Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072301District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tittemess County Administrator: Charles Saddler District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney, CMC MINUTES Week of July 23, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford at the appointed time. Commissioners Dan Titterness and Richard Wojt were both present. APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of July 16, 2001 as submitted. Commissioner Tittemess seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator asked the Board if the Puget Sound Blood Bank could use the Lower Level Conference Room for a blood drive on August 3,2001 instead of bringing a mobile unit? The Board agreed that the blood drive could be held in the Courthouse. County Administrator Charles Saddler reported on the issues discussed at the National Association of Counties conference that he attended. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There was an inquiry about whether a hearing has been scheduled for the Board to discuss the removal of a Weed Board member. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Tittemess moved to delete Item 6 and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Classifying Approximately Two (2) Acres as Open Space for Current Use Assessment, #CUA01-0001; Linda Lou Marshall, Applicant 2. AGREEMENT re: Fiscal Agent and Administrative Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse Program and the Jefferson Community Network 3. AGREEMENT re: Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Jefferson Community Network; Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development - Office of Community Development P~el Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 AGREEMENT re: Provision of Developmental Disabilities Education and Therapeutic Services to Families and Children Age Birth to Three Residing in South Jefferson County; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Concerned Citizens AGREEMENT, Supplement No. 3 re: Funding for the Irondale Road Improvement Project #CR1107; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation DELETE Accept Recommendation Not to Award Paving Recycle Drop-Off Area Project #SW1530; Jefferson County Public Works Accept Resignation of Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee Member; Deborah Siefert Letter Regarding Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN) Structure to Address Mental Health Issues in the Three County Region; Anders Edgerton, Kitsap County, PRSN Board of Directors BID OPENING re: One (1) New Hydraulic Lift System: Aubrey Palmer, Operations Manager at Public Works, opened and read the bid received as follows: Cascade Container, Ridgefield, WA $17,996.48 Engineer' s Estimate $18,000.00 Commissioner Wojt moved to direct staff to review the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BID OPENING re: Two (2) New Self Contained Solid Waste Packers: Aubrey Palmer opened and read the bids received as follows: KBG Holdings, Inc. Auburn Solid Waste Systems, Inc., Spokane Cash Flow Equipment, Seattle Option 1 $35,347.86 Option 2 $40,092.43 Option 3 $44,261.37 No Bid Option 1, 1 Yard $42,210.98 Option 2, 2 Yard $34,509.30 Commissioner Titterness moved to direct staff to review the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion and Possible Adoption re: 2002 Budget Goals and Objectives: County Administrator Charles Saddler advised that every year the Board adopts a resolution to guide Departments in their annual budget submissions. Deputy County Administrator Gary Rowe reviewed the draft resolution. · The items regarding 1-695 were removed because it is no longer in effect. · Items 1 and 4 are the same as last year with one bullet removed that was redundant. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 The program budget narratives need to indicate if a program can be referenced to the Strategic Plan. Charles Saddler will revise the format of the documents that go to the Departments to reflect this change. The budget call will go out to the Departments on July 24. Distribution of the Strategic Plan will follow soon afterwards. After extensive discussion, Commissioner Titterness said that he would like to see a goal of a 0% property tax increase (plus new construction) written into the 2002 budget resolution. Chairman Huntingford stated that the issue of the reserve funds and the diversion of road funds need to be reviewed before making this commitment. If, after their review, the Board finds this is a reasonable goal, he is willing to support this action. The Board concurred that staff revise the budget goals and objectives and bring the resolution back for their consideration. HEARING re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket: A1 Scalf, Director of Community Development, advised that this hearing is on the final docket for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 2001. Randy Kline, Associate Planner, reported that the suggested amendments and site specific amendments were the subject of a Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission recommended 5 amendments for inclusion in the final docket and 1 item (Durgan MLA01-00216 Chimacum Crossroads) for next year's docket. Staff agreed with the Planning Commission amendments except for MLA 01-233 proposed by Craig Jones regarding forest land buffering. At the meeting when the Board considered the Planning Commission recommendation, the Board chose not to adopt the recommendation as presented. As a result of this action, the Board is required to hold a public hearing to determine the final docket. Commissioner Wojt asked about the Durgan amendment. Al Scalf advised that the Board needs to consider the Superior Court decision that all land use designation boundaries in the County are interim subject to the results of the Special Study. The Durgan amendment would create a new land use designation at Chimacum and the Planning Commission determined that it would be more appropriate for next year's docket because the Special Study will be complete. Commissioner Wojt explained that his concerns are about the Durgan amendment on multi-family housing. Charles Saddler advised that he feels these issues overlap. Until the Special Study is completed, there are questions about expanding the land uses that are allowed within the boundaries. Commissioner Titterness added that, in his opinion, multi-family housing is generally considered affordable housing. He realizes that multi-family is more intense use, but he feels that the Board has the authority to decide about these changes. Randy Kline advised that whatever is included on the final docket can be adjusted by the County if needed. Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. Linda Marshall, 961 Chimacum Road, Chimacum, stated that once the UGA boundaries are defined, multi- Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 family housing should be located within those boundaries because infrastructure costs will be lower. There is no reason to work on this amendment until after the UGAs have been defined. She asked that the building cap size at the Glen Cove area be removed. At a Planning Commission meeting it was said that lot coverage at Glen Cove could be increased up to 60% if stormwater runoff was handled by engineered underground systems. This does not address aquifer recharge. Studies need to be done first to identify the recharge areas and insure adequate protection of groundwater. Craig Jones, 140 Highland Drive, Port Ludlow, spoke about the forest land buffer proposed in Amendment MLA 01-233. A forest land transition overlay would be created to relieve the incompatibility issue between small residential lots abutting large scale commercial forest land. Within the overlay a designated, limited number of transition acres could be subdivided for residential use. If a property qualifies within the forest land transition overlay, the property owner would have to meet all the subdivision requirements in the UDC. In addition, they would be required to convert their lands from timber land to ad valorem tax land when the subdivision is approved. This buffer zone will benefit the timberland owners and the small lot owners; it will enhance aesthetics, create additional tax revenue, and reduce the amount of overall staff time currently required to address these issues. There was a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission to docket this amendment. Green Crow, a commercial timberland owner, asked that he convey their support of this proposal also. Staff' s main concern against docketing this amendment seems to be timing and staff availability. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the stakeholders group that originally drafted the forest land ordinance would have to be reconvened in order to make any changes. He is willing to draft the language and the overlay in order to reduce staff time in the process. If the stakeholders can come to agreement this year, the amendment could go forward. If it takes more time to reach a consensus, it could be put on next year's docket. He is willing to commit resources to work with the County staff and stakeholders to accomplish this change. He feels that there is a reasonable window of opportunity to reach a suitable arrangement during the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Tom McNerny, 354 Point Whitney Road in Brinnon, Chair of the Planning Commission, stated that he was out of town when the Planning Commission held their hearing on this issue. He reiterated that the Planning Commission unanimously supported putting the forest land buffer amendment on the docket, but did not necessarily support the amendment. In his review of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a requirement that a stakeholders group be assembled and review this subject to come up with a recommendation. The timber industry has requested this for several years. Procedurally, he feels that it is important that the County put this amendment on the docket and convene the stakeholders meeting. It really isn't up to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation, it is up to the stakeholders group. He feels that putting this amendment on the docket and having the stakeholders group reconvene is delaying it in one sense, but it is following the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. This could be a win-win situation for everyone. Hearing no further public comment for or against the final docket, the Chair closed the public hearing. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that if the stakeholders group reconvened and reached consensus on this Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 issue, it may be possible to address it as a UDC amendment instead of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He feels this is more of a zoning amendment and it might be better to send it that route. He asked staff to research and find out if this is possible. Commissioner Titterness agreed that this needs to be addressed and not put off. He wants the amendment docketed, but he doesn't see a clear method on how the stakeholder group gets established. Chairman Huntingford added that there may be other issues that aren't clear at this point, but he also feels that it is important to have this amendment on the docket. Tom McNerny asked if the amendment can be modified after it is docketed? Randy Kline indicated that is correct. Commissioner Titterness brought up the multi-family housing issue for discussion. He asked if the Superior Court decision on land use designation boundaries includes the uses within the boundaries? Chairman Huntingford asked for more information before a decision is made on this amendment. Charles Saddler advised that the Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney is out of town and this needs to be done by August 1 to keep on schedule. Randy Kline advised that it could be placed on the final docket and then removed if the Prosecuting Attorney advises. Commissioner Titterness reiterated that the Board can make a decision to docket the 5 amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission with the caveat that MLA 01-215 may be pulled later. A1 Scalf advised that when the Board determines the final docket, the docket will be submitted to the Planning Commission for a hearing, and then a Planning Commission recommendation on the amendments will come back to Board. Commissioner Titterness asked if the Planning Commission recommendation to docket MLA 01-216 in 2002 needs discussion at this time? Charles Saddler pointed out that the Board may not want to set a precedent of docketing amendments a year in advance and suggested that it be tabled. Chairman Huntingford stated that he feels it is clear that MLA 01-216 cannot be addressed until the Special Study is completed. Commissioner Wojt added that he feels MLA 01-215 falls into the same category. Commissioner Titterness advised that he wants a legal opinion on MLA 01-215; and if the Prosecuting Attorney advises that it needs to be pulled for the same reason that MLA 01-216 is being delayed, it can be removed. Commissioner Wojt said that he doesn't feel MLA 01-233 can be done in a timely manner because of the logistics of reconvening the stakeholders group. He feels that it will cost money and take too much staff time. Chairman Huntingford stated that he wants to leave MLA 01-233 on the final docket to determine the time frame and the costs that would be involved. He feels it is important to make some sort of forward progress on this amendment application. Commissioner Titterness concurred. