted that all they can do is act as a mediator and try to get the parties to get along. Most people are cooperative and can work it out, but there are others who refuse to turn their music down and the Sheriff s department has no choice but to leave. He added that this usually leads to more calls at the same location. He would like to see a couple revisions to the ordinance. On Section 1 C, under public disturbances. He would like the timeframe to be changed to "between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m." He would also like the ability for the Sheriffs Department to respond to noises made during the daytime that are a nuisance. In Section 1 K, adding the word "reasonable" in front of "person's" so it would read "reasonable person's of normal hearing," In Section G, he would like verbiage addressing the existing Jefferson County Code Title 6 dealing with Animal Responsibility. He stated that fireworks is not addressed, but, RCW 70.77.395 outlines the dates and times that fireworks can be used. Chairman Austin asked that he submit the rest of his statement in writing. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated that he has copies of some of Interim Sheriff Nole's suggestions. Richard Broders: He stated that way back when, the County had a sound meter. They are not very expensive. He would have commented on the gun aspect of this ordinance, but as it had already been addressed by a previous speaker, he would not comment on that at this time. Everyone recognizes there are some sounds that are inappropriate to inflict on your neighbors, where other sounds are benign and a part of rural life. The problem is that there is a huge grey area of sound types and intensities between these two. That points out one of the primary flaws of this proposed noise ordinance, making it illegal to produce a sound that "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons." No sound meter reading is required. An ordinance based on such a loose non emperical standard can only be called vague, a violation of burden to prove standards, arbitrary and capricious. He doubts if such a standard can be legally enforceable or whether most law enforcement professionals would like to enforce it. There already is a noise law covering Jefferson County which is Chapter 173.60 WAC which is and has been enforced by the Sheriff s Office and DCD for many years. It cannot be called not strict as the maximum allowed sound for example, from residential properties is 55 decibels, even less during the hours of darkness. To put this in perspective, normal conversation at three feet is 60 -65 decibels, rainfall is 50 decibels, and a sewing machine is 60 decibels. To be clear on the state preemption law, I think that is really important. That needs to be addressed. In summary, keep state and emperical noise standards, throw out the arbitrary and subjective standards based on complaints and comply with the state preemption law. He submitted copies of the law and other documentation. (See hearing record) Joe D'Amico, Jefferson Countv: He believes that if the noise ordinance passes, there will be a significant change in the County. He is a fourth generation of Port Townsend. He is reminded of a movie where folks visit a rainforest and find a tribe and they make all these changes and then disasters happen. He believes that is what is going to happen here. We are trying to blanket the entire County with this ordinance. It will create a lot of things that the County .... non- conforming uses right David? ...that will Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 6 1 A F T ' be coming up. People are going to be out there, you're going to go to someone's house because they are working on their truck and then you're going to find out that they've had a shop there for the last 20 years, which will lead to a non - conforming issue. He does not see where that has been addressed in the ordinance, and it should be. If you are a non - conforming business and you've been there prior to the noise ordinance, you should be allowed to continue, otherwise you are going to put people out of work. A previous speaker was concerned about not being able to work on his truck. He has heard a lot of that same concern in the community regarding people who want to work on their trucks late at night. Jefferson County has been isolated for so many years, we are hard workers and people work on their own stuff. They do not bring in people or tow trucks to pick up their vehicles and bring them to the shops. They do not have the money for that. It's economically depressed and this will basically continue that. He asked if this has been approved or looked at by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)? He believes they require a 90 day review and he believes Mr. Harper indicated that the proposed ordinance needs to go before DOE before being adopted. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez replied that he is not aware of that. Most police -power ordinances do not require police approval. Mary Rothschild, Cape George: She read from a written statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Dick Burgeron, Jefferson County: He stated there is a fundamental difference in an unincorporated area. You have true country folk who live there, and then you have city people who want to live in the country. He believes this is where the issues begin. It is the city people who move into the rural areas seeking peace and quiet and think that is what living in the country is all about. They are the ones who complain, because they bring their city attitudes with them. Country folk talk about their differences and work it out amongst themselves. In the rare occasion where you cannot work out those differences, pay back is a bitch. But we do it on our own. We do not have to call in the Sheriff. Let the Sheriff work on more important things like burglaries, property crimes and assault. That is where the Sheriff should be devoting their time, especially when he hears they are overworked and understaffed. Do we really want them out handling noise complaints? If a noise ordinance passes, there will be more and more complaints that the Sheriff's department will have to handle, instead of people working out the issues themselves. He suggested that just as certain areas in the County have no- shooting areas, how about trying the noise ordinance where people make noise and may have complaints, such as the Port Ludlow area. Try it out in a few pilot areas and see what happens and then build on it from there. Dennis Pownall, Jefferson County: He thanked Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez for his work on the ordinance and then read from his statement. Mother Nature works 24 hours a day and he needs time to work on his equipment when it is safest to address those issues, and that is early morning for him. (See hearing record) Alden Johnson, Jefferson County: He stated that his written statement voiced concern in regards to gun use and that Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez addressed his concerns. (See hearing record) Jon Ebner, Jefferson County: He thanked the Deputy Prosecutor for the revisions he talked about during his presentation. He originally came to stand against the ordinance other than those having to do with noise generating from firearms. The public disturbance noise, he believes there are a lot of major Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 )RAFT K' typographical errors that were made. He reviewed a printout of the ordinance he obtained from the internet. He pointed out that under "Violation defined" where it says "available to the hearing of others, a public disturbance noise or any sources of sound..." he suggested that "sources of should be removed. It is hard to have a source of sound be a violation. That should be cleared up. Where it reads "The sounds which unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors..." How is that to be measured? Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez mentioned a noise meter. He explained that when he was working with the City on their noise ordinance, we prescribed a sound meter so that we could actually measure it. They are cheap. I'll buy it if you need it, but don't pass the ordinance. It is unreasonable and overly restrictive and high handed. Thank you. Dan Baskins, Poulsbo: He stated he is representing Hood Canal Sand and Gravel. The ordinance, as written, is constitutionally vague and therefore unenforceable. He has worked on several ordinances in various jurisdictions. The County does have a noise ordinance, it's the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that is adopted by the state. It deals with how to measure noise, and the impact of commercial to residential and industrial to residential, issues others have not seriously considered. In working with noise complaints in Jefferson County, the one thing he believes the Board is missing is having a standard. That standard is found in the WAC. You do have to have your code reviewed by the DOE, but what you are missing is the enforcement mechanism. Missing from the proposed ordinance is the addressing of warnings, formal presentation, hearing examiner and District Court. That is missing in the County's Code. Despite good intentions, the County is travelling down a slippery slope. Noise is the number one complaint between neighbors. Barking dogs become part of that. The WAC addresses this. It addresses both night and daytime standards. If one were to look carefully at the WAC, it establishes the frequency and addresses a two minute rule, five minute rule, things that only people working with complaints really understand. He can annoy his neighbor with a noise maker, and when the Sheriff comes out, how is he going to measure that? If you set a passive from where the receiving property is as a standard that becomes the way the state does it. It becomes very measurable and enforceable. In the 80's unenforceable noise standards were the number one cause for lawsuits lost by counties. Dena Jones, Quilcene: She stated that sometimes you need to (unintelligible) the absurd, by being absurd, so she is going to be absurd. She explained that she moved out to Jefferson County from New York City. She said this area sounds like New York City. The sirens go off which causes the coyotes to go off which causes the dogs to go off. Are you going to get rid of the coyotes? Are you going to turn off the sirens? Maybe if you're going to die, maybe you should move to the City so you are closer because she lives in Quilcene and the noise is constant all summer long. It is ridiculous, she agrees, but, what are you going to do, change that? You have to get rid of the coyotes because that is why the dogs go off. Her dog starts barking at deer, raccoons or strange, long- haired, maggot- infested weirdoes who walk across her property. There is a reason to have dogs. The cats meow, and they are big cats called cougars. What are you going to do about the cougars? What are you going to do about the bobcats? They make noise too. She believes the proposed noise ordinance is over stated and whoever wrote it is not being reasonable. Thank you. Jamie D'Amico, Jefferson County: She stated that she is the Vice President of Security Services. Being involved in a noise issue herself, she would like the County to be aware of the financial impact this will have on all those involved. She knows first -hand how it affected her and her family. She urged the Board not to pass this ordinance. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 20I4 'RAFT X_ U Jennifer Scott Jefferson County: She stated that is the Corporate Secretary for Fort Discovery. She is against the noise ordinance and urged the Board to take more time to review the proposed ordinance. Jeff Roscoe, Jefferson County: He stated he works for Security Services Northwest. Working in a place that sometimes generates noise, he is concerned by the proposed ordinance. He urged the Board to take into consideration people who work in places that may be affected by the ordinance. It is similar to the guy who mentioned working on his truck. He opposes the proposed ordinance and thanked the Board. Roger Short, Chimacum: He is opposed to the proposed ordinance and agrees with a lot of the previous speakers. He is attending the hearing to help save agriculture in the County. He understands that agriculture noises are currently exempt from the proposed ordinance but is concerned about perpetual creep that happens with regulations. When a regulation is started, it can lead to more regulations down the road. He addressed a previous comment regarding enforcing the regulations. We have so many ordinances on the books that we can't take care of the ones we have now. One of those pertained to only being able to have two or three dead automobiles on your property, but now we cannot enforce someone who has 60 -70 automobiles on their property. We cannot do something about some of the junk yards around because we do not have the enforcement ability. He suggested taking care of the top two or three percent of the bad actors and leave the rest of us alone. We can only regulate those who allow to be regulated. That has been found out in court cases in the County. There are more important things the Sheriff s department can be doing. He has a radio controlled aircraft group in the Chimacum Valley of about 50 -60 people who love the location of his property for their hobby. The little planes make noise and there are those who stop by and observe what's going on. It is a good recreation event. The noise from the remote controlled vehicles has not been addressed. Thank you. Mimi Mackay, Jefferson County: She stated that she is a critical care ICU nightshift nurse at Jefferson General Hospital and also at Harrison Hospital. She works during the night and sleeps during the day. She opposes the proposed ordinance. She does not expect the activities of daily living to reach a reasonable level in the daytime while she is asleep. She resides on 20 acres on Jacob Miller Road which is known for being a contentious area for noise. Since her residence is at the bottom of the valley, her property acts as an amphitheater. There are a couple of other properties through the woods that are the same way. There are a lot of area residents who have parties during the summertime and it does not bother her. Given her location, she realizes that the sound in the valley may make it seem louder than it really is. That is what concerns her about the proposed ordinance. There is no decibel level reading on this. She believes the noise is part of the character and culture of Port Townsend and the reason she resides here. Lesa Barnes, Jefferson County: She supports some form of a noise ordinance. Several years ago, for several summers, there were many weekends with loud parties. She has triple pane windows and even with the windows shut, the noise was so loud it affected the way she spoke inside her home. Parties would end at midnight or go until three in the morning. She could not use her indoor