HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080601Distrid No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tilterness County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Distrid No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith
Distrid No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of August 6, 2001
Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of
Commissioners Dan Titterness and Richard Wojt.
CO UNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles
Saddler discussed the following:
· Election for Distribution of Federal Forest Funds: Commissioner Titterness said that the staff
recommendation makes sense and moved to accept it as presented Commissioner Wojt seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
· Request for Funding WSAC Timber Analyst/Coordinator Position: Deputy County
Administrator Gary Rowe reported that the proposal to create this position and have each County
contribute a portion of the funding was discussed at the last WSAC meeting. Chairman Huntingford
advised that he supports this position. He added that if the Board approves it, they need to encourage
the WSAC to pay their dues to the National Forest Counties & Schools Coalition that worked to get
the funding. Gary Rowe reported that Federal funding can not be used to pay for this position and he
recommends that it be paid from the County's General Fund and not from Road Funds diverted to the
General Fund. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is a benefit to the County Road Fund from the work
to be done by this new position? Chairman Huntingford noted that he feels the position's work will
benefit the Road Fund. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the funding for this position.
Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman
Huntingford asked that the Board send letters to WSAC and the Washington State School Directors
Association asking that they pay their dues to the Coalition.
· Clallam County has asked for a joint Commissioners meeting in September to discuss issues of mutual
concern such as the maintenance of County roads that lead to the National Park, the PRSN, and
mental health facilities on the Olympic Peninsula. The Board agreed to have a joint meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: When the Glen Cove
Industrial area was mapped for the Comprehensive Plan, the Eastview Industrial Area was re-zoned as
residential property with 1 residence to 20 acres; the Eastview plat was approved in 1978 and the
Commissioners were adamant that it be kept industrial because it has access to Thomas Street, is adjacent on
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 6, 2001
the south and west to the highly industrial mill property and it has a boat building facility on the City side;
this zoning needs to be corrected; there are still traffic speeding problems on Seal Rock Road even though
the Board was told about these problems, as well as a problem with a septic system, about 5 weeks ago
(Charles Saddler reported that the speed and pedestrian traffic signs have been ordered by the Public
Works DepartmenO; Jefferson County employees have gone onto private property and ignored no trespassing
signs; is Jefferson County negligent for not training employees about going on private property?; what is the
definition of economic development in the resolution establishing the goals and objectives for the 2002
budget?; is the budget going to be geared to the Strategic Plan? (The Board advised that it will be); how will
the Strategic Plan fit into the sub-area planning process in Tri Area and Glen Cove?
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness
moved to delete Items 1 and 2 and adopt and approve the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. DELETE Resolution re: Adoption of 2002 Budget Goals and Objectives (See Item Later in Minutes.)
2. DELETE Resolution re: Developing a Countywide Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Program; Joint Resolution with
the Jefferson County Board of Health and Jefferson County PUD # 1 Board of Commissioners
3. BID AWARD re: Purchase of New, Marine Navigation & Radio Equipment with Installation;
Jefferson County Sheriff' s Office; Green Tree Communications
4. BID AWARD re: Lindsay Hill Road Restoration Project No. XO1386; Jefferson County Public
Works; Condon Johnson & Associates, Inc.
5. AGREEMENT re: Lindsay Hill Road Restoration Project No. XO1386; Jefferson County Public
Works; Condon Johnson & Associates, Inc.
6. AGREEMENT re: Pavement Marking on Various County Roadways for 2001, Project No.
MT 1515; Jefferson County Public Works; A & C Striping, Inc.
7. AGREEMENT re: Paving of Recycle Drop-off Yard, Project No. SW1530; Jefferson County Public
Works, Solid Waste Division; Lakeside Industries
8. AGREEMENT re: Mowing of Vegetation at the Waste Management Facility; Jefferson County
Public Works, Solid Waste Division; Wind Gypsy Company
9. AGREEMENT re: Community Litter Cleanup Project; Jefferson County Juvenile and Family Court
Services; Washington State Department of Ecology
10. AGREEMENT re: Practitioner Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Regence
Blue Shield
11. AGREEMENT re: Northwest Straights Project and Marine Resources Committee Administration;
Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Ecology
12. AGREEMENT re: Building Child Care Capacity; Jefferson County Health and Human Services;
Washington State Department of Health
13. AGREEMENT NO. 21266, Amendment No. 4 re: Provide Early Intervention Services; Jefferson
County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
(DSHS)
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 6, 2001
14.
