HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051500District No. 1 Commissioner: Don Harpole
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
Distrid No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of May 15, 2000
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Dan Harpole
was present. Commissioner Glen Huntingford was not present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the minutes of the
week of May 1, 2000 as presented. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carded.
COUNTY ADMINISTRA TORS BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles
Saddler reported:
· DCD has looked into the issue of docketing Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications that
come in this year. The Planning Commission's proposal to change the procedure could not be
implemented for an additional year if docketing is done.
· He reviewed the schedule for the Japanese visitors from the City of Port Townsend's sister city of
Ichikawa, Japan.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The need for more
public process in the Tri Area; the people of the Th Area want to vote on incorporation and the County has
not allowed that to happen; and the October 5, 1999 hearing on the Tri Area/Glen Cove UGA is void
because "findings of fact" have not been provided, therefore the Board should rescind the motions and
resolutions passed.
HEARING re: Formation of a IVater Conservancy Board: David Christensen, Environmental
Health Department, reported that the petitioner was not notified of this hearing, due to a staff oversight,
however, representatives of the PUD are here today. He noted that RCW 90.80 governs Water
Conservancy Boards and allows water rights transfers to be handled by them. The State Department of
Ecology doesn't have enough staff to handle non-contested water rights transfers and the Legislature
developed this option for counties to set up a procedure to handle this type of transfer application. The
appointed members of the Water Conservancy Board serve for a term of 6 years. Any decision they make
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 15, 2000
will be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology for approval. There are 11 WCBs currently in place
around the State. The members of these Board's spend between 10 to 20 hours per month to do their work.
Some of the Boards charge fees to cover the cost of their work. Dave Chtistensen reviewed how a water
rights transfer might be reviewed by a WCB before they made a determination on an application. The
Board of Commissioners nominate the people from the County to serve on the Water Conservancy Board
who are finally appointed by DOE. Once appointed, the Board members are required to go through
training. The Board members do not receive a salary, but they do receive a per diem amount per meeting
and their expenses are reimbursed.
The Chair opened the public heating.
Jim Parker, Manager of the Jefferson County PUD No. 1, stated that they petitioned the County to establish
a Water Conservancy Board because the DOE doesn't have the staff to do the work necessary to transfer
water tights. They have been waiting for 7 years on a water tights transfer in the Shine Area. He
recounted other instances where water tights transfers are needed but are not being done because the DOE
doesn't have the manpower to handle them. The Water Conservancy Board, even if it was appointed
immediately, won't be able to work as a Board until after all the members have gone through extensive
training.
Bob Krutenant, PUD Commissioner, stated that he is in support of the County establishing a Water
Conservancy Board. This Board would research existing water tights, do scientific determinations, and
make a recommendation to DOE, the final approval agent. DOE is removed from the active scientific
process and local people can deal with local problems. The Conservancy Boards do not deal with new
water tights or any portion of a water tight that isn't being used. The PUD sees the establishment of this
Board as a positive benefit to Jefferson County that would help expedite an otherwise lengthy process.
Guy Rudolph, Port Hadlock, asked how the Water Conservancy Board can be dissolved? Dave Christensen
stated that he hasn't seen anything in the RCW about how to dissolve this Board. He noted that this Board
would be given a great deal of control over water and whoever controls water controls the County. If the
WCB doesn't handle these applications properly, this could be a real albatross for the County. He asked
what type of training is required? Dave Chtistensen stated that the RCW lists hydrology as required
training, State water law and State water policy, as well as other items.
Heating no further public testimony, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 15, 2000
Commissioner Harpole noted that there is concern that establishing a Water Conservancy Board at this
time would be premature and asked if there is a target date when the watershed assessment work will be
done? Dave Christensen reported that the assessment work should be done by August and the County
would be in a better position to evaluate if a Water Conservancy Board would be useful.
Charles Saddler reported that the members of this Board are required to go through training and then pass
a test at the end of that training. They are also required to take 8 hours of continuing education for each
year they serve.
Commissioner Harpole noted that he feels that more information is needed on the sunset provisions and the
draft by-laws. Charles Saddler suggested that this information be brought back before the Board within
the next month. Other issues that need to be addressed would be whether an alternate should be appointed
to the Board and who would monitor the 8 hours of continuing training needed each year.
Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director, advised that there is a major problem with the State Department
of Ecology and their dealing with water fights, but County Water Conservancy Boards will not correct the
bigger problems with water rights issues.
Commissioner Harpole moved to request staff to address the issues raised today (by-laws, sunset clauses,
quorum and alternate member) and present a proposal and sample by-laws, for a future public hearing.
Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. Dave Christensen stated that staff will need more than a month to do
this. Charles Saddler suggested that this work will take up to 2 months. The Chair called for a vote on the
motion which carried.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole
moved to delete Item 17 for staff to provide additional information next week, and to approve the balance
of the items as presented. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried.
1. PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming the Week of May 21-27, 2000 as National Public Works
Week in Jefferson County
2. PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming the Week of May 14-20, 2000 as National Transportation
Week in Jefferson County
3. RESOLUTION NO. 43-00 re: Establishing a Petty Cash Account for the Noxious Weed Control
Board
4. RESOLUTION NO. 44-00 re: Establishing a Petty Cash Account for the Youth Initiative; YIPPEE
Program Fund
5. RESOLUTION NO. 45-00 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Alder Street in the Supplemental
Plat of the Town of Harrisburg; Aron Taylor & Jennifer Sharko-Taylor, Petitioners
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 15, 2000
o
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
RESOLUTION NO..46-00 re: For a Legislative Body Relating to a Deferred Compensation Plan;
ICMA Retirement Corporation
RESOLUTION NO. 47-00 re: For a Legislative Body Relating to a Money Purchase Plan; ICMA
Retirement Corporation
AGREEMENT re: Governmental Money Purchase Plan and Trust Adoption; ICMA Retirement
Corporation
AGREEMENT re: Writing Policies, Procedures and Tasks Workshop for Jefferson County
Employees; Dr. Sharon Bridwell, Write Words: American Writing Services
AGREEMENT re: Preferred and Participating Provider Status Covering four (4) Nurse
Practitioners and Health Plus (Fee for Service); Jefferson County Health and Human Services;
Primera Blue Cross
AGREEMENT re: Case Management Services for HIV/AIDS Clients; Title XIX and Title II Ryan
White Federal Funding; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Bremerton Kitsap Health
District
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT re: Services for HIV/AIDS Clients; Title II Ryan White
Federal Funding; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Bremerton Kitsap Health District,
Bridge Consortium Partners, and Jefferson Aids Services
TWO (2) AGREEMENTS, Amendment #1 and #2 re: Professional Services; Substance Abuse
Programs and Treatment and Support Services for Outpatients; Transfer of Funds; Jefferson County
Health and Human Services; Jefferson Community Recovery Center (JCRC)
AGREEMENT re: Literary Search and Data Review for the Jefferson County Marine Resources
Committee Project Community Process for Establishing Marine Protected Areas in Jefferson
County; Not to Exceed $4,000.00; Barbara Nightingale
AGREEMENT re: Project Manager for the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee Project
Community Process for Establishing Marine Protected Areas in Jefferson County; Not to Exceed
$5,800.00; Michelle McConnell
AGREEMENT re: Professional Services; Taking Minutes of the Jefferson County Marine
Resources Committee Meetings; Extension Through June 30, 2000; Not to Exceed $500.00; Joanna
K. Sanders
DELETE Final Long Plat Approval; Irondale Heights Long Plat, #SUB94-0070; To Divide Approximately 4.76
Acres into 11 Residential Lots; Located off of South Maple and First Streets, Port Hadlock; Daryl Hedman, Applicant
Appoint Member to Serve on the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) as
the Alternate Representative for Olympic Disposal; Term Expires October 23, 2000; Rick Banta
Appoint Member to Serve Another Three (3) Year Term on the Olympic Area Agency on Aging
(O3A) Advisory Board; Term Expires April 21, 2003; Adrian Dronkert
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 15, 2000
PROCLAMATION re: Ichikawa Days: Commissioner Harpole moved to proclaim
Ichikawa Days from May 19 through 21, 2000 in honor of the Sister City of Port Townsend. Chairman
Wojt seconded the motion which carded.
HEARING re: Proposed Budget Appropriations and Extensions; Various County
Departments and Specific Other Funds: The Chair opened the public hearing on the proposed budget
appropriations/extensions.
Auditor Donna Eldridge reported that Animal Services budget appropriation/extension request is for the
purchase of replacement computer equipment and the Non-departmental fund may be a more appropriate
fund to be charged. She questioned if this should come out of the Animal Services budget? Charles
Saddler stated that when equipment is replaced due to a robbery, the Risk Management Fund is ordinarily
charged for the replacement cost. He suggested that the Board not act on this request at this time.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed extensions/appropriations, the Chair closed the
public heating.
Commissioner Harpole moved to approve and prepare the necessary resolution for the
appropriation/extension for Juvenile Services for next week's agenda and asked that staff do more research
on the Animal Service's request.
The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business on Monday and
reconvened on Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m. in the Port Ludlow Beach Club. All three Commissioners
were present.
HEARING re: Petition to Establish a Port Ludlow Drainage District: Chairman Wojt
opened the public hearing with approximately twenty people in attendance. Jim Pearson, Public Works
Department, reported that staff has been working with the Ludlow Maintenance Commission on this
proposal. The purpose of this hearing is to take testimony on a petition to form a drainage district that was
submitted to the County. That testimony will help the County Commissioners determine whether or not to
authorize an election to allow the residents in the community to vote on the establishment of a drainage
district. He showed a map of the proposed boundaries of the district. If the residents vote to establish the
district, the election of the Drainage District Commissioners would not be scheduled until February, 2002.
The RCW specifies certain dates when commissioners from special districts can be elected and that is the
first eligible date. However, in the interim, the Board of County Commissioners can appoint the Drainage
District Commissioners to serve until the election.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 15, 2000
The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Ron Gregory_, 22 McCurdy Lane, Port Ludlow, stated that he is a builder and resident in the community.
As a builder, he is concerned about the stormwater management regulations in the County. The problem is
the water that comes onto a property from upstream. Most of the stormwater in the Ludlow area is
channeled into green belts, but there is a problem when the green belts get flooded. French drains don't
seem to work. He feels the best way to deal with the stormwater is to create a more comprehensive
stormwater plan in the community.
