Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020402MOO,/ District No. I Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board MINUTE S Week of February 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Dan Titterness were both present. After the Board's briefing session, they met in Executive Session from 8:30 to 9:15 a.m. with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Director of Community Development, and the Natural Resource Manager regarding actual litigation. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the County's work on the salt water intrusion issue on Marrowstone Island will anger residents on the island and will not be accepted by the Growth Management Hearings Board; staff needs to admit there is a problem with salt water intrusion and some wells, educate people using correct information to reduce the fear; recruit volunteers for initial monitoring, and allow the residents to take voluntary protective action; more education is needed rather than more regulation; rainwater collection may be a long range solution to this problem; the Puget Sound Energy maintenance staff is being reduced to two, one man crews which is not adequate to cover the needs of this area after a storm; and is the County working on the Big and Little Quilcene River erosion and build up problems? Juvenile Detention Services for 2002: Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith reported that Juvenile Services Administrator Barbara Johnson recommends that the juvenile detention contract be awarded to Kitsap County. Commissioner Titterness moved to accept the Kitsap County proposal and move forward with developing a contract. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item 5 and to adopt and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 10 -02 re: Temporary Restriction of Traffic on Irondale Road, County Road No. 933 507 Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 401- 64021 -047 Public Services Grant for Olympic Community Action Program (OlyCAP); Hearing Scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 10:05 a.m. in the County Commissioners' Chambers (This hearing was not scheduled per guidance from Kaaren Roe with the State OTED, CDBG Division.) 3. BID CALL re: Publication of County Legal Notices; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read at 10:05 a.m. on Monday, March 18, 2002 4. AGREEMENT re: Professional Survey Services for Chimacum Creek Beach Park Acquisition; Appraisal of a Portion of the Cotton Property in Irondale; Jefferson County Public Works; Clark Land Company 5. DELETE Agreement re: Engineering Services for Phase 1 of Sheriff /Dispatch/EOC Project #CC1543; Jefferson County Public Works; Northwest Territories Inc. (See item later in Minutes.) 6. AGREEMENT Amendment #1 re: 2001 -2003 Treatment and Prevention Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Alcohol & Substance Abuse (DASA) 7. AGREEMENT re: Provision of E -911 Dispatch Services for 2002; Fire Districts 41, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6, City of Port Townsend (Fire Department and Police Department) 8. AGREEMENT, EM03 -0144 re: Grant Funding to Provide FEMA State and Local Assistance to Local Jurisdictions that have Emergency Management Programs to Supplement their Operating Budgets; Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division 9. Memorandum of Understanding and Membership Agreement re: Membership of the WSAC Retrospective Rating Pool Program to Provide Workers Compensation Insurance through the Department of Labor and Industries; Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) 10. Re- appoint Individual to Serve a Three (3) Year Term on the Jefferson County Substance Abuse Services Advisory Board; Term Expires February 9, 2005; Sherry Kimbrough 11. Accept Resignation of Jefferson County Substance Abuse Services Advisory Board Member; John Dern, Jr. AGREEMENT re: Engineering Services for Phase I of Sheriff/Dispatch/EOC Project #CC1543; Jefferson County Public Works; Northwest Territories Inc.: (See Item 5 on the Consent Agenda.) After a discussion of the current data on the Sheriff's Office septic system and site, Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve this agreement as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Public Works re: Discussion of Non - Motorized Transportation Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; Review Draft 20 -Year and 6 -Year Project Lists and Funding Strategies: Jim Pearson, Public Works Department, advised that the survey results have been reviewed by the Parks Advisory Board and the Non - motorized Transportation Task Force and they have developed draft six -year and 20 -year project lists and funding strategies from the projects identified as priorities in the survey. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, explained that the recommendation for funding for the non - motorized projects used the following options: • Banked capacity of the County Road Fund property tax which would yield about $300,000. • SEPA impact fees for transportation (40% of value) that would yield approximately $300,000 over six years. The continuing trends on use of road funds and fuel, plus the use of grants of about $1.5 million, would mean approximately $7 million in total expenditures over the next six years. The difference would be made up with a bond. The bond value for an average house in the County would be approximately $30 per year for the 20 year period. The proposal recommends acquiring all the land for off road trails in the first six years and developing the key multipurpose and day hiking trails and sidewalks. In some cases the projects will have other funding partners. If the same funding strategies are used, almost $11 million can be generated over the 20 year period. The bulk of that money would be a pass through from the General Fund or a bond. Funding for the full project list of $18 million would require a bond to make up the difference which would be approximately $55 per house or other funding would have to be found. The Parks Board's priorities are estimated to cost $7.5 million, with $500,000 going for renovations and repairs. $2 million would be from a General Fund pass through with a substantial portion coming from grants, SEPA impact fees (40% of value), and the balance from a bond which would run about $25 per house. Commissioner Huntingford asked Tom Beckwith to explain what 40% of value means? He replied that the average value of all the parks assets on a single family house is $3,000 and 40% of that amount is the percentage that the survey respondents indicated they would be willing to pay as an impact fee. The key Parks projects would require acquisition of all lands. The major facilities include: picnic areas, boat launches, playgrounds, and upgrades of shared fields with the School Districts. The 20 -year list of projects would cost about $15 million to fund and the funding sources would include a bond of $25 per house. Tom Beckwith continued that any time impact fees for parks and recreation projects are imposed, the vicinity where the fee is imposed must receive the benefits. An issue that is frequently mentioned is how to determine a local facility and a regional facility because impact fees must be allocated to the local facilities. They also looked at the possibility of the local area supplementing these amounts by forming recreational service areas and how much funding that might generate. They estimated these amounts as follows: • Chimacum: between $250,000 and $450,000 in 6 years • Quilcene: between $50,000 and $250,000 • Brinnon: between $35,000 to $235,000 Commissioner Huntingford asked the basis for these figures? Tom Beckwith answered that 2,500 new residences are estimated in the unincorporated parts of the County over the next six years and they reviewed this proposed growth by subareas. Impact fees can only be used in the unincorporated areas of the County. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the area where these fees are imposed needs to benefit from them. Tom Beckwith advised that it depends on the type of facility that is being developed and whether it is a "local" (neighborhood benefit) or "regional" (countywide benefit) facility. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there was any discussion about tracking the money and paying it back if it isn't used? Tom Beckwith answered that it's easier to use these funds to acquire land or do an immediate facility that can be completed in a short period of time. Commissioner Huntingford advised that the bond amounts suggested don't seem like much, but when they are added to all the other taxes and bonds from other jurisdictions, the amounts add up. This is only one portion of what is charged to the taxpayers and the Commissioners have to balance all of these things. Dashly Graham stated that he is part of the task force that developed the plan. He feels the Trails Plan can be viewed as a blue print for economic growth in the County. He is an outspoken advocate of the Olympic Discovery Trail. He reviewed what Clallam County is doing for the Olympic Discovery Trail. There is grant money available for trails. Jefferson County needs to link up and create a greater recreational opportunity for citizens. Irene Rodgers, Parks Board Member, asked the Board to consider the recreational opportunities for the kids. There is a lack of recreational facilities in the South County and this needs to be addressed. The trail system in Port Townsend needs to extend out into the County and beyond the County. It would help increase tourism and money being spent in the County. She urged the Board to consider the quality of life for children and families who live here. Bob Henderson asked if the Board reviewed the maps that show the new trails? He asked if the development of these trails will start in the South County or near Port Townsend? The County needs to select where they want to start first. Commissioner Huntingford stated that people need to understand that he's not opposed to seeing the connection of the trails. In the budget process over the past few years, the County has had to look at curtailing programs for youth because of budget shortfalls. Where will the money come from for future maintenance of the parks and trails? The Board has to make the cuts and decisions and it's hard to add new things that aren't mandatory when programs are being cut. He feels this plan could encourage economic growth, but doesn't necessarily agree with charging impact fees to finance the plan. If this element of the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the County will have to determine an adequate level of service and how to pay for it. Tom Beckwith advised that the financing alternatives can be revised and adopted each year when the budget is reviewed. Jim Pearson