voice. She called Commissioner Sullivan and the Sheriff and they could not do anything about it. About 12 neighbors got together and spoke to the neighbors who made the loud noise. The response they got was "We will tell you when we are planning a party and you can go on vacation." Anne Hueter, Jefferson County: She stated that she had emailed her statement and chose not to give further testimony. (See hearing record) Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Sandra Wurtsmith, Port Townsend: She signed the hearing list to comment, but could not be reached when called upon. L Mike Hinojos, Cape George: He is opposed to the proposed ordinance as it is currently written. He believes it is much too vague. When he lived in a rural area of Grass Valley, California, most of the properties varied from 5 -40 acres. Neighbors moved in half a mile away and he became good friends with them. The new neighbors had moved to Grass Valley from very noisy City Terrace, which is near East Los Angeles. After a year, the neighbors decided to move back. He asked them why they decided to move back? The neighbors said it was too noisy in the rural area of Grass Valley due to donkeys, cows, horses, peacocks and coyotes. Thank you. Dan Taylor, Jefferson County: He stated that the ordinance as it is written, and even if amended, is far too subjective. He believes that in order for the proposed ordinance to be effective at all, it requires at least minimal decibel readings and substantial hours. As most attorneys know, `reasonable" is one of the most contested words there is. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez replied "That's true." Mr. Taylor stated that if the County wants more lawsuits, it can continue using the "reasonable" standard. Steve Oakford, Port Townsend: He feels that this piece of legislation is complicated and dependent upon judgment calls. Regarding noise, comparing a citizen's judgment call is somewhat different than a trained peace officer making a judgment call for a traffic violation. When a police officer makes a stop, he is following the person he is going to cite and is physically witnessing what is going on. If someone calls the Sheriff or Police department and they respond, that sound may not be still happening. It would be taking the complainant's word about it. If someone is really upset about something, the term "reasonable" definition ceases to exist. Without measurement, it becomes an arbitrary guesstimation. Decibel readers are cheap and he stated he would donate one to the County. Audrey Jean, Jefferson County: She stated she has lived in Jefferson County for 35 years. Most of the complaints seem to be an exaggeration of what the noise ordinance is going to stop the people from doing. From her reading of the ordinance, it seems that some of those things are exempt. Maybe the major extreme noise problems may just affect the minority. Rights and regulations like this are established to protect the minority who are suffering in discomfort from an inconsiderate neighbor's noise pollution. When she is forced to stay up until 2:00 a.m. on a summer night and she has to close all her windows and wear earplugs, that is an infringement of her rights. She would like to see the noise ordinance adopted so that her rights for living in a peaceful, quiet environment are not infringed upon. She does not wish to stay up all night and party with someone else's music. The County used to be quiet and pleasant. She stated that barking dogs and working on your engine during the day is all minor stuff, and most people do not really complain about that. It is the recent extreme noise that is the problem and people need protection from it. The only way to get that protection is to have a noise ordinance. The Sheriff will be able to go out and tell people to stop. Right now, when she complains, the Sheriff doesn't even come out because there is nothing they can do about it, and it's just not right. Several of her neighbors feel the exact same way. Naomi Ingalls, Port Townsend: She stated that she is a third generation Port Townsend native, she lived and grew up here. She and her husband recently bought land out in the County and are currently building a home. She is 100% for the proposed ordinance. A lot of what people are concerned about is already protected in the ordinance. You are not going to be shut down for working on your truck. Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 AFT Coyotes, dogs and farm animals are all okay. It is the unreasonable. Maybe the ordinance has to be tweaked so it is not so generalized. It is the unreasonable 3:00 a.m. party, shaking windows. It is the dirtbikes driving five at a time in circles until 10:30 p.m. followed by music, that is ridiculous. This would not be on the table if people were more considerate of their neighbors. That is all they are asking for. Be considerate. This would not even be an issue if people turned down their music and turned off their motorized bikes at 11:00 p.m. Thank you. K.C. Krug: Declined to comment. Previously submitted a written statement. (See hearing record) Gretchen Brewer, Port Townsend: She stated she does not generally like to increase regulations. As written, the noise ordinance is too broad and too vague and can lead to regulation creep. There should be a provision to work it out first. There is a similar rule in Berkeley, California. It forces people to take better ownership of their complaint or issue. It often solves problems and creates connections. The way it is currently written is a slippery slope and can lead to a patchwork of regulations. She believes that the proposed ordinance will increase the regulations for individuals and small businesses while continue to exempt the constant large intrusions such as the mill. The mill constantly roars and grinds. Explosions from the pressure relief valves are noisy and it is worse on nights and weekends. People need relief from that, not from a person working on their car when they are taking advantage of the good weather. Navy growlers will be flying over continuously from Whidbey to the West End. That will be a huge problem. She appreciates private aviation and appreciates the exemption for that noted in the proposed ordinance. She previously submitted a written statement. (See hearing record) Chief Larry Kam: He stated he is part of the vast right -wing conspiracy to come down here and oppose the noise ordinance. He addressed a previous speaker and Chairman Austin asked him to address the Board. He stated that everyone wants to legislate, and that is quite the challenge. If the County wishes to use the "reasonable" man approach, he would like to volunteer his services as a calibration for a reasonable man. There's people from all walks of life at the Sheriff s department. Some agree with his hillbilly attitude and others won't agree with that. It is not going to work using the Sheriff s department to dictate the "reasonable" man approach. He anticipates the proposed ordinance will get the County into more lawsuits, neighbors pitted against neighbors and it will create more trouble than what currently exists. I beg you ... it's like here we go again. Here we have the fathers down here and soon to be fathers and mothers, trying to come up with a solution where a problem does not exist. Don Henderson, Jefferson County: He stated that there is a problem. What we need is some sort of linkage so we can take care of the bad apples. He has been a country boy all his life and has lived in Jefferson County for 30 years. City people have moved in thinking they can do anything they want to. They bring with them their un- muffled motorcycles and they won't shut up. They won't meet you at the fence to talk things over. We need some linkage to protect the law abiding citizens from the bad apples. Whether it be a decibel meter, or a reasonable person, please do not give up on this project. Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock: He opposes the proposed noise ordinance. The "reasonable" man approach sounds good, but once a neighbor is irritated, that reasonability is out the window. There is no such thing as a "reasonable" man when the Sheriff is called on you. That contains an arbitrary and capricious format right from the beginning. There already is WAC 173.60 that has the ability to call the Sheriff if there is a noise problem. It addresses a decibel level that the Sheriff s department can test. Decibel meters can't be that much. He knows the County has budget issues, but the County should have one if Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 f, 4.41 F `? _ they are to move forward with the noise ordinance. A decibel meter would be able to measure what the issue is and not leave the decision to someone else's whim. Thank you. Carol Wood, Jefferson County: She stated that when the proposed noise ordinance was originally discussed, there were a number of references to rural areas. In fact, we have many developed communities in the unincorporated part of the County. We live in very close proximity to each other. Some people may be fortunate and not have a disgruntled neighbor living near them. She is not so fortunate. Section K, the catchall category, is vague and subjective. She believes that even if a court rules against a person, they still would have an avenue based on the wording of Section K. Section K is an unnecessary burden to the deputies, the court system and she believes it will result in lawsuits to the County. She urged the Board to delete Section K. When a professional sound engineer came out and assessed the [sport] court noise, it was determined that they were below the state standard. In fact, they could have up to two more courts and still be below the state standard. Section K would still not preclude a certain person making one or more repeated complaints to the Sheriff s department. According to the sound engineer, who came at a cost of $1,800, he stated that a decibel measuring device depends on how they are coded. She urged training for the proper use of any sound measuring device, if implemented. Gabe Ornelas: He stated he would not talk about dogs or racing cars. They have been through a bit since 2005 with Security Services Northwest (SSNW). Today, it continues. He does not know where the end in sight is. The issue has gone through the Supreme Court and now it lays dormant. The activity at SSNW, which includes explosions, is continuing. He urged the Board not to forget about him and his neighbors and stated they are suffering. It is a warzone. Thank you. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated that a lot of people seem to be basing their trust on a decibel meter. They believe that if a decibel meter is to be used, there will not be a problem. Meters of any sort, when used by law enforcement, have to be continuously calibrated. A case can be thrown out in court if you can show to the court that the radar gun was not calibrated within the previous 24 hours under the same temperatures and such circumstances. There are tight standards on that. The same would apply to the use of decibel meters in the County. You are not going to have all the deputies in this County with decibel meters that are calibrated regularly and accurately in order to have such cases stand up in court. That is why the reasonability standard is included in the proposed ordinance. The ordinance states "An unreasonable noise, as determined by a law enforcement officer..." not by a disgruntled neighbor. The law enforcement officer needs to witness the noise in order to write a citation. We trust police and the Sheriff to make decisions on a myriad of other laws that do not have measuring devices. Law enforcement officers can determine speed, reckless activity, disorderly conduct and other behaviors which are judged based on the "reasonable" standard. That is how we want our society. This law is no different from that. The ordinance may need some fine- tuning, it may be a little too broad in some areas, but overall the ordinance is long overdue. The proposed noise ordinance is suited for this area. The same sort of law has been in force and upheld in hundreds of other counties and communities in this country, let's not be any different. Barbara Barnhart, Jefferson County: She referenced her statement she previously submitted. (See hearing record). She stated she opposes the proposed ordinance. She suggested appointing a committee like Seattle did. Appoint a committee to deal with the dozens of issues that were raised today. The ordinance as written is unenforceable under current case law and ignores the fact that this County is Page 16 J Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 , DRAFT 5 1'r already subject to the Washington State Noise Act and the WAC regulations under that act. She had been told that some of the language in the ordinance has been borrowed from the Skagit County Ordinance. By establishing a committee, they would be able to read all the local ordinances and pick and choose from the best parts. Part of the Skagit County Ordinance was not borrowed. Where it reads "It shall be a complete defense to any charge of a noise violation that the noise meter standards were not violated." The noise meter standards are fundamental. She urged the Board to read what she submitted and not pass the ordinance as currently written. The noise ordinance is way too broad and there are issues to be dealt with, but this is not the way to do it. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he would like a chance to review the record. Commissioner Johnson stated that bickering neighbors will use many tools to get back at each other. He believes they could use a noise ordinance as a tool. He added there are legitimate comments on both sides. The Board agreed to extend the written comment period to December 31, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. The meeting was recessed at 12:24 p.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m. with Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan present. Commissioner Johnson arrived at 1:45 p.m. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Miscellaneous Items: Noise Ordinance continued deliberation. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez was present. Commissioners and staff discussed several of the issues raised during the morning public hearing, with particular reference to nuisance from firearms and RCW 9.41.290. WAC 173 -60 includes some restrictions on noise from firearms. Staff will research State nuisance law, and state restrictions (if any) on when/where firearms may be discharged. For example, can someone repeatedly fire a semi - automatic rifle outside for target practice at 3:00 a.m. without it qualifying as a nuisance? Staff will also review what other jurisdictions have done and related case law. Depending on the extent of changes made, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) may need or wish to hold another public hearing on a revised ordinance. Commissioners will endeavor to review the written hearing record by December 1, 2014, and deliberations will continue during the December 1, 2014 County Administrator Briefing (CAB) session. The BOCC may continue deliberations at a subsequent (possibly December 8, 20I4) regular meeting. It was acknowledged that final action may take place in 2015. • Memorial Field Roof Repair: Public Works Director /County Engineer Monte Reinders, Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler and Central Services Director Frank Gifford were present. Staff outlined the bids with ($366,000) and without ($264,000) a new roof, versus existing revenues ($250,000) for a total maximum shortfall of $116,000, and the potential use of unallocated revenues above amounts budgeted in 2014 for Private Harvest tax ($48,000), Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 DRAFT Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Timber Sales ($88,000) and Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) ($38,000). The alternative of simply removing the entire roof and superstructure and maintaining the stands was estimated by staff to cost $190,000. Staff recommended replacing the existing roof ($366,000). Commissioner Sullivan expressed concerns about the County's significant competing capital needs, possible future revenue cuts by the state and federal governments, and whether the county would be better off to reserve the Harvest tax, DNR and REET for those other needs. County Administrator Morley discussed tradeoffs between those needs, and the expectation of the community and the County's future relation with the community. He identified other likely revenues in 2015, including c. $80,000 from REET, and $200,000 from Treasurer's interest from maturing CDs to partially address Commissioner Sullivan's objectives. Commissioners Johnson and Chairman Austin favored moving forward to replace the stadium roof. Staff will place the stadium roof replacement bid award on the Regular Agenda for December 1, 2014. • Marijuana Moratorium work schedule: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith was present. The Moratorium's adopted work program would require the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) action by February 9, 2015. Staff vacation and Planning Commission's schedule preclude getting a code revision adopted by the 6 month deadline. He presented an alternate schedule, which includes enacting an extension/renewal of the moratorium. Commissioner Sullivan suggested the BOCC could simply allow the moratorium to lapse. Staff described the vesting that would result. Commissioners explored the idea of renewing the moratorium for less than 6 months, such as 3 months. There was some support for that, though Commissioner Sullivan expressed reservations. • Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Recommendations. Commissioner Austin walked through the LTAC's funding allocation recommendations for 2015 and staff described including in the budget the additional $5,000 capital expenditure contingency for the Gateway Visitor Center. No action was taken, as it was discussed these allocations could be reflected in the Final 2015 Budget that the BOCC would adopt later this year. • Jefferson Land Trust (JLT)/Trust for Public Lands (TPL) open space opportunities (including Navy's Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (KEPI) program) and funding exploration request discussed. All three commissioners spoke against pursuing any tax increase for open space at this time. • 4" Quarter 2014 Budget Update and Sheriff's Office discussions. • 2015 Budget: mentioned but not further discussed. • NACo — Public Lands Committee — need new Jefferson County representative. Commissioners will discuss further in 2015 with the new Commissioner. • BOCC Committee assignments — Commissioners are reviewing these for discussion in 2015. • Consideration of whether to take any BOCC action regarding Navy Growler Jet and electronic warfare testing and whether to request United States Forest Service (USFS) time extension and other process improvements. Commissioners discussed handling this topic as individual Commissioners, rather than as a Board. Calendar Coordination: The Certification of the Election and Swearing in of the Sheriff, Treasurer and Assessor will be on November 25, 2014.4 Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 DRAFT � ;c • Commissioner Sullivan will be participating in a Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) conference call regarding marijuana revenue sharing on November 25, 2014. • The Jefferson County Courthouse and County facilities will be closed on November 27 and 28, 2014 in observance of Thanksgiving. • Chairman Austin will be out of the office mid - afternoon on November 25, 2014 and will be back in the office on December 1, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Washington State Auditor's Office Exit Conference on December 2, 2014. • There will be a Drug Court graduation on December 4, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson will be attending a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting on December 10, 2014. • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) meeting on December 10, 2014. • There will be a JeflCOM meeting on December 11, 2014. • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on December 16, 2014. • There will be a Board of Health meeting on December 18, 2014. • Chairman John Austin's recognition and farewell parry will be held on December 22, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. • The Jefferson County Courthouse and County facilities will be closed on December 25, 2014. • The Swearing in of Elected Officials will be held on January 2, 2014. Future Agenda Items: • Discuss Boards and Commissions assignments. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:14 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Sullivan, Member Page 19 District No. t 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 DKAr i MINUTES Emergency Meeting (per RCW 42.30.070) November 26, 2014 Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner David Sullivan were present for the following action. Chairman John Austin was absent. Declaration of Emergency Damage to County Roads: Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan approved RESOLUTION NO. 55 -14 regarding Declaration of Damage to County Roads in West Jefferson County due to a series of storms causing several high flow events on rivers. SEAL: ATTEST: Erin Lundgren Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (Excused Absence) John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member David Sullivan, Member Page 1 District No. I Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan nittrict No 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley DRAFT Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of December 1. 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: Three citizens commented on the proposed Noise Ordinance; • citizen stated: 1) Due to Republicans, he foresees a rough funding year in 2015; and • citizen noted the Jefferson County Democrats will be hosting a reorganization meeting and stated it has been a pleasure serving as Chair of that organization. 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. 