Bob Balck, I Dunbar Court, Port Ludlow, stated that he has been a resident in Port Ludlow for a year and
is building a home there. They bought their property several years ago with the intent of developing it, but
then they found that there were serious water problems in the area which, in the worst cases, resulted in
land slides. They hired a geotechnical engineer to address the stormwater problems on their property
before breaking ground on the house. In addition, they have taken every precaution and have spent a
considerable amount of money to alleviate the stormwater problems. However, there were still stormwater
problems caused by runoff from properties located above them on the hill. He and two other residents on
their street paid to have these other runoff problems dealt with. However, these runoff problems exist all
over the North Bay area. He asked the Board to give the residents the opportunity to vote on the
establishment of a Drainage District because it is very important to the whole North Bay community.
Ralph Thomas, 103 Cascade Lane, Port Ludlow, stated that he does not have a problem with runoff
because he has a moat around his property. The committee that put together the petition for this drainage
district did an excellent job and the majority of the residents in the area are very supportive of solving the
stormwater problems.
James Brannaman, 563 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow, stated that he is the newly elected President of the
Ludlow Maintenance Commission Board of Directors. The Board represents over 1,200 property owners
in the North Bay area who are within the boundaries of the proposed drainage district. It is the opinion of
the Board that forming a drainage district is the only rational, logical way to address the stormwater
problem. Speaking for the Ludlow Maintenance Commission, he urged the County Commissioners to
allow the drainage district proposal to move forward to a vote of the residents.
Bill Wilke, stated that the drainage problems in North Bay are getting worse. Some residents have tried to
solve the problems on a short term basis; but the only way to solve the problem over the next ten or fifteen
years is to make a commitment to a drainage district. He asked the Board to put this proposal up to a vote
of the community.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 15, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Ludlow Maintenance Commission has worked on this proposal
for a number of months and has done an excellent job. A comprehensive plan for drainage covering the
whole North Bay area will make a difference over the long term. He moved to set the special election for
the Port Ludlow Drainage District for September 19, 2000. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Jim Pearson stated that he will have a resolution for the Board's agenda on May 22, 2000. He will also
work with the Elections Division of the Auditor's Office to have the Drainage District proposal on the
ballot in September.
MEETING ADJOUP>NED'
Seal:
ATTEST:
Lorna Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
Page 7
TO:
PUBLIC HEARING
Health and Human Services
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST FOR PUBL~CHEARING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CHARLES SADDLER, ADMINISTRATOR
THROUGH: LARRY FAY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DAVE CHRISTENSEN, WATER RESOURCE SPECIALIST
MAY 15, 2000
FORMATION OF A WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD
STATEMENJ~_L%,~.~A
Jefferson County was petitioned by PUD No. 1 to forma Water Conservancy Board. The petition fulfilled
the requirement under RCW 90.80.010 and Chapter 173-153 WAC, and therefore Jefferson County is
required by law to hold a public hearing regarding the formation of a Water Conservancy Board.
This meeting is being held to provide information to the BOCC and to provide an opportunity for the BOCC
to request more information for the public hearing. At the conclusion of this meeting, staff will be
scheduling the formal public heating to comply with: the requirements under RCW 90.80~010 and Chapter
173-153 WAC.
A staff briefing paper and legal review paper have been provided to the BOCC earlier, In summary:
1. Jefferson County was petitioned to form a WCB by the PUD. The petitioned was found to meet the
minimum requirements according to the legal opinion of David Alvarez (refer to attachment), and therefore
should be determined by the BOCC to be a valid petition. Thus, Jefferson County is required to hold at least
one public hearing, according to RCW 90.80.020.
2. To date, the overall success of existing WCBs is high. Ecology has overturned few of the decisions from
the WCBs. Ecology is becoming more supportive of the role of:the WCBs as more WCBs form.
3. There would be a clear benefit to Jefferson County to form a WCB for several reasons, most notably for
consolidating individual water rights to larger public water systems. This could be beneficial to a
community like Quilcene that is straggling to replace individual:wells with a community water system to
service downtown core businesses without water tights.
4. As in other counties in Washington, formation of a WCB would likely be supported by governmental
agencies, businesses and agricultural interests. There would likely be opposition to formation of a WCB
from environmental interests. Not all Point-No-Point Treaty Council tribes were contacted, but the initial
discussions between Jefferson County and tribal staffhave indicated that there would be more tribal support
if the County delayed formation of a WCB until watershed assessments are completed through the WRIA
planning process.
PUBLIC HEARING
Health and Human Services
5. There would be an obvious need to fink the WCB:to Watershed planning in WRIA 16 and WRIA 17 to
assure that the decisions made by the.WCB fit into the OVerall viSir}n of watershed management in Jefferson
County. Until the completion of the watershed assessments in WRIAs 16 and 17, decisions of a WCB would
be made without the context of having a complete watershed study. After completion of the watershed
assessment, the success of the WCB would most likely depend on how well the WCB meshes with ongoing
watershed planning activities being conducted under RCW 90.82 (the "2514 Planning Unit").
6. It is critical for a successful WCB that board members have the appropriate background. Successful
boards have engineers, attorneys, and scientists that assure that decisions are technically-sound.
The fiscal impact of formation of a Water Conservancy Board should be minimal, with most Water
Conservancy Boards needing counties to only provide meeting space and/or a mail stop.
REVIEWED BY.'.