explained that the next step in the process is to put together the final draft plan which will be brought back to the Board. Both of these plans (Non- motorized Plan and Parks Plan) are amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. When the Board is comfortable with the plans, they can go forward to the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / Commissioner Titterness noted that discussions regarding the acquisition of right -of -way for the Non - motorized Plan would be beneficial during the review of the Comprehensive Plan language. A broader use of the right -of -way to include partners such as utilities should be considered. Commissioner Huntingford asked how this work is tracking with the contracted amount for these services? Jim Pearson advised they are on budget for this work. Auditor Donna Eldridge re Technical Correction to a Commissioner District Boundary in the County Redistricting Plan: Auditor Donna Eldridge reported that the 45 day appeal period has expired since the Board adopted the redistricting map. After review of the aerial maps, a technical revision is needed because one of the boundary lines between Commissioner districts (in precinct 107) splits a residence. Gary Rowe suggested that the boundary be moved to follow the property line in this case and the Board agreed. Gary Rowe will develop a resolution that reflects this revision and bring it forward. Donna Eldridge reported that new legislation from the Federal government may require touch screens for disabled voters and that precincts be made larger. There may be additional changes in the voting process depending on the bill that is passed. Discussion of MIDs and the Glen Cove LAMIRD: MIDs: Josh Peters, Associate Planner, advised that he reviewed the information on MIDs received from the City of Port Townsend last week, but the City Council may have a different suggestion after the Council meeting this week. The comments from the City were reviewed. Commissioner Titterness asked that staff review the comments that he made on the draft document and that the Board meet with DCD staff on these issues before the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting this week. Glen Cove LAMIRD: Associate Planner Randy Kline reported that early next week maps will be available that will include locations of waterlines, electrical infrastructure, environmentally sensitive areas, roads, and all other infrastructure information in the Glen Cove area. Commissioner Titterness asked how long it will take for staff to put together a recommended boundary for the LAMIRD? Randy Kline advised that they can bring back a staff recommended boundary within two weeks after the maps are reviewed. Dave Christensen, Natural Resource Manager re: Seawater Intrusion Policy: Chairman Wojt advised that the Board is not making a decision about a seawater intrusion policy today. Commissioner Huntingford explained that this is a not a public hearing. Director of Community Development Al Scalf reported that the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in August of 1998 and the Unified Development Code was adopted in July of 2001. During the appeal period the Critical Areas and Critical Aquifer Recharge elements were appealed, specifically the salt water intrusion provisions. Within the County, water is managed through the Environmental Health Division of Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / the Health and Human Services Department and the data is forwarded to DCD. When an applicant comes in for a building permit for a residence or a building with plumbing, proof of potable water is required. There are several ways to provide this proof. If a public water system is involved, this information is sent to the State Department of Health as a water system adequacy request. For a one -party well a complete application for determination of adequate potable water is required which includes a well log report, a laboratory analysis for total coliform, nitrates, and chlorides and a plot plan. For a two -party well the same items are required plus an operation and maintenance agreement and a recorded easement. Once the information is received, the staff checks several things including availability of public water per the Coordinated Water System Plan. If the property is located in a water service area, they are required to hook up to the water service; but if that service is denied, they can drill their own well. Chairman Wojt asked if the quality of neighboring well water is reviewed in determining availability of potable water? Al Scalf advised that the County does not check the neighboring wells. He reviewed the rest of the process and explained that if the maximum chloride levels exceed the State drinking water standards of 250 milligrams per liter a notice is put on the title of the property. This is the State limit based on the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act for secondary contaminants. Secondary contaminants include chloride, manganese, and iron, etc. The proof of potable water is retained by the Department. David Christensen, Natural Resource Manager, provided the following information: Q. What is done with the data that is collected? A. The County has developed a database to store this information. This information is used in analysis. Q. Do the well logs give the elevation of the drilled site and the depth of the drill? A. The information about the