15
16.
17.
18.
AGREEMENT NO. 21368, Amendment No. 5 re: Foster Care Passport Program; Addition of
Clallam County Client Referrals; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)
Reimbursable Work Request No. AL01-9 re: Prepare and Chipseal the Hanger Access Road at the
Jefferson County Airport; Jefferson County Public Works; Port of Port Townsend
Approval of Final Binding Site Plan for the H. J. Carroll Park, #ZON96-00020; Jefferson County
Department of Community Development; Jefferson County Public Works, Applicant
Removal of Solid Waste Advisory Committee Member for Non-Attendance; Lynn Fitch, District #1
Representative
Letter of Request to Evaluate the need for a Burn Ban in Respective Fire Districts; Jefferson County
Fire Commissioners and Secretaries Association
Gary Rowe, Deputy County Administrator, presented the National Association of County
Information Officers' Award to Pubic Works Director Frank Gifford for the Jefferson County Video "A
Matter of Time." The Board met in Executive Session from 10:10-10:59 a.m. with the Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, the County Administrator, the Deputy County Administrator, the Director of Community
Development, and an Associate Planner regarding potential litigation.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Tom Robinson re: Timber Revenue
Update: Tom Robinson introduced A1 Bond, State Lands Assistant. Mr. Bond will be working with
Jefferson County after he retires at the end of September. He reviewed the timber revenue report and
advised that DNR will be making cut backs this year because of decreased timber revenues. They plan to do
some streamlining to make programs more efficient.
The Board asked about the following issues:
· M & E Trucking - DNR needs to determine if this site is more or less than 3 acres.
· Mooring buoys - Tom Robinson reported that the mooring buoy issue has gone to the bottom of the
DNR priority list because of legislative action that allows property owners to place a buoy in front of
their property. Chairman Huntingford said that he understands that anyone with adjoining upland
property can also place a buoy at no cost. He asked about people who don't live in the area that want
a buoy. Will the DNR support the County's action to not allow outsiders to put a buoy in Mystery
Bay? Tom Robinson advised he feels they would support the County.
· Geoducks - Commissioner Wojt asked about the problems between DNR & Fish and Wildlife? Tom
Robinson advised that the Olympia office deals with geoducks.
The Board met in Executive Session from 11:30 a.m. to Noon with the Deputy County
Administrator regarding labor contract negotiations.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 6, 2001
Discussion re: Goals and Objectives for the 2002 County Budget: Charles Saddler reviewed
the revisions that the Board requested earlier on the budget resolution. He explained that it is staff' s
understanding that the goal of a 0% property tax levy increase was intended only for the General Fund and
not for the Road Fund. Gary Rowe explained that the budget request for roads is generally set at IPD and
this language can be included in the resolution. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO.
65-01 setting the 2002 Budget goals and objectives with the recommended changes. Commissioner Titterness
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Discussion and Possible adoption of Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment
Ordinance: Chairman Huntingford explained that the Board will be reviewing the testimony that was
received at the public hearing on the methodology for assessing properties in the Drainage District. Although
the public comment period ended on Friday, July 27, the Board received a petition today.
Jim Pearson, Public Works Department, stated that he and the consultants have developed options and
suggested revisions to the assessment system in response to the public hearing testimony. He submitted a
memo to the Board regarding this information (See microfilmed document.)
Commissioner Wojt stated that he has concerns about including the LMC property in the assessment because
if the LMC assessment comes from LMC member's dues, a large majority of the property owners would be
assessed twice. Chairman Huntingford is concerned that there are other properties in the Drainage District
that perform the same function as the green belt owned by the LMC and they are being assessed, while the
current proposal is to exclude the LMC properties. Barry Baker, consultant for Gray & Osborne Consulting
Engineers, explained that the green belts are reserve areas that will never be developed. Walt Cairns,
Drainage District Commissioner, mentioned other properties that might be affected if this assessment
exemption on reserve lands is changed.