Charles Saddler, County Administrator
Date
To:
From
Date:
Re:
BoCC, Health and Human Services
David Alvarez, Civil DPA
November 23, 1999
Proposed Water Conservancy Board
RECEIVED
NOV 2 3 1999
JEFF. CO. HEALTH &
HUMAN SER¥1CE$
You have asked three (3) questions regarding the petition brought before the
Board of Commissioners (BoCC) seeking to have the BoCC create a Water Conservancy
Board (WCB) for Jefferson County. These are the three questions:
1. Is t:he petition legally sufficient?
2. Does the County face a legal mandate to create a WCB
once asked to do so?
3. Would the County incur legal costs if a WCB decision
was appealed?
The answers to these questions are found in the 1997 statute which encourages the
creation of WCB's. That statute is now codified at RCW 90.80.005 et seq.
Is the/petition ~ sufficient?
A petition will be considered legally sufficient as defined in RCW 90:80.020(2) if
it is signed by an entity authorized to petition the BoCC and it includes certain minimum
information. Both of these requirements have been met here. Note well that the PUD #1,
as a public utility district, is authorized to petition the county legislative authority (the
BoCC) pursuant to that RCW section. Also the required minimal information [1-why the
WCB is needed, 2) proposed bylaws for the WCB, 3) proposed geographic boundaries
and 4) suggested funding mechanisms for the WCB] has been included.
Does a ~ sufficient~petition mandate the creation of a WCB?
The answer to this is a definitive no. The applicable RCW, codified at RCW
90.80.020(1), states the "[t]he county legislative authority of a county may create a water
conservancy board." The word "may" is always considered by lawyers to allow the
decision-makers (here the BoCC) discretion to act or not act, while "shall" mandates an
action. The WAC made attachment "C" to the materials provided to this office is
facially confusing, but is clearly a list of what must be done ONCE the elected officials
choose to create a WCB. The RCW always roles the day if it is contradicted by a WAC.
Might the Countg incur le__e_g_al costs durin~eal of a WCB decision?
Firstly, what is the appeal process? As established by statute, it is lengthy and
complex. Any person or entity holding water rights that alleges its water rights would be
harmed or impaired by a proposed decision of the WCB has the right to intervene while
the matter is before the WCB. If the WCB approves the transfer of the water rights, then
the State Department of Ecology must still approve the WCB decision. The same
aggrieved party can intervene and state his or its case to the State Dept. of Ecology
during the 45 days that state agency has to acton a WCB decision to alter water rights.
Finally, the appeal of a decision.by the State Department of Ecology would go to the
Superior Court pursuant to RCW 90.03~005 et:seq,
The question of whether the County could bear the cost of appeals of WCB
decision tums on whether the WCB is truly financially independent of the County budget.
Any WCB, although it can not impose taxes or take land by eminent domain, may
impose fees on those persons requesting the transfer of water rights. A WCB is also
considered, pursuant to RCW 90.80.060, to be: an independently funded entity and is also
a "public body corporate and politic and a separate unit of local government in the state,"
according to RCW 90.80.050. That is why the funding mechanism has to be put in place
before the WCB starts up. These phrases suggest that the WCB, like a PUD, must be a
distinct self-supporting unit and would have complete control of its income and expenses.
This also leads to the logical corollary that the WCB would have to obtain its own
insurance and perhaps its own attorney, unless it was too small to afford an attorney.
But the reality might be quite different. In a small county such as Jefferson
County where this proposal calls for 1) the County to fund the WCB's administrative
costs and 2) the BoCC to control the personnel who will sit on the WCB, it appears that
the County's legal resources might be drawn into one of these appeals. Why? Because
the County might seen as the senior parmer or the most viable partner, if you will, in the
coalition that is the WCB.
Finally, one would also assume that while the WCB is in its infancy, i.e., before it
1) has built up cash reserves and good credit and 2) knows its history of what claims it
might pay out in a given year, the only entity that would be extant to buttress the WCB in
times of legal strife would be Jefferson County. Thus, I think the County might, at least
initially, bear some of the legal costs that a 'Jefferson County WCB' might incur. Again,
the County would presumably be seen as the senior partner in the WCB.
The County might choose to distance itself as much as possible from the WCB.
One method would have the County refuse to pay any administrative costs (or any other
costs) for this County's WCB. Instead, the BoCC might suggest or hint that the
"players" in the field of water rights are the persons or entities who should "ante up" (to
use a poker analogy) for the start-up costs of the WCB and who should bear the brunt of
legal costs that the WCB might control. Some might feel, however, that if the County so
distances itself from the WCB, then the foxes will be left guarding the chicken coop.
The final decision is, of course, up to the Board of County Commissioners. Any
questions? t,
David Alvarez
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ~'
Civil Division
Staff report: Water Conservancy Boards
December 15, 1999
The purpose behind creating a Water COnservancy Board is to:
· Expedite the administrative process for completing uncontested voluntary water
transfers between water users
· Alleviate water shortages, save capital :outlays, and reduce development costs
· Provide incentive for water conservation
II.
A Water Conservancy Board (Conservancy Board)is created by:
· Petition to form the Conservancy Board is submitted (PUD petition)
· Determination that the petition is adequate
· Hold public heating(s) regarding the petition
· Pass a County resolution supporting the formation of the Conservancy Board,
including details of how the Conservancy Board will fimction (bylaws, etc.)
· County BOCC appoints Conservancy Board members
· Department of Ecology (Ecology) director approves the Conservancy Board
formation and provides details about required training
III.