elevation of the drilled site can be kept in the database, but it has been found to be inaccurate. Q. Does the County go on site and do a well inspection? A. The County does a well inspection. Q. Does the County have a device to measure the elevation of the well? A. The County just received GP equipment. There wasn't any way to get this information before. There is no on -going reporting on small wells (less than 3 connections.) Environmental Health Director Larry Fay explained that the County has an agreement with the State to do a one time sample for proof of water potability for a building permit on properties that can be connected to a 2 party or larger wells. PUD Manager Jim Parker added that, for a Class B water system, inorganic testing is done one time before the system is approved. Dave Christensen reported that on January 10, 2002, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board upheld the petition of the Olympic Environmental Council and the Shine Community Action Council and found the County to be non - compliant. The following was ordered: 1. Make previous agreed -to changes (typographical) to the UDC. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / 2. Properly classify and designate vulnerable sea water intrusion areas as CARAs (Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas) including best available science in a substantive way within 180 days. 3. Within 180 days develop and adopt protection standards for CARAs based on best available science to prevent further groundwater degradation from seawater intrusion. 4. If the County wishes to adopt less than precautionary protection standards it must also develop and adopt an adaptive management program that includes a scientifically defensible methodology for collecting, managing and analyzing groundwater monitoring data to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of adopted performance standards. The plan must also include more restrictive development regulations to be implemented at once if the adopted strategies are found to be inadequate. This action must be taken within 180 days. 5. Before adopting new development regulations, analyze them to ensure that they are consistent with and fully implement the relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. 6. Any findings of non - compliance in previous sections of the final decision order that have not been listed here are incorporated by reference. The staff came up with the following basic recommendation: 1. Designate Critical Seawater Intrusion Zones as all areas within 1/4 mile of the saltwater coastline and all islands. 2. Actively promote the expansion of public water to provide safe drinking water and protect ground water resources by requiring connection to an approved public water supply, when available, to obtain a building permit in Critical Seawater Intrusion Zones. 3. For those building permits where the chloride concentration is greater than 250 mg/L in an individual well, a connection to a public water supply or use of alternative water supply is required. Commissioner Titterness asked what is considered an alternative water supply? Dave Christensen explained that a catchment system, hauling water by an approved hauler, or reverse osmosis with a pipe out to the salt water, are all alternative water supplies. All of these methods would require proper public health approvals. 4. Review and potentially increase the minimum lot size required to utilize an individual well in critical seawater intrusion zones. For lots that do not meet the minimum lot size, the County would either deny the construction of an individual well or deny issuing a building permit on an individual well. The applicant with a parcel smaller than the minimum lot size would be required to connect to an approved public water supply or utilize an alternative water source. 5. Education and outreach would be conducted through the Jefferson County Health Department, Jefferson County Community Development, and WSU /Cooperative Extension. 6. Implement one of the three potential options listed. He concluded by noting that staff feels all of these options meet the minimum requirements set by the Hearings Board. There are pros and cons to each of the options in terms of implementation, costs, and impacts to other County services. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / Commissioner Titterness asked for a definition of "exempt well?" Dave Christensen answered that this is a phrase used because RCW 90.44.050 says that any withdrawal of groundwater requires a permit from the State, EXCEPT if you are withdrawing less than 5,000 gallons per day for stock - watering purposes, or for the watering of a lawn or of a noncommercial garden not exceeding one -half acre in area, residential use or industrial use. Wells that fall into these exceptions are exempt from the water rights permitting process and have been called "exempt" wells. These wells are subject to all other aspects of water appropriation. Once a well that is exempt from permitting is established it has the same standing as a permitted well. Chairman Wojt asked if anyone checks to see that these withdrawals are less than 5,000 gallons per day? Dave Christensen reported that the Department of Ecology doesn't have staff to enforce this regulation. Determining who is responsible for monitoring was part of the appeal petition to the Hearings Board and the County made the