Chairman Huntingford read the options that staff prepared:
· Eliminate the exemption for the LMC green belts.
· Grant the LMC green belts a reduced assessment in recognition of the beneficial function they
perform.
· Assess the LMC green belts at full land area rate.
· If the LMC green belts are exempted or assessed at a reduced rate, the County Commissioners could
consider exemption or reduced assessments for similar parcels. This would require the development
of criteria.
Chairman Huntingford explained that the exclusion of the County roads was part of the original petition to
form the Drainage District. County Roads could be included by annexation. The County currently maintains
the drainage in the public rights-of-way. Jim Pearson reiterated that the County already maintains the
drainage on the County roads as required by RCW.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 6, 2001
Why a system that only considers impervious surfaces wash 't recommended? Jim Pearson explained that
impervious surface is an important issue when it comes to storm water management, and if this system was
used, property owners with more impervious surface would have to pay more. Barry Baker pointed out that
a property can be undeveloped and still contribute to runoff problems. Chairman Huntingford added that he
feels impervious surface relates directly to the size of a home.
Commissioner Wojt stated that in his opinion the goal is to spread the assessment over the entire Drainage
District to put less of a burden on all property owners and to create an assessment system that is easy to
administer. Walt Cairns explained how the ratio between gross property and impervious surface was reached.
Crediting parcels with stormwater management systems already in place that meet current State
regulations. Jim Pearson explained that a credit or reduction is an option. Another option is having the
District take over the system rather than having several small systems throughout the area. There are
concerns about the State regulations changing and the small systems being updated.
The Plat of Port Ludlow/~ 7 has expressed an interest in turning over their system to the Drainage District.
Walt Cairns feels that if a system on private property helps reduce stormwater drainage problems, and the
owner is willing to dedicate easements for access, the District will consider maintaining the system. Any
public systems that will be built in the future will also be maintained by the District.
Five acre parcel; west of Osprey Ridge Road where the property owners feel that they are being unfairly
assessed because of the gross size of their property. Staff recommended the following options to deal with
these concerns:
· Base the assessment system only on impervious surface. Parcels would be assessed the same as any
single family residence.
· Reduce the ratio of the area assessment to the impervious surface assessment for all properties.
· Establish a zone with a reduced area assessment rate for these 5 acre parcels.
Barry Baker stated that there are other situations where a property owner may own 3 or 4 parcels. Jim
Pearson referred to the data showing ownership and size of the parcels in the District. Walt Cairns stated that
the Drainage District Commissioners would be supportive of a reduced assessment for the 5 acre parcels.
His personal concern is that a property owner that has 2 or 3 lots should not pay more than the property
owner that has 5 acres. Jim Pearson suggested that the gross area portion of the assessment be reduced to
25%. Walt Cairns explained that even though some of the run off from the 5 acre properties does not drain
into the District at this time, it probably will as more land is developed and more properties are annexed.
One of the 5 acre parcel owners emphasized that they are committed to paying their fair share, but they do
not agree with the proposed assessment system that would have property owners with more acreage pay
more. Jim Pearson compared the assessment for a residence on 3 lots, a vacant 5 acre parcel, a 5 acre parcel
with a residence, and two 5 acre parcels with 1 residence.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 6, 2001
A provision for credits, zones, and appeals was suggested at the hearing. The County Commissioners must
determine the zone rates in the assessment method. The District Commissioners are responsible for
administration of the District. Chairman Huntingford remarked that the staff information does not address
how credits and the criteria for appeals would be established. He asked for more discussion about this issue.
He feels that it needs to be addressed. Jim Pearson said that if the BOCC wants a credit provision, it will
need to be added to the ordinance. He said that it is the County's responsibility to give clear direction to the
Drainage District Commissioners regarding the assessment system.
,4ctual square footage of impervious surface for individual residences being used instead of using an
average. Walt Cairns stated that because the District is just starting up, they want to try to keep costs down.