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 Commissioner Titterness moved to docket MLA 01-215, MLA 01-217, MLA 01-221, MLA 01-225 and MLA 01-233. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion and called for a vote. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business. The meeting was reconvened on Tuesday evening at the Port Ludlow Beach Club. All three Commissioners were present. HEARING re: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System: Chairman Huntingford explained the procedures for the workshop and the hearing. He introduced the County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Board. The following people were also introduced: Barry Baker and Mike Jauhola with Gray & Osborne Consulting Engineers, Jim Pearson, Project Manager from the Public Works Department, and the Drainage District Commissioners: Walt Cairns, Bill Wilke, and Richard Regan and their Clerk Olga Wilson. There were approximately 35 people present. Jim Pearson explained that the Drainage District was formed according to the RCW. The process requires that the County Commissioners adopt an assessment formula that will be forwarded to the Drainage District Commissioners for setting assessments to fund the District operations. This formula doesn't set a budget level. The Drainage District Commissioners will set their budget this fall and decide the amount for an individual assessment. This hearing is to take testimony on a draft system of assessments that the consultants and the Public Works Department have developed. Barry Baker explained that Gray & Osborne was hired to help with different methodologies to meet requirements of the RCW and the needs of the Drainage District. First a Surface Water Management Plan must be prepared. A Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant has been secured by the Drainage District Commissioners to fund the plan. There will be revenue needs once the Plan is completed and the actual improvement projects are begun. Funds are needed to operate, maintain, and restore drainage facilities to an adequate level of service. There may be planned capital improvements. The value of a property has nothing to do with this assessment. The assessment is based on some other criteria such as flat fees, amount of impervious area, or gross area. It can be determined by benefit or use. There can be zones, surcharges or credits. Impervious areas are places where the water cannot infiltrate into the soil such as driveways, patios, houses or swimming pools. They have made estimates of impervious surfaces for single family dwelling units based on aerial photos and the average is approximately 3,000 square feet. There is also multi-family housing in the Drainage District that would be assessed differently. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 Use charges are water quality based and the funds generated for use can only be used for water quality improvements. There aren't any State documented water quality problems in the area and therefore, the Drainage District Commissioners have chosen not to look at water quality at this time. The RCW requires that the assessment assumes that they have to collect for a budget of $1,000. When the budget is set in the fall, that rate is multiplied by $1,000. For example, an assessment of $ .85 per $1,000 with a budget of $100,000 would be $85. The data collected by the consultants came from the County. Businesses or commercial properties were physically measured. The total acreage within the Drainage District is 611 acres and the total impervious commercial area is just over 1,000,0000 square feet. · 189 acres are vacant lots · 561 houses on 203 acres are single family residential · 18 acres are multi-family residential with 134 units · 59 acres are commercial · 142 acres are reserve or park land · There are 1,168 parcels. There are several options in choosing an assessment methodology. A flat rate could be charged per parcel no matter how the property is being used. Barry Baker reiterated that it is not tied to the property's value, the flat rate is tied to the revenue needs. If the gross area rate is used, the total number of acres is divided by the total revenue amount and that number is then multiplied by the number of acres in the parcel. The total impervious area is 3,091,000 square feet. This includes: · all single family residences multiplied by 3,000 · all multi-family residences multiplied by 2,250 · plus all the commercial impervious area · Vacant lots and reserve lands with no impervious areas would not be assessed. There is also a combined charge option, which would apply 40% of the gross area amount and 60% of the impervious area amount. When all of these options were presented to the Drainage District Commissioners, they chose the combined charge assessment revised to 35% of the gross area amount and 65% of the impervious area amount. This is the option that was mailed to the property owners with the hearing notice. He handed out an information sheet showing several scenarios. The goal is to find what is fair and equitable. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 The Chair asked if there are any questions? · Is there any idea what the budget is going to be this year? Barry Baker replied that the estimate is between $60,000 to $100,000. The Drainage District received a "start-up" loan from the County for $44,000 for the election, staff time, insurance, etc. that needs to be repaid. The Centennial Clean Water Loan Fund grant will be a plus. · Within the assessment methodology, what percentage is Zone 1 if Zone 0 and Zone 2 are 25%? Barry Baker replied that Zone 1 would be at 100% of the gross area. · During the presentation, it was mentioned that the rate could be based on the impact on the stormwater drainage system. The County requires a stormwater plan on a 5 acre parcel and that the runoff be controlled on the property. Barry Baker answered that in the RCW there are provisions for giving credit for improvements to storm drainage on an individual parcel. The credit concept wasn't included in the scenario information because it was not brought to their attention until the last meeting. · Recent construction has created more runoff on adjacent properties because of the "gravity fed system" that is currently in place. Why should property owners be required to pay for problems created by others? What about credits and debits? Barry Baker replied that the Surface Water Management Plan will indicate areas where there are problems. This is another situation that was