argument that the Department of Ecology is responsible. The Hearings Board did not agree with the County. Jim Parker, Jefferson County PUD, stated that one way to control wells in an area is by designating a water service area. There is currently an opportunity to install a water tank on Marrowstone Island that would provide water for the entire island from outside sources. Fort Flagler is redesigning their system and is willing to partner with others to put in a water tank at a high point on the island. A line could be installed to serve properties from either side. This would artificially recharge the aquifer and eliminate the need for people to drill new wells. The Fort is going out to bid soon on this system so they need an answer on their funding request as soon as possible. Al Scalf added that all water purveyors and systems are identified in the Coordinated Water System Plan which is reviewed by the Water Utility Coordinating Committee. Anytime a new purveyor comes in with a water system plan it must be approved by the State Department of Health. The plan is then sent to the County for land use review and comment. Dave Christensen advised that the zoning on Marrowstone Island could allow for the creation of 50 new lots above the 400 occupied lots and the 400 vacant lots that currently exist. Commissioner Titterness noted that this is only a 5% increase in new lots. Dave Christensen explained that the water supply source determines the minimum lot size. An individual well can serve a one acre lot or a public water supply can serve lots between 12,500 and 22,000 square feet depending on the soils. The County could continue to use a one acre minimum lot size. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the seawater intrusion issue needs to be solved countywide, not just on Marrowstone Island. Chairman Wojt added that the Shine Community Action Council is interested in the PUD wells in Shine and how they are monitored. Jim Parker advised that the PUD monitors wells in the Shine area and sends those reports to the State. The well monitoring has shown static water levels and little or no seasonal variation in these wells. Port Ludlow also produces an annual report on their well monitoring. There are 160 connections in the Shine area on a well that is approved for 312 connections. Many of the wells that the PUD monitors could hook up to the Port Ludlow well. The County could require that any property within the service area of a public water supply be required to hook up to it and not use a private well. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / Rae Belkin, Mats Mats, said that there are historical salt water intrusion problems in the Mats Mats area. This is going to be compounded because a DEIS has been issued on the quarry proposal to expand to 70 feet below sea level. She believes that this will cause a salt water intrusion problem. The quarry admits that there will be 25 gallons of salt water per minute seeping into this area when the rock is removed. Reclamation for the project requires the quarry to create an artificial fresh water lense that needs 30 inches of rainfall per year to keep the salt water out. The rainfall in that area is between 17 and 23 inches per year. She wants the County to support the no action alternative in the EIS. Residents in the area need to be educated about well use within 500 feet of salt water. An Unidentified Woman suggested that the County contact WSU to get volunteers to help with well testing. Bill Graham, Resource Manager, PUD No. 1, said that the PUD has budgeted $30,000 for a 3 year period for a water sampling program. The program would sample 50 wells, twice annually, for chloride. The results would be submitted to the County and the State Department of Ecology. This is being done to provide a countywide service. Rita Kepner, Marrowstone Island, read a letter into the record (see copy of permanent record.) She thinks that Chairman Wojt's suggestion to bring in a facilitator who will work with all the parties to develop solutions makes sense. Wendy Wrinkle, Shine Community Action Council, reported that this is their first exposure to this draft. The Shine Community has received nothing and has made no response. Chairman Wojt noted that he had seen a response that Colette Kostelec sent to the County. Colette Kostelec advised that her response was to the County's motion for reconsideration and was not based on the options being discussed today. Chairman Wojt reiterated that this is a workshop and pointed out that these options are being presented by the staff as ways to comply with the Hearings Board order. The community has to get together and talk about solutions that protect the water and allow the County to have a reasonable budget to address all of the issues. Bob Eric, Marrowstone Island, stated that it is imperative that a public education program be started as soon as possible. The public needs to have definite budget information. John Ilman, Marrowstone Island, said that he would like to see more emphasis on new construction and allowing rainwater collection systems for potable water or for other household and agricultural uses. He feels this would take the stress off of existing wells. An Unidentified Man said that Option 1 looks as though it relies heavily on application fees for a person to find out if there is a long term potable supply, while Option 3 puts the costs back on the public who has no ability to control individual choices by the builder in those locations. He asked about the philosophy behind these options? Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 / Dave Christensen answered that he contacted a hydro - geologist about the estimated costs for these options. The cost range would be between $2,000 and $10,000 per test to the individual homeowner. The cost goes up because Option 1 doesn't represent an active management program. It acknowledges that the County has limited resources. This option allows the applicant to do their project if they can mitigate the problems identified by the required plans and that is why the costs are borne by the applicant. In Options 2 and 3 the County is taking more and more of an active management role in water use. The provisions of Option 3 are not required in order for the County to comply with the WWGMHB order or the GMA, but there are other issues that are addressed. A Marrowstone Island resident asked why the County is not using the management resource available and is still allowing people to drill wells without a permit? Dave Christensen stated that the County may not know about these instances. An applicant is required to notify the County if they are drilling a well; but if the property owner needs a water right they have to get that from the State. Commissioner Titterness stated that if the County wants to enter into a mediation process, then everyone involved needs to be at the table, including the State Departments that are involved and the Growth Management Hearings Board. Paul Heinzinger, Marrowstone Island, stated that the community needs to resolve this problem. Public involvement is necessary. Unless specific issues are resolved, public participation won't move forward. Michelle Sandoval, Real Estate Agent, added that education for homeowners about water and wells is very important. Typically before a buyer buys a property with a well, the testing has been done. This is also another resource for well information. Chairman Wojt explained that the Board has to come to a resolution on this matter that meets the mandates of the WWGMHB. He feels that the community must come together to deal with this issue. He read a letter he wrote into the record (see permanent record.) The Board will discuss these three options and the possibility of mediation. Al Scalf advised that the County is waiting for an decision from the Growth Management Hearings Board on a request for reconsideration. There is no action being requested from the Board today. Staff has been given direction to come back with more information in two weeks, Commissioner Titterness explained. Dave Christensen pointed out that two of the options presented require implementation of taxing districts and new regulations. He asked if the Board would like more information on how this would be done? Commissioner Huntingford said that he would like to see more information on whether volunteers can be used to develop and implement a program before looking into establishing a taxing district or adding new regulations. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 4, 2002 4r , i ♦C'+ The Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator regarding Personnel from 4:00 -4:14 p.m. and then from 4:15 -4:45 p.m. with the County Administrator and the Deputy County Administrator regarding collective bargaining. The meeting was recessed and reconvened on Wednesday morning with all three Board members present. Request for Funding: Water Tank Installation on Marrowstone Island; Jefferson County PUD #1: Al Scalf explained the process for developing a water system outside the UGA and the current water problems faced on Marrowstone Island. If the rural character regarding lot size can be maintained on Marrowstone Island, this project may be a viable option for dealing with the salt water intrusion issues. The project is estimated to cost a total of $125,000. Commissioner Titterness explained that the PUD is willing to contribute to the project, but does will not participate unless the County agrees to participate also. Commissioner Titterness moved to utilize the $89,000 identified by Deputy County Administrator Gary Rowe as an interest free, 20 year loan, to the Jefferson County PUD No. 1 to cover a portion of the cost of installing a water tank on Marrowstone Island. The PUD would have to make up the difference. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion and suggested an amendment to say that a repayment schedule would be negotiated by staff. Commissioner Titterness accepted the amendment to his motion. The Chair called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY d SEAL:• 9« i� ♦ t { ATTEST: Lorna e aney, i CMC Clerk of the Board Dan Titterness, Member Page 11 FILE COPY First I wish to acknowledge the staff member work on groundwater. I am sure they did what they believe is best; given the time and resources they believe they have. However, the options to be presented this afternoon will result in angering fearful people who oppose regulation. And, given the political climate in Jefferson County, these options will also anger groundwater activists, and the growth management board -- because they are likely to fail. If your staff can accept that regulation is not the only answer, they can start making a difference. The key is to begin thinking about helping people keep good drinking water. We suggest: 1. Admit there is a groundwater problem. 