It would be very expensive to do an onsite inspection of each residence to measure actual impervious surface
and then have to update the data annually. Commissioner Wojt again mentioned the goal of trying to keep
the assessment system simple.
Chairman Huntingford stated that several people at the hearing remarked that they want to know what the
budget amount will be before the assessment method is decided. His understanding is that it is difficult to do
the groundwork without having funding to get started. He asked the Drainage District Commissioners how
they plan to spend the funds? Walt Cairns explained that they are required to do a projected budget which is
public record. They plan to hold public hearings on the budget even though they are not required to by law.
Commissioner Wojt asked what services the commercial properties will get for their increased assessment
amount? Walt Cairns explained that the first portion of the budget is uniformly spread over the entire District
because it is for operations and to fund the Stormwater Management Plan. Construction costs will be
targeted in areas where property owners will benefit. Barry Baker said that in order to assess properties in
targeted areas, a new assessment system would need to be adopted by the County Commissioners.
Chairman Huntingford explained that the County Commissioners will not be making a decision today. This
workshop has helped them understand the issues that the Drainage District Commissioners are facing. Walt
Cairns added that in order to proceed with the assessment, they need to have the ordinance in place by
September 1.
Chairman Huntingford stated that if the County continues to maintain the roads, they may be able to assist in
other ways. He said that the County Commissioners will make a commitment to have the assessment system
done by September 1.
The Board met from 3:30- 5:00 p.m. in Executive Session with the Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, the County Administrator, the Deputy County Administrator, the Director of Community
Development and the Natural Resource Manager regarding actual litigation.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 6, 2001
The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on
Tuesday morning. All three Board members were present. From 9 to 10 a.m. the Board reviewed
information on the Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment and from 10 to 10:45 a.m. they reviewed and
discussed the draft resolution on seawater intrusion. They met in Executive Session from 10:45 to 11:30
a.m. with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the County Administrator and the Environmental Health
Director to discuss actual litigation.
MEETING ADJOURNED" "'~-i~, ~ :~-,\ JEFFERSON COUNTY
...... .........~ -~.-¢qx BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Loma Delaney, C
Clerk of the Board
Page 7
To:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
RO. Box 2070
1322 Washington St.
Port Townsend. WA 98368
(360) 385-9160
Frank G/fford. Public Works Director
Robert G. Turpin, P.E., County Engineer
Board of County Commissioners
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
From:
Frank Gifford, Public Works Director
Bob Tnrpin, County Engineer
Agenda Date: August 6, 2001
Subject:
Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment System;
Response to public hearing testimony
This memo is a response to the testimony presented at the Board of Commissioners'
public hearing on July 24, 2001. It includes options for the Board's consideration to
revise the draft assessment system in response to testimony.
Attached is a revised spreadsheet that depicts the effects of various options on the
assessment for typical properties.
1. Why is the assessment system being developed and why are assessments being
levied prior to determining what the drainage problems are and what projects
are necessary to correct them?
Response:
In order to determine the nature of the District's drainage problems and appropriate
solutions, estimate costs, prioritize projects, and determine means for funding drainage
improvements, the District must develop a Comprehensive Drainage Plan. The District
must have a source of revenue to pay for the Plan. In addition the District must pay for
administration and reimburse Jefferson County for a startup loan. The assessment system
is essential for funding these expenditures.
RCW 85.38 directs the County to develop a draft assessment system, hold a public
hearing, and adopt the assessmem system for use by the District. The assessment system
only determines the relative proportions o f assessments on various properties. The
District will determine the actual level of assessments through the adoption of the District
budget.
100o,8 Recycled Paper
2. Exclusion of LMC greenbelts is unfair to the property owners who are not
members of the LMC. Ralph Thomas testified that 20% of the acreage in the
District is not associated with the LMC. If the LMC greenbelts are excluded,
other undeveloped areas such as Burner Point should also be excluded.
Response:
The greenbelts were purposed to be exempted because they are undeveloped, vegetated
areas that perform important functions related to mitigating stormwater flows and
providing natural drainage courses. They were specifically dedicated for these purposes
during the platting process.