not brought up until recently and was not included in the scenarios; but it can be included. · Many property owners have spent their own money to deal with the drainage on their property. What benefits will they receive? Barry Baker answered that everyone in the Drainage District will receive a study of where the problems are, an operation and maintenance budget and some means of going about capital facilities planning to fix the problems. · Will areas that already have drainage systems in place receive credits? Barry Baker replied that legally, this can be done but it has not been addressed in this particular assessment. He explained that the drainage systems that are in place will need to be evaluated. · What if a property owner has 2 parcels and the house is in a location that prohibits the building of another house? Barry Baker explained that on the Assessor's rolls, it would show that one parcel is vacant and one has improvements. There would be one charge for the total gross acreage of both lots and the single family residence. · It seems that the research that has been done to this point is not complete. Barry Baker answered that it won't be complete until the Plan is completed. · The roads are impervious areas, how are they being assessed? Jim Pearson stated that when the County was petitioned to consider forming the Drainage District, the petitioners specifically exempted the County road rights-of-way. The County will not pay an assessment but will continue to maintain the roads and the drainage structures on the roads. · What is the timeline for setting up the Plan and deciding what is excluded or included? Barry Baker replied that the review needs to be done during the winter, with flow meters and rainfall gauges installed. It will take about 18 months to 2 years. · Are all the roads in Port Ludlow County roads? Walt Cairns answered that all the paved roads are County roads. There may be some private lanes that aren't paved. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 The County roads create run-off that goes into the gravity fed system that is in place. Does the County have to be excluded from the assessment? Walt Cairns explained that if the County agreed to be assessed, it would have to petition to the Drainage District Commissioners to be annexed to the District. The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. Charles Wright, 52 Jackson Lane, President of the Board of Trustees for the LMC Commission, read a letter into the record. (See microfilmed document.) He also thanked the Drainage District Commissioners and their assistant. Greg McCarry, 2 Heron Road, stated that he is very supportive of the Drainage District. The stormwater issues need attention. Density is different in Port Ludlow than in other areas in the County. He hopes that in the future more areas of Port Ludlow will be annexed into the District. There are different classes of users in the District. There are stricter standards in place in the South Bay area. There are property owners in Port Ludlow 7 that are currently paying for stormwater management, that will be also be assessed under this new system. Any development can increase stormwater runoff that effects neighboring properties all the way down to the bay. It is not equitable to assess large parcels of vacant land the same as parcels with buildings. The definition of undeveloped reserve areas isn't clear. Shouldn't open space areas owned by land owners be assessed similarly? These are just ideas for consideration. In the building permit process, if there is no stormwater management system for the subdivision, there is a requirement to do onsite retention. If there is a Drainage District in place, this would not be necessary. The older drainage systems may need to be updated before the District assumes responsibility. Bruce Halvorson., Lot 2, Division 6, stated that he was surprised to find that he will be assessed 5 times as much as other property owners because he owns 5 acres. Apparently, the people who own the 5 acre lots did not give input during the process when the assessment methodology was discussed. He wasn't that concerned at the time because the Village Voice had implied that it would only amount to about $65 per lot. It was not clear that the larger the lot the more the assessment. There is no way that the properties west of Osprey Ridge can contribute to stormwater run off problems in the North Bay area. These properties will not receive any benefits from the improvements. There are 12 property owners that have 5 acre parcels in this area and they feel they should be assessed the same amount that the rest of the community pays. This would be a fair solution. A flat rate for everyone makes more sense. In researching other communities that have Drainage Districts, it appears that the majority of them use a flat rate. Ron Gregory, 22 McCurdy Lane, stated that he owns 2 lots. He is concerned that the assessment be fair and equitable. As a builder in the community, he has seen the rules change regarding stormwater management over the last several years. A stormwater management plan is now required as part of the building permit process. He is supportive of the creation of the Drainage District. However, it's difficult for property owners to approve an assessment methodology when they don't know the budget amount. They should know Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 that amount up front. He has concerns about the cost for administration and the high cost for consultants. He thinks the reserve lands need to be assessed. Basically, the assessment should be a user fee. Inga Bartlett, Lots 4 and 7, stated that the budget needs to be in place before the assessment method is decided. Her research has shown that 90% of other drainage districts use a flat fee. She sympathizes with the people who have serious run off problems because of development above them, and she realizes that everyone in the community needs to participate. They will contribute like everyone else, but the 5 acre lots should not have to contribute more than the smaller lots. A flat fee makes sense. Howard Morse, 30 Montgomery Court, stated that he lives in the "water zone" where all the run off occurs. He has been accused of benefitting more than others because he has serious problems from the water that is dumped on his property from the top of the hill. There are specific areas that carry most of the water. The green belts are a problem and they should not be excluded. The properties managed by the LMC should be included in the assessment. Charles Baldwin, 22 Wells Ridge Court, Division 7, stated that property owners in this Division have been paying for their own drainage system since it was established. They should get