56-14 re: HEARING NOTICE: 4th Quarter 2014 Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments; Hearing scheduled for Monday, December 15, 2014 at 10:15 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 2. RESOLUTION NO. 57-14 re: Closing County Administrative Offices at Noon on Christmas Eve 3. AGREEMENT re: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) E15 -160; In the Amount of $16,577; Jefferson County Emergency Management; Washington State Military Department 4. Advisory Board Reappointment re: Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A); Three (3) Year Term Expiring December 1, 2017; Patricia Smith 5. Advisory Board Appointment re: Gardiner Community Center Advisory Board; Three (3) Year Term Expiring December 1, 2017; Tim Hickey 6. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 24, 2014 Totaling $522,958.58 7. Payment of Jefferson County A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 20, 2014 Totaling $15,277.20 Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Will be attending a Strait Ecosystem Recovery Network meeting next week. Commissioner Johnson - Will be participating in a conference call with the Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A) this week. Commissioner Sullivan - Participated in a Legislative Steering Committee (LSC) conference call last week re: I -502 and sharing revenue. Will be attending an open house in Brinnon next week re: Black Point. The meeting was recessed at 9:28 a.m. and reconvened at 9:35 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. DISCUSSION re: Memorial Field Grandstand Roof Repair Project, County Project No. 1959; In the amount of $299,399.89, Jefferson County Public Works; Prima Construction: County Administrator Philip Morley stated that Public Works Director /County Engineer Monte Reinders was enroute, but that Central Services Director Frank Gifford would be assisting in the presentation. Central Services Director Gifford stated that the Memorial Field Grandstand Roof Repair bid process resulted in three bidders. The lowest bidder is Primo Construction with a base bid of $217,725 which includes the removal of the existing roof, welding, painting and other miscellaneous work. It will cost an additional $74,565 to add a new roof and wing walls back onto the facility, and another approximately $7,000 for salt treatment. Primo did not charge for replacing the tie rods, which are included in the roofing bid under Primo's bid numbers. Adding to that figure, including staff, inspection costs, and an adequate contingency, along with other items, the base workup is around $264,000. If the project is done in its entirety, it will cost around $365,000. Central Services Director Gifford stated there is approximately $145,000 in the County's Capital Fund from the Prop I funding. This is for doing some capital repair work, There is an additional $79,507 in a Special Projects.Fund for capital purposes also. They are proposing transferring $25,000 from the Parks Improvement Fund. That will provide an existing total revenue of $245,507. If the Board accepts the base bid only, the County would need to come up with approximately $15,000 of additional funding. If the Board accepts the base bid and replaces the roof, the County would need to come up with approximately $116,000 of additional funding. Chairman Austin asked if there were any changes from the original presentation? Director Gifford replied there have not been any changes. He added that they are suggesting accepting the Primo bid and awarding it for the base plus alternates. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 HK County Administrator Morley stated that the bid for the roof repair had been structured in a way where there is a base bid for removal and painting of the structure, and alternative bids for salt treatment, tie rods and replacement of the roof. Staff encouraged the Board to go for the whole project as the price quoted is a good price. County Administrator Morley stated if the projects were broken up, the County would lose efficiency, plus this takes care of the issue at hand and clears it from the County's plate so they can focus on other projects in the future. Central Services Director Gifford stated that other bids for the same project were approximately $155,000 over Primo's bid. He added that it would cost the County around $190,000 to tear down the roof. If the Board decides to tear down the existing roof and build in the future, it would have to be built to the current code at that time and would most likely cost around $400,0004500,000 to construct. He stated that this is a good use of current funding and would allow about 20 more years of life to the structural frame. County Administrator Morley stated that the County is aware of other needs such as courthouse security, capital improvements, staffing, Port Townsend Recreation Center roof and the Brinnon Community Center. He explained that those are competing needs, but as the Central Services Director noted, they have anticipated for this year and next year some one -time funding above what had been funded which allows for dedication for capital or one -time projects. This project qualifies. Public Works Director and County Engineer Monte Reinders joined the discussion at 9:46 a.m. Commissioner Sullivan noted that state and federal budgets are uncertain right now. He appreciates the work staff has done on the project, however, he feels that the money should be saved for other potential needs. He added that the field itself is fine, it is just the roof over the home team bleachers that is in need of repair. Chairman Austin stated that he respects Commissioner Sullivan's concerns but in looking at the big picture, this is an opportunity that will have a rather short shelf life and if the County moves forward, they can end up with a real tangible asset that will be around for another 20 years. There may not be another chance to build the roof again at that price. Chairman Austin moved to award the contract to Primo Construction. Commissioner Johnson stated there are two choices that he sees, to approve a new roof, or remove the existing roof. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Austin and Commissioner Johnson voted in favor of awarding the contract to Primo Construction for the Memorial Field Roof Repair Project. Commissioner Sullivan voted against the motion. The motion passed. The meeting was recessed at 9:23 a.m. and reconvened at 9:35 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: 2015 Jefferson County Budget: County Administrator Philip Morley distributed two handouts at the meeting: 1) Handout A - Copy of the power point presentation titled 2015 Jefferson County Budget; and 2) Handout B — Corrected "Jefferson County Administrator Message for the Recommended 2015 Jefferson County Budget." He stated that after the presentation and Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 the public has a chance to comment, a final budget will be developed`a#td adopted as early as next week. Central Services Director Frank Gifford was also present for the meeting. County Administrator Morley stated that the anticipated revenue for the General Fund is $16.7 Million and we are anticipating slightly over $17 Million in expenditures. Other funds total $28.5 Million in revenue and $33 Million in expenditures. The total recommended 2015 Budget is as follows: TOTAL RECOMMENDED 2015 BUDGET 2014 Pro osed All Revenues $45,174,730 All Expenditures $50,251,062 GENERAL FUND 2014 Original Budget 2014 Projected 2015 Proposed % Change from 2014 Proi ected GF Revenues $16,286,094 $17,206,020 $16,720,945 -2.8% GF Expenditures $16,813,568 $17,581,568 $17,023,210 -3.2% Estimated Ending Fund Balance $2,409,137 $2,558,221 $2,511,304 -1.8% Unencumbered Fund Balance $287,781 $405,064 $368,963 8.9% County Administrator Morley added that