The BOCC could consider the following options for addressing this issue: · Eliminate the exemption for the LMC greenbelts.
· Grant the LMC greenbelts a reduced assessment in recognition of the beneficial
functions that they perform.
· Assess the LMC greenbelts at the full land area rate.
· If the LMC greenbelts are exempted or assessed at a reduced rate, the BOCC
could consider exemption or a reduced assessment for other similar parcels. This
would require the development of criteria to determine whether individual parcels
should be similarly exempted or assessed.
Implementation of a system that exempts or reduces the assessment on greenbelts and
reserve areas would be the responsibility of the District.
3. County roads should be included in the District.
Response:
The exclusion of County roads from the drainage district was a part of the initial petition
for the formation of the drainage district. County roads could be included in the drainage
district by annexation.
However, the County already maintains the drainage features in the public rights-of-way.
Most of the County roads in the District were constructed to serve Pope and Talbot's and
Pope Resources' residential developments. When the roads were dedicated to the County,
the dedication on the Plats of Port Ludlow #1, 2, 4-7 explicitly included the right to drain
all streets and roads over and across any lots where water might take its natural course
after the streets and roads are graded. There is similar language in the dedication of
Ludlow #3.
4. Why wasn't a system considered that only assesses impervious surface?
Response:
Such a system was considered during the development of the draft assessment system. It
was included on the spreadsheet of potential assessment scenarios presented at the public
hearing. The BOCC could decide to implement a system based only on assessment of
impervious surface.
The draft assessment system proposes a 35% / 65% ratio between the area assessment
and the impervious surface assessment. Basing a proportion of the assessment on parcel
area recognizes that the District provides value to the owners of vacant parcels. If the
BOCC believes that the 35% / 65% rauo is not equitable, it could also consider a
different ratio. Several ratios are presented on the spreadsheet.
5. There should be a credit for parcels with stormwater management systems.
Response:
The BOCC could establish a zone that would provide a reduction on the impervious area
charge for developments that meet the current Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual requirements for detention or infiltration systems. In
King County a reduction of 50% of the impervious area charge is granted for an approved
detention or infiltration system.
To receive the credit, the applicant would petition the District Commissioners and
demonstrate the system meets all stormwater management reqmrements according to the
current (WSDOE) design manual. The applicant would also need to agree to maintain and
operate the system according to WSDOE standards.
6. The Plat of Port Ludlow #7 has a stormwater management system that is
maintained by the homeowners association. The assessment system would be
unfair to the owners of lots in Port Ludlow #7.
Response:
The assessment system could exempt or reduce the assessment system on Port Ludlow #7
and any similar properties.
At the hearing District Chair Walt Cairns offered to initiate action by the District to
assume responsibility for maintenance of the Port Ludlow #7 drainage system.
7. The five acre parcels west of Osprey Ridge Road are being unfairly assessed.
They do not contribute to the stormwater runoff problems in Port Ludlow.
Response:
The five acre parcels west of Osprey Ridge Road may contribute a lower rate of
stormwater runoff than other parcels, but they still generate stormwater runoff. Clearing
forested land and converting to pasture or crop land increases the level of surface water
runoff.
The BOCC could consider the following options for addressing this issue:
a. Base the assessment system only on impervious surface. In this case these parcels
would be assessed the same as any single family residence.
b. Reduce the ratio of the area assessment to the impervious surface assessment for
all properties. In the draft assessment system the ratio ~s 35% / 65%. Ratios of
20% / 80% and 10% / 90% are presented on the attached spreadsheet.
c. Establish a zone with a reduced area assessment rate for the five acre parcels west
of Osprey Ridge Drive. An assessment rate is depicted on the attached
spreadsheet that is 25% of the area rate charged other properties.
At the public hearing, Drainage District Commissioner Walt Cairns stated that if there
was a reduction in the assessment for these parcels, the County should analyze ownership
of large lots and multiple ownerships to see if there are other parcels that should be
treated similarly.