some kind of credit. There are approximately 20 lots. When a lot is purchased, there is an initial assessment fee and after that, the lot owner pays $120 a year. Melissa Denny, 433 Osprey Ridge, explained that she is new to the area. They bought 5 acres for their horses and there is a drainage ditch on the property to keep the pasture dry. She wants to live here because it is a nice community. If there is a drainage problem, she feels they should pay their fair share to fix it. She doesn't want to pay 5 times that amount because they have 5 acres. She supports a flat fee, or a fee that is based on impermeable surfaces. Michael Cahn., 104 Wells Ridge Court, stated that he is in favor of forming the Drainage District because a lot of people have had problems. He has 1 house on 1 lot. The District was formed to help the community as a whole. Some of the discussions at the Drainage District Commissioners' meetings led him to believe that the County would be assessed for the impervious areas they own in the District. If there is run off from the roads onto the green belt and then onto private property, he thinks the County needs to take responsibility and help with the problem. He agrees that a 5 acre lot needs some special consideration. He also agrees that there needs to be credit for having a water drainage system already in place. Ralph Thomas, said that he attended some of the Drainage District meetings and he feels the County needs to help with the assessment because of the impervious area of the County roads. Currently, the area covered by the Drainage District is only half built out; but some day there will be twice as much impervious surface. There is only an operations budget right now, but next year there will be an engineering study, and after that funding will be needed to make repairs and improvements. There needs to be a system with credits and surcharges and a system of zones. An appeal process needs to be established. The Drainage District Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 Commissioners have publicly stated that they will not be doing this job next year. That means there will be all new Commissioners. It is important to establish an assessment that everyone can live with. Charles Wright, stated that making the open spaces responsible for payment would reduce the amount that others would pay. Those properties that are presently not improved will benefit from the improved drainage. Bert Loomis., Oak Bay Road, thanked everyone for their efforts regarding the establishment of the Drainage District. He supports the community. He feels that the consultants and staff need to make sure their information is accurate. Not all green belts and buffers are treated the same way. When stormwater improvements are made by a property owner, they should get some sort of credit. Lee Amundson, 32 Navigator Lane, feels that the consultants should have done a little more homework. Someone with a 1,200 square foot house shouldn't have to pay the same assessment as someone with a 4,000 square foot house. That's not equality. They could look at the tax records to find the square footage of the improvements. The people who live in the areas with the worst problems should pay more. Jean Fuller, stated that they have put in eight drains on their property to protect their house and take care of the drainage problem from the street. They have put in sumps and ditches. She wants to know what the budget will be before the assessment is established. Are the new owners of Port Ludlow going to pay anything? She added that it was her understanding that the meeting would start at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Huntingford explained that the hearing notice in the newspaper explained that there would be a workshop starting at 7 p.m. and the hearing would start at 7:30 p.m. Madelyn Crull, 472 Montgomery Lane, said she bought a lot in Port Ludlow because it is a beautiful place. Most people here enjoy being near the water and the beach. The green belts belong to everyone. They absorb water and help prevent soil erosion. Commercial areas provide necessary services. Everyone has special circumstances, but it is important to work together as a community. Walt Cairns., Drainage District Commissioner, explained that in Port Ludlow there are approximately 90 multi-lot owners and about 15 of these people own 3 or more lots. They have all been assessed in a manner that is consistent with having 1 lot and 1 house. It is important to consider this when attempting to equate a 5 acre tract to a lot. Early on, it was obvious that Division 7 needed to be handled differently because they are already being assessed for their stormwater system and they shouldn't be assessed double. He will discuss the Drainage District taking over their system at the next Commissioners meeting. He reminded people that the purpose of this hearing is to approve or reject the assessment methodology. Joe Garcy, 657 Rainier Lane, Division 7, said that he wants to have the Drainage District take over their drainage system. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 23, 2001 Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Friday, July 27. Chairman Huntingford asked if it would be possible to change the assessment once they receive the funding and have started to do the work? Could they do this if they find that one area needs to pay more than another? Jim Pearson replied that the assessment system is the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners and the RCW requires that it be reviewed every 4 years. It could be reviewed and changed more frequently. Chairman Huntingford reiterated that in order to change the assessment formula again, this same process would be required. He said the County Commissioners plan to discuss the County roads and credits and surcharges. Commissioner Tittemess thanked everyone for coming to the hearing and giving testimony. MEET1NG ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Loma Delsey, CMC M Wojt, Clerk of~e Bo~d Page 12 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? ~-'~-' ~ YES ~NO MAYBE T '~ z~ / / ' I, ~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST -IEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System =DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE , BBS BBB BBB JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST . HEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System )ATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE , DDD DDD DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST -IEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE , DDD DDD DDD DDD -' DDD DDD DDD DDD .... DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District #4 Proposed Assessment System DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE Letter to the Jefferson County Commissioners regarding the proposed Port Ludlow Drainage District rate structure Re: Notice from the Port Ludlow Drainage District Committee of 25 June 2001 We own one of the 5 acre, smgle-family parcels within the North Port Ludlow area and wish to make it known to you that we feel that the proposed rate structure is logically incorrect and unfairly taxes the few large parcels within the District. We understand that there ~s a need to control the ecological effects of excess runoff water, however, the funding approach taken by the District puts a disproportionate amount of the financial burden on the owners of the larger pieces of land. The assessment for our land is $4.25 per thousand. Once we have built a house on the property, we would be assessed an additional $.63 per thousand This bnngs us to a total of $4.88 per thousand. A house on a one third acre lot would be assessed at a rate of about $.88 per thousand. We would be paying more than 5 times the amount paid by the owners of other single-family residences; but we would not be causing 5 times the amount of runoff We purchased our property in order to establish a horse farm. We have cleared most of the alder trees and brush off of our property to plant pasture. We have worked with Jerry Smith, Jefferson County Community Development and Kenneth P Fuhrer, licensed engineer from Map Ltd., to design a Large Parcel Erosion Control Plan. In our Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Mr. Fuhrer stated that, "No increase in surface water runoff is expected to be discharged from the subject property." flour 5.7 acre piece had been divided into quarter acre lots, there could have been over 20 houses in the same space. Each house would generate at least 3000 square feet of impermeable surfaces. That comes to 60,000 square feet of impermeable surfaces plus the added roads Instead we are keeping the land in one parcel and building one single-family residence. We are, in a sense, providing green space and helping to decrease the density of housing. Our amount of impermeable surfaces will be comparable to the other single-family residences in the are~, close to 3000 square feet as stated by the Drainage District. The assessment, as it now stands, makes the assumption that large parcels will generate more stormwater runoff. However, large open spaces, whether wooded or in pasture, serve to absorb the storm water runoff. Keeping land m large vegffmted parcels that can absorb water is one way to help cure the stormwater problem. The tax on land area ignores this beneficial aspect of maintaining large parcels. We feel that the rate structure should be based on the property's impermeable surfaces because those are the surfaces that cause the problem. The charge for roadways and community property should be distributed among the landowners. Sincerely, Gerald and Melissa 1X~uny ~ 060) 7794536 A Pope Resources Company July 24, 2001 Honorable County Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed assessments for the Port Ludlow Drainage District. We are very supportive of the formation and implementation of the District, but feel the assessment methodology needs modification in order to be equitable. Area Assessment Impacts to drainage systems occur when properties are developed and impervious surfaces have been created. The idea of assessing vacant, undeveloped, forested properties is questionable, as they have not impacted downstream storm systems. The properties can be assessed once development has taken place and impervious surfaces created. Undeveloped Reserve Areas The language regarding undeveloped reserve areas is somewhat ambiguous. Would it apply to all reserve areas in all developments (such as Port Ludlow 7)? Also, if undeveloped vacant land (owned by individuals) is to be assessed, 'then it seems that the undeveloped reserve areas of the various North Bay properties should be assessed as well, otherwise land owners that are not in some kind of association will be picking up a disproportionate burden. Existing Developments with Modern and/or Maintained Storm Water Systems The initial motivation for forming the District was in response to drainage problems in the older portions of Port Ludlow that were developed before modem storm water systems were required. The proposed assessment strategy needs to differentiate between older and newer developments. There are several areas (such as Port Ludlow 7) that were recently developed with storm drainage systems that conform to the DOE Storm Water Manual. '19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast. P.O. Box 1780, Poutsbo, Washington 9837~0239 (360 697-6626. Seattle: (206~ 292 0517. Fax: (360 697-1156 · The downstream impacts from these areas are much less than the impacts from the older portions of the District. · The homeowner associations for these newer developments already provide much of the maintenance for these sophisticated systems. One way to deal with this strategy would be as follows: · Bring all the older drainage systems up to a modem standard through the use o f a special capital assessment that applies only to those areas. · Once the old facilities have been modemized, take over the maintenance responsibilities of the homeowner associations and charge a uniform rate for ongoing upkeep and maintenance. Comparison to Other Districts We have included an exhibit that compares the rate structures of different municipalities. We strongly recommend that methodology utilized by the other municipalities be compared to your current proposed assessment structure in order to devise the most equitable solution. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me at 437-2101 ify0u wish to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, Olympic Property Group LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION July 23, 2001 Jefferson County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject: Proposed Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment Ordinance Gentlemen: Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) is the incorporated homeowners' association representing the interests of' 1072 property owners in the North Bay area of Port Ludlow. LMC submitted the original petition that called upon the County Commissioners to conduct an election to create the Port Ludlow Drainage District and actively worked for its successful passage. At their Ju y 21, 2001 meeting, the LMC Board of Trustees decided ]to request the Jefferson County Commissioners, at their public hearing, to carefully listen to all testimony given by LMC members. We ask that you be open to any concerns they have, to be considerate of unusual circumstances and look for ways to compromise, if appropriate. On behalf of all our members, I thank you for the opportunity to come befor, e~you at this hearing. Sincerely, Charles R. Wright, President Ludlow Maintenance Commission POST OFFICE BOX 65060 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTION OF AN ORDIN,~U~iCE ESTABLISHING AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR THE PORT LUDLOW DRAINAGE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing to take testimony ii'om all affected persons in favor of or against an ordinance establishing an Assessment System for the Port Ludlow Drainage District, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 85.38 Revised Code of Washington. The hearing will be held on Tuesday July 24. 