Conservancy Board makeup consists of:
· Three commissioners appointed to six year terms; initially, the terms will be
staggered so that one commissioner has a two year term, one a four year term and one
a six year term
· "Individual water right holders who divert water for use within the county" must be
represented on the Conservancy Board
· Conservancy Board members must be chosen from persons who are "residents of the
county or a county that is contiguous to the county" that the Conservancy Board is to
serve (Jefferson, Mason, Clallam, Grays Harbor, or maybe Kitsap counties).
· Commissioners serve without compensation, but are entitled to reimbursement for
necessary travel expenses
Conservancy Board training requirements:
· A minimum of thirty-two hours of training provided by the Department of Ecology in
state law and hydrology
· Each Conservancy Board member must pass an examination demonstrating a basic
understanding of water law and hydrology
· Each Conservancy Board member complete eight hours of continuing education each
year
Conservancy Board duties:
· Receive applications, investigate and make a determination whether the proposed
change, transfer or amendment to 'an existing water right should be approved or
denied, and if approved, under what conditions the approval should be granted
· Publish notice of the application for a transfer in accordance with the publication
requirements and send notice to state agencies
· Decisions are limited to changes in use that do not expand water rights, do not injure
other water rights holders, involve only water rights put to beneficial use, and other
limitations stated in WAC 173-153
· Evaluate the change application, including the entire water rights record
· Detailed hydrological or hydrogeological information may need to be collected or
other research conducted or compiled. A Conservancy Board may require the
applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense if that
information is necessary to render an informed recommendation on the application.
· Make a decision whether the transfer should be approved or denied.
VI.
Authority of the Conservancy Board:
· Can purchase or sell real and personal property, employ contractors or employees, sue
or be sued
· Can charge fees for its own funding as determined by the Commissioners, but cannot
impose taxes
· The decisions of the Conservancy Board are "conditional"; Ecology has the right to
affirm, reverse, or modify, whether the decision is to approve or deny the water right
transfer, change~ or amendment
· If Ecology fails to affirm, reverse, or modify the conditional decision within 45 days,
the decision stands as passed by the Conservancy Board
VII.
Miscellaneous Issues
· The Board is an independent body; neither the County nor Ecology is subject to any
claim for damages caused by Board decisions (refer to memo from David Alvarez)
· The Board can sue and be sued
· Any person can submit comments to the Conservancy Board regarding a specific
application
· Any water right holder claiming detriment or injury to an existing water right may
intervene in the application, and is entitled to a hearing before the Board
· Any party to a transfer or a third party who alleges that a water right will be impaired
by the proposed transfer can file objections with Ecology
· All water rights transfer must be voluntary; all parties involved with a water right
transfer must agree on the conditions for the transfer
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District
DATE: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 from 7 p.m to 9 p.m,
PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
TestimOny?
YES NO MAYBE
BB
nB
n
B
[3
nn[~
B I~ r-'l
pp.-.
n.~a
r-1 n.~
BrtlB
BBB
BBr'I
Bun
JEFFERS°N COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Port Ludlow Drainage District
DATE: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 from 7 p,m, to 9 p,m,
PLACE: Port Ludlow Beach Club
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
F'I UU
Department of Public Works
O Consent Agenda
Page 1 of 3
To:
From:
Agenda Date:
Subject:
Jefferson: County
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Request
Board of Commissioners
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
Gary A. Rowe, Public Works Director/County Engineer
May 16, 2000
Board of Commissioners public hearing for proposed Port
Ludlow Drainage District
Description:
Port Ludlow residents petitioned Jefferson County to hold an election to establish a
Port Ludlow Drainage District to address surface water and stormwater management
issues. The County Engineer reviewed the petition and presented a report to the
Board on March 13. After review of the petition and the County Engineer's report, the
Board adopted Resolution 24~00 that scheduled a public hearing for May 16, 2000 to
take testimony regarding the proposed district. Based on the testimony at that
hearing the Board wi[[ determine Whether to authorize an election to establish the
district.
Statement of Issue:
There are numerous issues to consider regarding whether to authorize an election to
establish the District. These include the: proposed District boundary and projects, the
authority granted to the District by the State, and the District's special assessment
system. These issues were analyzed in the County Engineer's report that was
presented to the Board on March 13, 2000. A copy of the petition, the County
Engineer's report, and a map depicting the District boundary are attached.
If the Board decides to authorize an election, the Board wi[[ also need to set an
election date. The first opportunity would be the primary election on September 19,
2000.
If an election is held and the voters authorize the establishment of the District, there
wilt be an additional set of issues to consider. Although these issues are not pertinent
to the Board's decision whether to to
presented below for the information of
ho
Department ' of PubliC WOrks
O Consent Agenda,
Page 2 of 3
.~[ection, a brief discussion is
~d interested citizens.
Analysis:
· Initial District COmmissioners: :The DiStrict would be governed by a Board of three
Commissioners. RCW 85;38.070(3) Specifies that the Board of County
Commissioners shaLL appoint the inf~ia[ District Commissioners to serve until
Commissioners are selected :ara 'District general election.
· District Commissioner Elections:: RCW 29.13.020 specifies that general elections
for District Commissioner shat[ be held in November of odd numbered years. The
first authorized date would be November 6, 2001~ The Commissioners would take
office immediately after the election results are certified
· District Special Assessment System: RCW 85.38;160 specifies that District
activities would be funded by a system of special assessments based on assessment
zones, acreage, value of benefit or use per acre, and types of property
improvements. The County Engineer is authorized to prepare a preliminary
assessment system.. The Jefferson County Commissioners would hold a public
hearing to consider the preliminary system. BaSed on testimony at that hearing,
the Board may revise the system. The Board would adopt the system by resolution
prior to September 1, 2001.