8. There should be provision for credits, zones, and appeals.
Response:
Under the proposed system of assessments, reduced rates are based on a property being
included in a zone that reflects a different benefit. These zone rates must be determined
in the method of assessment by the BOCC. The District commissioners could be
petitioned to include a parcel or set of parcels into an established zone. The District
commissioners would then determine if the property meets the requirements of that zone.
Regarding appeals, RCW 85.38.160 (3) specifies that the decision of the BOCC on the
assessment system is final. Appeals of the BOCC decision must be filed in Superior
Court within 20 days of adoption of the Ordinance.
9. The actual square footage of impervious surface should be determined for
individual residences, instead of using an average.
Response:
Averaging is a customary means for calculating residential impervious surface.
Measuring actual impervious surface for all residences would be an expensive task that
would be paid for by the District and passed along to the rate payers. Additionally, it
would require annul review of each property for any change in impervious area through
remodels, paving or extending driveways and parking areas.
4
Port Ludlow Drainage District
Jefferson County
Relative impact from various rate methods
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~&~, I~ ~ ~ ~~
I.~ ~ o
Zone ~ Exoluded
Gross Area only 0.6390 0.7367 11.2896 10.8636 0.14g 1 4.5372 2.1301 0.0000
ERU (Imperious Are~) only, 8FR = 1
ERU (3000 sO, MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.9703 0.0000 0.g703 0.7277 150041 0.0000 0.9703
Gross Area 35%, ERU 85%, 8FR = 1
ERU (3000 sO, MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.8~3 0.257g~ 45820 3.8022 0.5252 11.3406 0.7455 0.6307
Gro~ Area 20%, ERU 80%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sO, MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.g040 0.1474 3.0340 2.1727 0.6120 12.g107 0.4260 0.7762
Gro~s Area 10%, ERU 90%, 8FR = 1
ERU (3000 s0, MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.g871 0.0737 2.0022 1.08~ 0.8698 ~3.g573 0.2~30 0.8732
:. ] :. ~ :: , .
Zone 0 Included , : ~
Gross Area onl~ 0.4908 0.5659 8.6714 8.3441 0.1145 3.484~ 1.6361 0.0000
Gross Area 35%, ERU 65%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.8025 0.198~ 3.6656 2.9204 0.5131 10.9724 0.5726 0.6307
Gross Area 20%, ERU 80%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sO, MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.87~ 0.1 ~32 25105 1.6688 0.6051 12.7002 0.3272 0.7762
Gross Area 10%, ERU 90%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sO, MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.9223 0.0566 1.7404 0.8344 0.6664 13.8521 0.1636 Q8732
ZonesOand2payi~g25%ofg~sS ::: : .:.:: : . :, ~ ':: :,.:: ::
area charge : : :: .: ' ~ ' : ~ :,
Gross Area only 0.6610 0.7621 2.9195 2.8093 0.1542 4.6932 2.20~ 0.0000
Gross Ama 35%, ERU 65%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.8620 0.2667 1,6525 0.9833 0.5270 11.3953 0.7712 0.6307
Gross Area 20%, ERU 80%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.9084 0.1524 1.3601 0.5619 0.6130 12.9419 0.4407 0.7762
Gross Ama 10%, ERU 90%, SFR = 1
ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 0.75 ERU 0.9393 00762 1.1652 0.2809 0.6704 13,9730 0,2203 0.8732
Notes:
Zone 0 are the Reserve areas generally owned by LMC
Zone 2 are the five acre parcels west of Osprey Ridge Ddve
ERU - Equivlent Residential Unit
SFR - Single Family Residence
MFR - Multi Family Residence
AssessScenarios Rate per $1,000 Amended 31 Jul 8/1/01
Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment System
Credit for Retention / Detention Facilities
Property owners who provide retention/detention facilities that meet all current design
standards may receive a credit on the impervious area charge of the Port Ludlow
Drainage District Assessment. The Port Ludlow proposed assessment has a combination
of a gross area rate and an impervious area rate. To provide the credit, a separate zone
will be set up for properties meeting the requirements.