2001 at 7:30 PM at the Port Ludlow Beach Club, 121 Marina View Drive in Port Ludlow. Washington At 7:00 PM prior to the hearing, there will be a workshop on the Assessment System. The following is a summary of the Ordinance: Section 1. Purpose And Scope: The Ordinance establishes a system to set Port Ludlow Drainage District assessments. Section 2. AuthoriW The Ordinance is adopted pursuant to RCW 85.38 Section 3. Assessment System: The Assessment System is intended to create a fair and equitable rate structure for the Port Ludlow Drainage District. The actual assessment levied will be set by the District Commissioners through the District budget. The Assessment System is specified in Appendix 1. Section 4 Ordinance Review The Assessment System shall be reviewed and finalized by the County Commissioners every four years. Section 5. Severability: If any portion of the ordinance is ruled to be invalid, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected. Effective Date: The ordinance shall become effective 21 days after adoption Appendix 1. Assessment System The Assessment System is based on a formula that apportions 35% of the assessment to the total area of the District and 65% of the assessment to the total area of impervious surface in the District. Each parcel is then assessed based on ~ts proportion of the total area and its proportion of the total ~mperv~ous surface. There is one ~mpervtous area assessment for all single-family residences based on an average impervious area of 3.000 square feet per residence. Undeveloped parcels ~n permanent open space are exempt from the Assessment System. Copies of the Ordinance can be obtained from the Jefferson County Public Works Department. Second Floor U.S. Post Office Building, 1322 Washington Street. P.O. Box 2070. Port Townsend. WA 98368. Written comments will be accepted until 4:30 PM on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Office. Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street. P.O. Box 1220. Port Townsend. WA 98368. Written comments may also be submitted at the public hearing. ~-len Huntingford,'Chair~/' / Date Jefferson County Boarffof Commissioners STATE OF WAS Hi'N'GTON COU~'TY OF JEFFERSON In the matter of ) An Ordinance Establishing An Assessment System ) For the Port Ludlow Drainage District ) No. WHEREAS. the Port Ludlow Drainage District was established under the procedures set forth in Chapter 85.38 Revised Code of Washington (RCW3: and WHEREAS, RCW 85.38 specifies the method by which Drainage Districts measure and impose assessments; and WHEREAS. RCW 85.38 specifies that the County Engineer shall prepare a preliminary Drainage District assessment system for review by the Board of County Commissioners in a public hearing; and WHEREAS, RCW 85.38 specifies that notice of the public heating shall be made by publishing a notice in a newspaper of record and by mailing a notice to all District property owners; and WHEREAS, RCW 85.38 specifies that the Board of County Commissioners shall adopt an ordinance finalizing the assessment system; and WHEREAS, the County Engineer has prepared a preliminary Drainage District assessment system; and WHEREAS, appropriate notices of the public heating were made as per the requirements of RCW 85.38; and WHEREAS, the Board of Cotmty Commissioners held a public hearing on July 24, 2001 to take testimony on the preliminary Drainage District assessment system; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED, SECTION I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish an Assessment System to be used by the Port Ludlow Drainage District to set District assessments. SECTION 2. AUTHORITY This Ordinance is adopted under the authority conferred on Jefferson County by Chapter 85.38 Revised Code of Washington. [RAFT SECTION 3. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: The Assessment System is intended to create a fair and equitable rate structure for the Port Ludlow Drainage District. The actual assessment levied on all propemes within the District will be set bv the Port Ludlow Drainage District Commissioners through the adoption of the District budget. The Assessment System shall be as specified in Appendix 1 of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. ORDINANCE REVIEW The Assessment System shall be revie~ved and finalized by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners at least once every four years as provided for in Chapter 85.38 Revised Code of Washington. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or figure of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective twenty-one (21) days after adoption by the Board of County Conxmiss~oners. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 2001. DAY OF BOARD OF COU2q'TY COMMISSIONERS Glen Huntingford, Chair SEAL: ATTEST: Dan Titterness, Member Richard Wojt, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lorna L. Delaney Clerk of the Board Juelanne Dalzell Prosecuting Attorney Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment System Ordinance Appendix 1: Assessment System Calculation Method As provided for in Chapter $5.38 Revised Code of Washington, the Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment System is designed to generate $1,000 tn revenue for the District. The Assessment System determines the amount that each parcel within the District will be assessed per $1,000 of District revenue. The District Commissioners will determine the total annual District assessment and the total amount assessed on each individual parcel through the adoption of the annual District budget. If, as an example, the District budget were set at $70,000, the actual assessment on any parcel would be the amount assigned in the Assessment System multiplied by 70. The Assessment System is based on a combination of two assessments. The first is an assessment on the parcel's acreage in proportion to the total acreage within the District. The second is an assessment on the parcel's impervious surface area in proportion to the total impervious surface area within the District. 