· District Budget: RCW 85.38.170 specifies: that an annual District budget and
special assessments shall be adopted on or before December 1. Since the District
special assessment system would not be adopted until September, 2001, it would
not be possible for the District to set special assessmentsuntit December 1, 2001.
The initial collection of special assessments would not occur until April 30, 2002.
Alternatives:
After considering the testimony at the public hearing, the Board wi[[ have two
alternatives. If the Board determines that creation of the District wiLL be conducive to
the public health, safety, and convenience; wilt be of special benefit:to the majority
of land within the District;. and the proposed improvements are feasible and
economical and the benefits exceed the costs; the BOard may authorize an election to
establish the District. If the Board determines that these criteria wiLL not be met, the
Board can decide not to authorize an election.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department of PubLic Works has incurred expenses related to analyzing the
petition. The petitioners have posted a $5:,000 bond to defray these expenses.
If the Board decides .to authorize an election, the Auditor's Office will incur expenses
related to conducting the election. If an election is scheduled for the primary election
Department of Public: Works
O Consent Agenda
Page 3 of 3
date on September 19, the Auditor's Office estimatesthat there will be $1,000.in
expenses related to the District election. If formation of the DiStrict: is approved,
Jefferson County may charge the DiStrict for expenses incurred related to the
election. If formation of the District is not approved, these expenses would not be
recovered.
Revenue Budget Line: Amount:
Expenditure Budget Line: Amount:
Future BUdget Impact: . ~ ~ ...... : ~ ~
Recommendation: ' c:~ ~ ~
The Board should consider the testimony at the public hearing and determine whether
to authorize and election to establish the District. The Department ~does not have a
specific recommendation.
Reviewed By:
~y Administrator
MEMORANDUM
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
RO. Box 2070
1322 Washington St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9160
Gary A. Rowe, RE., Public Works Director/County Engineer
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Gary A. Rowe, P.E., Public Works Director / County Engineer
March 8, 2000
Revised County Engineer's Report; Port Ludlow Drainage District petition
I. Introduction
Jefferson County received a petition on October 18, 1999 to create a Port Ludlow
Drainage District in the North Port Ludlow area as provided for in Chapter 85.38 Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) Special District Creation and Operation. A copy of the
petition is attached to this report.
This memo contains revisions from the memo dated January 12, 2000. Revised Sections
are noted in the text.
RCW 85.38.020 states that the petition shall set forth in general terms:
· The objects sought by the creation of the district;
· The proposed projects that will accomplish the district objectives;
· The boundaries of the District, which may be Stated in terms of sections, townships,
and ranges; and
· Any other matters deemed material by the:petitioners.
The petition lists the objectives of the District to:
· Provide an administrative body with responsibility for maintenance of storm and
surface water facilities in all areas of the North Bay, including all Ludlow
Maintenance Commission property, the resort, condominiums, commercial area,
storage areas, and the sewage treatment plant;
· Prepare a surface water management plan for all of the North Bay area;
· Undertake a phased program of improvements to correct drainage deficiencies in a
manner that would minimize financial impacts;
· Design a manner for individual lots to be connected to the drainage system; and
· Operate, maintain, and restore drainage facilities.
100% Recycled Paper
Petition Section 2 briefly describes the existing: stormwater collection system within the
proposed District boundaries: It notes that the total scope of stormwater problems is
currently unknown. The District's first priority would be to develop a surface water
comprehensive plan to inventory drainage facilitieS, identify drainage problems, and
make recommendations for drainage projects including replacement or repair of existing
drainage structures.
Petition Section 3 provides a legal 'description of the proposed District boundary. The
boundary is also depicted on a map that accompanies the petition. The boundary includes
the Plats of Port Ludlow No. 1 - No. 7, the commercial area, resort, inn, condominiums,
conference center, beach club, and sewage treatment plant.
Petition Section 4 provides a list of 17 proposed District activities. Further analysis of
these Petition Sections is provided below.
RCW 85.38.020 requires that the petition be accompanied by a $5,000 bond to defray the
County's costs in considering the creation of the district. A bond in this mount was
submitted with the petition.
RCW 85.38.030 directs the County Engineer to analyze the petition and report to the
Board of County Commissioners regarding the proposed district boundaries, the
feasibility of the proposed projects, and other related issues. This report is intended to
fulfill that requirement.
RCW 85.38.050 states that if the County Engineer reports that the District's proposed
projects are feasible, the Board of Commissioners shall schedule a public hearing to take
testimony regarding the proposed District. The Board may authorize an election to
establish the District if it finds that:
· Creation of the District will be conducive to the public health, safety, and
convenience;
· Creation of the District will be of special benefit to the majority of land within the'
District; and
· The proposed improvements are feasible and economical and the benefits exceed the
COSTS.
Additional discussion regarding the distrlct election process and the system of special
assessments that would .fund District operations is provided at the end of this report.
II. County Engineer's Recommendation
RCW 85.38.030 directs the County Engineer to analyze the petition and report to the
Board of Commissioners regarding the proposed district boundaries, the feasibility of the
proposed projects, and other related issues. The petition has also been forwarded to the
Prosecuting Attorney's Office for legal review.