2. Educate yourselves and stat then the public, about the complexity of the problem. 3. Use trained volunteers to screen volunteer wells. Where the data indicates hot spots, then use professionals to confirm. Admitting that, in some parts of the county, current residents have wells that may be at risk is a first step. Educating people is imperative. You must educate, to reduce fear -- with correct information. People fear that county government will monitor their water, then tell them they can't drink it. To avoid that fear and anger, use a scientifically selected cross section of volunteers for initial monitoring. Let others wait at least until knowledge encourages them to take voluntary protective action. On Marrowstone Island, because of our community groundwater education, and information sharing, many residents have chosen to act. We know of two 30,000- gallon rain collection tanks. There are many 2 to 10,000 gallon systems. Most people on the island conserve water. Drive around in the summer and you will see yards full of low - water -use plants. Some people keep containers under faucets to collect the water that runs to "get cold" to drink or "get hot" for a shower. They reuse that water. Marrowstone homes are full of low - water -use appliances. A county education campaign can advocate similar voluntary actions to protect current wells. A county effort to include rain collection, as part of the single domestic permit exemption, might minimize impacts of future development. Current residents and developers would welcome county guidelines for safe rain collection systems -- for single domestic use. I admit that conservation confuses the data.. Wherever people reduce withdrawals on their wells, you see an apparent increase in healthy wells. But, remember our goal should be to help current residents keep good drinking water. This afternoon's meeting could be about finding ways to help people find, and be comfortable with, successful solutions. Let's go in that direction, please. Respectfully, Rita Kepner FEB b .. 200? JEFF RELY 6t� =lr 'T. FIL E--�-OPY February 4, 2002 ,i From: Richard Wojt, County Commissioner FEB 0 r?- c002' Re: The seawater intrusion conflict What is saltwater intrusion? A simplified explanations hat part o tie ram that falls is absorbed into the ground. Gravity forces this water to move down hill toward the coast, where it meets the saltwater at sea level. Since fresh water is less dense then saltwater, it floats on top of the salt water. This can create a layer of fresh water that can reach many feet below sea level. The depth of this layer depends on the amount of rainfall, how easily water soaks into the ground, and how fast it moves downhill. The problem arises when wells are drilled to a depth below sea level, and the water is pumped faster then it can be replaced from above. Further pumping results in saltwater being drawn into the water supply, making it unhealthy for drinking or for watering plants. It may also affect the water quality of other nearby wells. There is consensus about the nature of saltwater intrusion and its complexity due to the variety of soils that can and do occur within feet of one another in the county. At present there is a conflict between county staff and the Shine water group about the following: • how to deal with saltwater intrusion; • how great the problem is now and how great it will become as build out occurs; • who has the legal authority to require private well owners to monitor the concentration of salt in the water, and their water usage? • Will monitoring public wells and reaction to indications of intrusion be enough to protect water supplies? • What will be the effects of the costs on other county priorities such as health, law enforcement, and other services? • Who can regulate the drilling of wells? • What authority do state departments of health and ecology or county government have? So, why do we as a community have this conflict and, more importantly, how do we reach resolution? The basis of the conflict is each group's lack of respect for the other group's estimate of the magnitude of the problem. Moreover, both staff and the Shine group mistrust each other's motivation and commitment to finding a resolution that protects water quality. There are also misunderstandings about the extent of authority of the county. My view is that if these different perspectives aren't brought together, the community will again be at war with itself. This is the worst -case scenario — one that produces temporary winners at best. In the long run, we all lose if we fight! We need to come together and each party in this conflict needs to get a clear understanding of the other's point of view. We must be willing to respect each other's intelligence, and each other's concern for fresh water. An end to this conflict is necessary in order to have good quality water with as few regulations as possible. To meet this goal, I am recommending to my fellow commissioners and the Shine Water group that we enter into a process to bring about a resolution to this conflict by hiring a conflict resolution mediator. This person's job would be to see that we all respect one another and that each group has a clear understanding of the other's positions. Their most important job will be get the groups to agree to a solution that is both cost - effective and will insure good water quality. 2