35% of the assessment, or $350.00 of the $1,000, is assigned to the land area within the District. There are approximately 611 acres in the District. Approximately 142 acres are in undeveloped reserve areas that are exempt from assessment. There are 469 acres in the District that are subject to assessment. The assessment per acre is $0.7461 per Sl.000 of District revenue. 65% of the assessment, or $650.00 of the $1,000, is assigned to the impervious surface area of the District. There are approximately 71 acres of impervious surface in the District. Based on a random sample of residences, a residence is assumed to have 3,000 square feet of impervious surface. 3,000 square feet of impervious surface is an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) of impervious surface. A multi family residence ts assig-ned 0.75 ERUs. There are 1.031 ERUs of impervious surface in the District. The assessment per ERU is $0.6307 per $1,000 of District revenue. The rates shown in this appendix have been rounded. The assessment database uses the actual data entered into the database, not the rounded rates shown in this example. Parcel Assessment Formula per $1,000 of District Revenue A parcel's assessment per $1,000 of District revenue ~s based on the parcel's area and the area of impervious surface measured in Equivalent Residential Units. Parcel Assessment = (area rate x parcel area) -,- (ERU rate x ERUs on the parcel) Parcel Assessment = ($0.7461 x parcel area) - ($0.6307 x ERUs on the parcel) Single Family Residence Parcel Assessment Formula per Sl.000 of District Revenue The assessment on a parcel with a single family residence (SFR) per $1,000 of District revenue is based on the area of the parcel and 3,000 square feet l1 ERU) of impervious surface. SFR Parcel Assessment = (area rate x area of parcel) + (ERU rate x 1 ERU) SFR Parcel Assessment = ($0.7461 x area of parcel) + (50.6307 x 1 ERU) ,.% PORT LUDLOW DRAINAGE DISTRICT I I I I I Port Ludlow Drainage District Jefferson County Relative impact from various rate methods Zone 0 ExcludedI I ERU (impervious Area) only, SFR, MFR] 0 9397 : 1 ERU (3000 sf) / 0 /00000 09397 ERU (Impervious Area) only, SFR = 1 [ 09703 ERU(3000sf), MFR=075ERU / (3 / 00000 0.9703 Gross Area 50%, ERU 50%, SFR, MFR[ 0 4699 =IERU(3000sf/ / 0 I 03684 61147 54318 Gross Area 50%, ERU 50%, SFR = 1 ! 04851 ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 0.75 ERU ~ (~~ 0.3684 6.1300 5.4308 Gross Area 35%, ERU 65%, SFR, MFR[' = 1 ERU (3000 sf/ ~ I 02579 45622 38023 0.6108 Gross Area 35%, ERU 65%, SFR = 1 I 0.6307 ERU (3000 5f), MFR = 0 75 ERU I (;] 0.2570 4582~ 3.8022 Gross Area 30%, ERU 70%, SFR, MFR = 1 ERU (3000 st) J £ ~ 0.2210 40447 325911 06578 Gross Area 30%, ERU 70%, SFR = 1 ERU (3000 sf}, MFR = 0.75 ERU [ (~[ 0.2210 4.0661 3.25911 0.6792 Gross Area 20%, ERU 80%, SFR Gross Area 20%. ERU 80%, SFR = 1 I 0.7762 ERU (3000 sfI, MFR = 075 ERU [ C[ Q1474 3.034(~ 2.1727' [Gross Area 10%, ERU 90%, SFR = 1' ~_~_U(3000S/,, MFR:IERU i C / 0.0737 19747 10864 08458 tGross Area 10%, ERU 90%, SFR = 1 I 0 8732 _RU(3000 sf~, MFR = 0 75 ERU C 0 IZ°n'Olncluded / .0.0737 2022 ,0864 IGr°ss Area °nly Ic/ 0.565§8.671483441 0.0000 [Gross Area 50%, ERU 50%, SFR, MFR IGross Area 50%, ERU 50%, SFR = 1 [ 0 4851 tERU (3000 sfl, MFR = 0 75 ERU ] £] 02829 4.8208 41721 [Gross Area 35%, ERU 65%, SFR, MFR I Gross Area 35%, ERU 65%, SFR = 1 I 06307 ]Gross Area 30%, ERU 70%, SFR, MFRI 0 6578 ]Gross Area 30%, ERU 70%, SFR = I I I ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 075 ERU I ( ! 0.1698 3.2806 2.5032 06792 Gross Area 20%, ERU 80%, SFR = 1 ERU (3000 sf), MFR = 1 ERU Gross Area 20%, ERU 80%, SFR = 1 -~RU (3000 sft, MFR = 0 75 ERU 3ross Area 10%, ERU 90%, SFR = 1 RU (3000 sf), MFR = 1 ERU ~roes Area 10%, ERU 90%, SFR = 1 ERU (3000 sf}, MFR = 075 ERU Zones 0 and 2 paying 25% of gross area charite ~'OSS Area only City Stormwater Rates , = ' r Agency 1996 data! Service Area !Customers SFR Monthly Rates Equivalent Service Unit Comments Town of Almira X City i 171 $15.43 City of Annacortes X I City I 5,199 I $1.50 $1.50/ESU City of Auburn X ! City i 7,873 I $5.50 2,600 sf City of Bainbridge Island X ; City I 5,700 I $3.07 ! . City of Bellevue X ! City i 23,293 $9.45 ',$1.08 fiat fee + $2.79/2000sfI City of Bellingham X City I X $400.00 One-time $400-3000sf imperv City of Black Diamond t X City j 600 I $0.50 City of Bothell Portion of City[ 6,364 $1.83 City of Bremerton X City I 10,023 $4.00 2,500 sf City of Buckley X City I 1,362 $3.00 City of Chehalis X I City i 2,635 $4.30 3,000 sf City of Colfax X I City i 1,130 ~ $1.50 City of Davenport I X City I 700 $12.50 City of Des Moines X City I 5,375 I $5.00 2,400 sf City of Duvall X City 1,102 $2.00 3,000 sf Town of Eatonville X City 839 $18.50 City of Everett X City 20,145 $3.75 City of Fircest X City 2,187 $5.00 Town of Fdday Harbor X City 707 $4.00 2,000 sf City of Gig Harbor X City 1,324 $3.60 2,200 sf City of Granite Falls X Portion of City 725 $1.00 City of Hoquium I City , 3,336 $2.00 , City of Issaquah X City t 3,422 $7.09 City of Kelso X City t 4,000 $3.00 City of Kent X City i 11,395 $3.81 2,500 sf Town of LaConner X City I 440 I $2.00 City of Lacey X City i 6,800 $5.50 City of Lake Forest Park City t $3.67 City of Langley X City I 430 $2.90 , City of Long Beach X City I 975 $3.75 3,400 sf City of Lynden X City I 2,700 $2.00 10,000 sf City of Lynnwood X City i 8,701 $2.50 2,900 sf City of Mercer Island I X City ! 7,183 $6.18 ! 3,471 sf City of Milton i X City I 1,522 $5.00 2,800 sf imperv. I City of Mount Vernon I X City ~. 6,000 $3.95 2,657 sf City of Uukilteo I X City i 4,500 $5.40 2,500 sf Mukilteo Water Dist. ! City i 4,105 ! $5.85 ~= 2,500 sf Town of Nespelem X Portion of City] 209 $6.50 City of Ocean Shores X City I 12,000 $3.26 City of Olympia X City i 12,250 $6.00 2,528 sf City of Omak X City i 1,636 $1.43 ... City of Port Townsend X City ! 3,376 $3.00 3,000 sf City of Poulsbo X City i 2,934 $5.00 City of Puyallup I X City 8,868 I $4.20 i 2,800 sf ~.ity of Redmond X Portion of City 9,510 I $6.00 City of Renton City ', 11,092 $4.93 .., City of Republic , X City i 469 $12.50 City of Seattle i X City j 180,000 $3.25 City of Shelton X City i 2,948 $5.00 City of Stanwood City I 1,025 $6.00 20,000 sf ~l'own of Steilacoom X City i 378 $7.00 2,500 sf 2,400 sf Per ESU City of Sumner i X I City ; 2,354 $8.93 i 500 sf = I billing unit City 0_f Tacoma [ X City ' 63,083 $11.44 City of Tukwila X City 4,922 $2.50 City of Tumwater X City ; 3,636 $4.95 I 3,250 sf City of Vancouver X City [ 20,000 $1.50 City of Wenatchee X Basin I 8,614 $1.76 3,000 sf '~own of Wilkeson Portion of City1 148 $2.00 g:~torm197sswmtdata~cltyrates.xls 2/2/98