· Conformance with RCW85.38 Revised:Section
The petition for establishment Of the Port Lu~nage District generallyconforms
to the requirements of RCW 85.38. The activities proposed in Petition Sections 4.1 - 4.11
are expressly authorized in RCW 85.38.180 Special District powers. Petition Section 4.12
Annex other areas is provided for in RCW 85.38.200. Petition Section 4.13 Finance
district rl/r_qj ects based on drainag_~ subbasins is provided for in RCW 85.38.150 and. 160
Special Assessments. Petition Section 4.14 Maintain the surface water collection s.s.s_Tstem
is provided for: in RCW 85.15.020.
The activities proposed in Petition Sections 4.15 - 4.17 are not expressly authorized in the
RCW Title 85. These activities include conducting plan review and inspections; levying
charges for plan review, connections and inspections; and exercising authority over
activities outside of district boundahes.
The petitioners state that these activities are necessary in order for the District to
accomplish its objectives. The Department has conferred with the Prosecuting Attorney's
Office regarding whether the authority to conduct some of these activities is implied in
the powers granted to drainage districts in RCW 85.06.
These issues are analyzed in greater detail in the following section of this report.
· District boundary
The proposed District boundary includes the areas of North Port Ludlow that are densely
platted and developed. It encompasses most of the area of the North Port Ludlow
drainage basins. The area within the boundary has identified stormwater management
problems and does not have stormwater management facilities that meet current
standards, with the exception of the Plat of Port LudloTM No.7.
I recommend that the proposed Port Ludlow Drainage District boundary be established as
submitted by the petitioners.
· Proposed District projects
RCW 85.38.050 states that the Board of Commissioners may authorize an election to
create a district, if it finds that the proposed improvements are feasible and economical,
and that the benefits of the improvements exceed the costs.
The petition briefly describes the existing stormwater collection system within the
proposed district boundaries. It notes that the total scope of stormwater problems is
currently unknown. The petition proposes that the district's first priority would be to
develop a surface water comprehensive plan to inventory drainage problems and make
recommendations for replacement or repair of existing facilities and for new drainage
improvements.
The petition does not propose specific projects or provide project cost estimates. Because
of this, [ cannot make a determination of their feasibility at this time.
There is, though, general acknowledgement that there: are Significant drainage problems
in North Port Ludlow. Formation ora Drainage DiStrict :is presently the best opportunity
for financing a surface water management plan: and the actual projects that would be
identified by the plan. The Department estimates the cost of a surface water plan for Port
Ludlow would be approximately $125,000.
After creation, the District could develop a process involving District residents to develop
project priorities and the appropriate assessment level to fund those projects. This would
include development of the surface water management plan. This process should ensure
that District projects are feasible and economical and have benefits that exceed their
COSTS.
County Engineer's Recommendation
I recommend that the Board of Commissioners find that the petition meets the
requirements of RCW 85.38 with the exceptions noted above. The Board of
Commissioner should instruct the petitioners to revise the petition to delete those
activities that are not authorized prior to action by the Board.
I recommend that the Board of Commissioners schedule a hearing to take public
testimony on establishment of the proposed District.
III. Analysis of specific petition issues
1. Issue
RCW 85.38.020 requires petitions for establishment of a special district to be signed by
10 owners of land within the district.
Analysis
Thc 10 petitioners listed their ownership onthe petition. All parcels are within the
special district boundary
2. Issue
Petition Section 1 (b) states that a purpose of the district is rp_.r~aration of a surface water
mana emg~..~.I.plan for all of the North ~ service area. Petition Section l(c) states that
the plan would be approved by "the appropriate governmental agencies".
Analysis
While there is no express authorization for drainage districts to prepare a surface water
management plan in RCW 85.38.180 Special districts--Powers; there are references to
investigating and planning for improvements, projects, and facilities that clearly imply
authorization for the preparation of a management plan by the District.
While there is no express authorization for plan approval by Jefferson County, review and
approval by the County would ensure that the District's management plan is consistent
with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the County Stormwater Management
Ordinance, and the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management
Manual., the County stormwater management technical standard.
3. Issue Revised Section
Petition Section 1 (d) states Future annexations woUld increase Di strict size. In that event,
an acceptable connection fee would be established to defray both capital and or
maintenance costs.
Analysis
There is no express authorization for the district to charge a connection fee. However,
RCW 85.06.210 provides that persons with land within a drainage district shall have the
right to connect to the drainage system. The cost of that connection shall be paid for by a
special assessment as provided for in RCW 85.06.500. The system of special assessments
is discussed below.
The petition should be revised as follows: Future annexations would increase District
size. In that event, the cost of constructing .and maintaining additional connections would
be funded by the District's system of special aSsessments.
4. Issue
Petition Section 1 (d) states Drainage system design and material specifications would be
in accordance with current standards of the State of Washington and Jefferson County a.~
a minimum.
Analysis
Jefferson County's current standard for drainage and stormwater management is the
Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin. The Manual typically requires detention of stormwater runoff to avoid
impacts to downstream properties and receiving water bodies and treatment of runoff to
avoid impacts to receiving water bodies.
The County is aware of surface water management problems within the proposed district
boundary that may be related to increased peak runoff flows fi:om developed areas. The
existing system was designed primarily for conveyance of stormwater. System upgrades
to provide detention and treatment, as well as repair and maintenance, may be required in
order to meet current standards.
5. Issue
Petition Section 1 (d) states .All existing drain piping, waterways, and appurtenances
would be acquired from Jefferson County_, except those within the County road right-of-
way.