A fifty percent reduction on the impervious area (ERU) charge can be obtained for
approved retention / detention systems. To receive the reduction, the property owner
must submit a request for credit to the Port Ludlow Drainage District. The District will
review the application to assure that all current requirements are met for the system. The
reqztirements for the reduction of the impervious area charge are:
1. The permanent retention / detention system must meet all the requirements of the
current Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Stormwater Management Manual for
retention and detention systems, including design, operations, and maintenance,
2. The applicant will provide an agreement to maintain and operate the retention /
detention system according to WSDOE standards.
3. All permit requirements for the drainage system must be completed prior to granting
the reduction of the impervious area charge,
4. Certification of performed maintenance over the last year must be submitted each
year to receive the reduction of the impervious area charge,
After review and approval by the District commissioners, the parcel(s) covered by the
application will be placed in Zone 3 and receive a 50% reduction of the impervious area
(ERU) rate for the Port Ludlow Drainage District.
Separate Zone for five-acre Residential Tracts
The Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County finds that large single family
residential parcels (five-acre parcels) west of Osprey Ridge Drive receive less benefit
from the District than other properties in the District. The reduction of benefit is due to
the topography and drainage of the area. Parcels west of Osprey Ridge Drive generally
drain to the west and out of the Port Ludlow Drainage District.
Those single family residential parcels of five acres or more west of Osprey Ridge Drive
will be placed in Zone 2 and receive a 75% reduction to the gross area rate for the Port
Ludlow Drainage District.
DRAFT
Acreage
ACREAGE PIN LAST NAME
31.74 990603236 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
21.4 990100200 PORT LUDLOW MAINTENANCE
19.89 968600070 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
15.38 990400355 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
13.63 990400173 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
12.05 990602105 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
9.95 821093001 OLYMPIC RESORTS LLC
9.43 821171015 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
9.05 990500081 PORT LUDLOW MAINTENANCE
8.98 821085001 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
8.37 990404103 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
6.88 821162004 PORT LUDLOW MAINTENENCE
5.79 821175005 HANSEN
5.74 821171011 OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP, LLC
5.7 821085006 DENNY
5.69 821175001 DWYER
5.61 821085007 BARTLETT
5.46 821175004 STEPHENS
5.3 821085005 HILBERT
5.23 821085004 BARTLETT
5.12 821175003 PHINIZY
5.1 821085002 HALVORSON
5.09 990700088 PORT LUDLOW MAINTENANCE
5.05 821085003 OLYMPIC REAL ESTATE DEVLOP LLC
5.04 821175002 KYLE
3.87 968600067 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
ll~lllllll II · IIIIII llllllllll I · II Il II II·II llllll I ·II· II IIIIIII II·IIIII · II ·III I I · I I · I I · I IIII ·II· II· II ·IIIIIII lllllmll I~I
onday, July 23,2001 Page 1 of 42
ACREAGE PIN LAST NAME
3.63
3.28
3.17
2.63
2.6
2.52
2.33
2.21
2.13
2
1.58
1.34623014591942
1.26
1.24
1.09
0.995467548352847
0.99
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.89473037369433
0.81
0.81
0.792341023875115
0.771676414356634
0.75646203691747
0.731628787878788
0.713958745839073
821175006 PL COMM CHURCH OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF G
990600164 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
990400264 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
821172003 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
968600068 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
990400530 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
968600069 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
968600071 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
821084004 OLYMPIC WATER & SEWER INC
821093003 OLYMPIC WATER & SEWER INC
990900019 PORT LUDLOW MAINTENANCE
990400520 BAILEY III
821081031 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
821171014 ALBERT LOOMIS IV
968600003 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
990100005 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
821092002 JEFFERSON CO FIRE DISTRICT #3
821171007 A & I PROPERTIES
821171008 AMERICAN MARINE BANK, PORT LUDLOW BRA
968600001 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
990100004 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
968600008 DELAWARE LTD PARTNERSHIP
821171003 HILBERT
990100014 DERR G TRUSTEE
990100021 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
990100008 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
990100002 BALDWIN
990100015 POPE RESOURCES, DELAWARE LTD PARTNE
[~~~~~~~~~~~~[`~#~[
onday, July 23,'20~ wage z oT 4~