intergovernmental revenues are 26% of the County's budget and 12% of the General Fund. Taxes comprise 2/3`a of the General Fund revenue, which is significant. Sales tax contribute to 20% which is also very significant. On the expenditure side, salaries and benefits comprises 57.1% of the General Fund expenditures. Another 10% gets transferred to "Other Funds" and those funds take about 1/3 of that to pay salaries and benefits as well. County Administrator Morley indicated that the County is continuing to invest in Public Safety. Law and Justice expenditures total 60% of the General Fund. Commissioner Johnson asked if 60% was an average for other counties? County Administrator Morley replied that it is hard to compare to other counties but he believes they are somewhere in this range. County Administrator Morley explained that the County has a five year General Fund Budget strategy. This year's budget is impacted by continued declines in the value of County revenues against inflation. This is due in part by: 1) The state - imposed I% per year limit on the property tax base, except by a public election; 2) The modest recovery constrains property tax from new construction and other revenues; and 3) Cost inflation exceeding revenue growth over time, and reducing the value of all local revenues. He reviewed graphs and charts from his power point presentation which included: Property Tax Base Over Time, New Construction as well as other figures and projections. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 KK]� County Administrator Morley noted that in 2014, $1.3 Million dollars came from the federal government. Looking ahead at federal and state funding to local government, there is uncertainty. In 2015, there is concern regarding funding for Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Federal Secure Rural Schools — for Roads, Federal Transportation funding package, State cuts to fund McCleary and 1 -1351 and State Transportation funding package. Central Services Director Frank Gifford noted significant changes to Other Funds in 2015. On the revenue side, Water Quality is receiving a $395,500 Grant Revenue for property acquisitions and $270,000 from the implementation of the revised Clean Water District fee. Parks and Recreation is receiving $24,000 as a one -time additional transfer in from the General Fund, but they are losing $123,000 from the Prop 1 Funding, which ends mid -2015. On the expenditure side, Water Quality is spending $395,500 on property acquisitions, funded by grant revenue and $72,000 to add a Water Quality position. Jefferson County Extension is spending $91,160 one -time funding for a Noxious Weed Coordinator and increase in hours of a farm manager position. Parks and Recreation is decreasing their expenditures by lowering staffing for recreation programs $49,000. They are also reducing transfer to Construction and Renovation by $40,000 due to City Prop 1 funding ending. County Roads is anticipating a $350,000 reduction in maintenance and administration budgets due to loss of Secure Rural School funding. Central Services Director Gifford reviewed the County's debt. General Obligation Bonds total $6,062,765 and Contractual Borrowing total $3,208,174 for a grand total of $9,270,939 in existing debt. County Administrator Morley reviewed the County's schedule of annual debt service payments for principal and interest, and how it declines over time. He added that some other funds are carrying this debt service. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment. Jean Ball, Chimacum: She stated that after hearing the budget woes, she asked if anyone has considered income revenue from marijuana? It is disturbing to her that they are losing jobs and Parks and Recreation events for kids are being cut. Has anyone considered the potential revenues that are coming? Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated that the County will be carrying debt service for JeffCOM 911. When JeffCOM 911 fought so hard to become an independent agency, it seems unconscionable for the County to be carrying the debt for that now independent agency. That should be resolved and eliminated from the County's books. It is all public money but let's keep the bookkeeping straight. The Public Utility District (PUD) preference tax income, according to his calculations, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) property that came off the tax roles was somewhere around $30 -35 Million dollars. Using the 1% rule, that would indicate about $300,000 dollars of lost property tax revenue offset by $165,000 of privilege tax? That does not seem like a fair exchange. He would like to see more detail on exactly how much property tax was lost from PSE. There is also the issue of the City taking away its share of the Prop 1 sales tax funding for Parks and Recreation. He did not see any plan in place to replace that lost revenue to the County. City residents are still going to be using those services that will now be provided solely by the County. Maybe there ought to be a little bit more concerted effort to do that. He does not want to encourage a war between the City and County, but people have to pay for things they need to pay for. At the pool, County residents used to pay around 20% more than City residents. They stopped that practice a couple years ago, but at the time, justified it by saying it was a City pool so City residents Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 should get a better rate. Maybe something similar to that needs to be implemented at the Recreation Center. There has to be a better way to share the costs of providing services to the people that use them. More thought needs to go into it and it will not be through a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). There is a big single line item that is never detailed in any of these budgets, it is the huge item of "Professional Services." It is a nebulous catch -all, you never know what the heck goes into it, but it looks suspicious. It is a big chunk of money. There is never any detailed accounting for how it is planned. The only way to find out how it is spent, is to dig into public records and look at all the invoices. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Chairman Austin asked if professional services include incurred by using psychologists in trials? County Administrator Morley replied that there are professional services budgeted within each department. It is not done on a one -line item basis. For instance, the Department of Community Development (DCD) will often use outside expertise when working on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and other projects. Professional services were used when updating the Critical Areas Ordinance for agriculture. The Information Services Department used professional services for EIS and courthouse security. Chairman Austin asked if assigned council and indigent defense was included under "Professional Services ?" County Administrator Morley believes that it is included under that category. Chairman Austin noted that one of the advantages of using professional services is that departments do not have to create a full time or part time position. Central Services Director Gifford added that Government e- Management Solutions (GEMS), software used by the Assessor's Office and New World software used by the Sheriff's department gets billed through professional services. County Administrator Morley addressed the statement made during the public hearing regarding JeffCOM. He stated that originally, bonds tied to JeffCOM were issued at a time when it was still a County department, so they were County bonds. Those bonds have a 15 -20 year life on them and exist as instruments that bond holders have purchased and hold. There is an agreement with JeffCOM that guarantees that JeffCOM will service that debt. The County's Treasurer's Office is the Treasurer for JeffCOM as well. The Treasurer takes out the debt service expenditures before transferring revenue to JeffCOM through taxes. He added that the County would need to recall the bonds in order to put them in JeffCOM's name. The cost and the hassle is not worth it. County Administrator Morley addressed the statement made during the public hearing regarding marijuana revenue for Jefferson County. He explained that under I -502, there is a 20% tax imposed at the point of production, processing and retail sales, but under current state law, all of the revenue goes to the state. There is a small amount of funding that goes towards education and other things, but the funding is controlled by the state and is not coming to the counties. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that there most likely will be lobbying done to share these revenues with counties. County Administrator Morley addressed the statement made during the public hearing regarding the PUD privilege tax. He stated that when PSE's privately held properties, including personal property, Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 went into public ownership, it stopped being a taxable tax base property. It is not a general reduction, rather a re- assignment of who is paying it. The PUD privilege tax essentially translates into an increase in revenue to the County. Due to modified projects on new construction for property tax, this meant a reduction in the rate of increase in regular property taxes. The PUD tax brings the County back to roughly where they would be. Central Services Director Gifford added that a part of the PUD tax goes to the City of Port Townsend. County Administrator Morley stated that in regards to Prop 1 funds ending, the County has scaled back. 2015 will be a transition period. By 2016 the Recreation Center will be operating on a skeletal basis. County Administrator Morley explained that when figuring out the budget, in some cases, refinements need to be made. The final recommendation of the Hargrove Fund and Lodging Tax Hotel/Motel Fund final allocations were not finalized in time for the draft budget. While the budget line numbers will not change, the distribution is likely to change. He added that tomorrow he will be meeting with representatives from the Courts regarding the Hargrove Fund. With permission from the Board, he would like to make possible amendments, if needed as an outcome to that meeting. County Administrator Morley stated that funding for Noxious Weed Control is coming from the General Fund. He added that noxious weed control is subject to quite a bit of controversy and has been arguably very underfunded. The Board of County Commissioners has been made aware of this funding issue and has given staff direction to look into this which may include looking outside the General Fund in future years. Commissioner Sullivan made a motion to give the County Administrator permission to make adjustments to the budget and direct staff to prepare the 2015 Budget for potential adoption. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 11:20 a.m. and reconvened at 1:31 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination: • Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Washington State Auditor's Office Exit Conference on December 2, 2014. • There will be a Drug Court graduation on December 4, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending an Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A) meeting in Shelton on December 4, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson will be attending a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting on December 10, 2014. • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) meeting on December 10, 2014. • There will be a JeffCOM meeting on December 11, 2014. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014 r' • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on December 16, 2014. • There will be a Board of Health meeting on December 18, 2014. • There will be a recognition and farewell party for Chairman John Austin on December 22, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers. • The Jefferson County Courthouse and County facilities will be closed on December 25, 2014 in observance of Christmas. • The Swearing in of Elected officials will be held on January 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Miscellaneous Items: Noise Ordinance continued deliberation. Staff will attempt to bring a revised draft to the December 8, 2014 County Administrator Briefing (CAB) session. Staff consulted with Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and our noise ordinance is State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exempt, but under state law /WAC, requires DOE to review the ordinance. Staff is still researching what status the ordinance needs to have as to the Board's action before sending it to DOE. Marijuana Moratorium work schedule: All Commissioners have completed review of the hearing record, and on December 8, 2014 will close out their deliberations on the original moratorium Hearing. Commissioners discussed a potential extension of the moratorium that may be set for a separate public hearing in January, 2015. Staff has legal advice that an extension can be for less than 6 months. Commissioners expressed a desire that any extension would be for a shorter period. The Department of Community Development (DCD) plans to present a draft of the Unified Development Code (UDC) regulation changes to the Planning Commission (PC) at a special PC meeting the 2nd week of January. Washington Counties Risk Pool (WCRP): County Administrator Morley described the favorable rulings for WCRP on Clark County's claims against WCRP. Strait Action Area: John Cambalik Strait Action Area of the Ecosytem Coordination Board (ECB) has requested the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) designate a new commissioner appointment to serve as Co -Chair after Chairman Austin retires, and asks for the designation at the December 12, 2014 meeting. Chairman Austin asked if Environmental Health Specialist Tami Pokorny might attend and Co- Chair? Commissioners discussed that an elected official may be more appropriate for such a position. BOCC will wait until 2015 to discuss and decide whether /who to appoint. ECB meets quarterly. Their Steering Committee meets monthly. Hargrove Fund: Discussed a November 26, 2014 letter from Judge Harper and Judge Landes. Staff is meeting with the judges and Juvenile Services Director Barbara Carr on December 2, 2014 and Commissioner Sullivan will participate. Chairman Austin reported that Central Services Director Frank Gifford is coordinating with the telephone company regarding preventing removal of the Jefferson Transit bus stop signs in the County Right -of -Way. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December T 2014 Y4 K'!71 x9 NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner SulliAmoved to adjourn the meeting at 2:45 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATTEST: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson, Member Carolyn Avery David Sullivan, Member Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 9