Analysis
Jefferson County does not own drainage facilities off of County road rights-of-way. This
may be a reference to "Drainage Easements" depicted on some plats within the proposed
boundary.. The :County asserts that it has no ownership or responsibility for these areas.
5
6. Issue Revised Section
Petition Section 1 (e) Objectives of the District states Jefferson County would provide
revenue collection. Ultimately the District could bill and collect its own annual
operational fees. Funding for drainage specific improvements would be provided by the
affected property owners on a cost/benefit basis. Billing would be provided by Jefferson
County similar to our annual taxes. All such assessments would be in accordance with
current Washington State law as designated in Title 85 and other applicable state
provisions. Fees for annual operation and maintenance would be collected by Jefferson
County.
Analysis: RCW 85.38.150-170 establishes special assessments as the sole means for
funding district operations. Assessments would be collected by Jefferson County and
transferred to the District. There is no provision for imposing an operation and
maintenance fee.
The petition should be revised as follows: Funding for District operations shall'be
provided solely thrOugh a system of special assessments on property within the District.
The assessment system woUld be developed in accordance with the requirements of the
Revised Code of Washington, RCW 85.38. The assessment system would consider
assessment zones, the value of benefit or.use per acre, and the types' of improvements.
The District shall not have the authori _ty to impose any distinct fee, rate, or charge for
operations or maintenance, including plan reviews, inspections, or connections that it
undertakes. Jefferson County would bill for and collect special assessments for the
District. Special asseSsments would be due at the same time as property taxes.
7. Issue
Petition Section 2 briefly describes the existing stormwater collection system within the
proposed District boundaries. It notes that the total scope of stormwater problems is
currently unknown and therefore describing the required projects is difficult. The petition
proposes that the District's first priority would be to develop a surface water
comprehensive plan to inventory drainage problems and make recommendations for
replacement or repair.
Analysis
Preparation of a surface water comprehensive plan is authorized by RCW 85.38.180(2)
which addresses investigating and planning for improvements. This is an appropriate first
priority for the District.
8. Issue
Petition Section 3 describes the boundary of the proposed District. The boundary is also
depicted on a map that accompanies the petition. The boundary includes the Plats of Port
Ludlow No. 1-No. 7, the commercial area, resort, inn, condominiums, conference center,
beach club, and sewage treatment plant.
AnalYsis
The proposed boundary encompasses what ts commonly known as North Port Ludlow,
The area is characterized by dense residential lots and urban-level commercial and resort
development. With the exception of the Plat Port Ludlow No. 7, there are not drainage
management facilities that meet current standards. There are drainage easements
6
delineated on the plats of Port Ludlow No. 1, 2} 4, and 5. These easements are intended
for conveyance. They do not provide for detention or treatment.
The Department of Public Works ~s aware of significant drainage problems in the areas
encompassed by the proposed boundary.
A review of the proposed boundary indicates that it includes all of the densely developed
areas that contribute to the North Port Ludlow drainage basins. The areas within those
basins that are outside of the boundary do not appear to contribute a significant quantity
of runoff because they are characterized by low density residential development, typically
five acres or more per parcel.
The proposed boundary appears to be reasonably drawn to include the areas of North Port
Ludlow that:
· are densely platted and developed;
· encompass most of the North Port Ludlow drainage basins;
· do not have stormwater management facilities that meet current standards;
· are character/zed by existing stormwater management problems.
9. Issue Revised Section
Petition Section 4 provides a list of 17 proposed District activities.
Analysis
The activities listed in Sections 4.1 - 4.11 are authorized in RCW 85.38.180 Special
District powers. Section 4.12 Annex other areas is authorized in RCW 85.38.200. Petition
Section 4.13 Finance district projects based on drainage subbasins is authorized in RCW
85.38.150 and. 160 Special Assessments. Section 4.14 Maintain the surface water
collection system is authorized in RCW 85.15.020.
Petition Sections 4.15 - 4.17 propose conducting plan review and inspections; levying
charges for plan review, connections and inspections; and exercising authority over
activities outside of District boundaries. Thero are two general issues to consider
regarding these activities.
First, districts are clearly authorized by RCW 85.38.180 to conduct activities related to
planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining drainage facilities. The activities
proposed in Petition Sections 4.15 - 4.17 are not expressly authorized in RCW Title 85.
However, the powers authorized to the District Commissioners in RCW 85.06.080 imply
the authority to conduct plan reviews and inspections on development projects within the
District to ensure conformance with the District's Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
Second, districts are authorized by RCW 85.38.140 - .170 to impose special assessments
to fund their activities. Petition Sections 4.15 - 4.17 propose plan review, connection, and
inspection fees. There is not express authorization in RCW 85.38 for these means of
financing district activities.
Petition Sections 4.15 - 4.17 are analyzed further below.
10. Issue
Petition Section 4.13. Finance__~_ecial district rop_rgj~ts b'ased on flow ff..om the s_pecial
proi ect drainage sub-basin.
Analysis
In order for the district to impose an assessment based on flows from drainage sub-basins,
the assessment system must delineate sub-basin assessment zones. This is authOrized in
RCW 85.38.150.
11. Issue Revised Section.
Petition Section 4.15. The District shall have all--lan review and th~
for such review. Plan review shall be conducted on all projects tributary to any waterway
or surface water conveyance system whether the project is within the boundary_ of the
District or not.
Analysis
This section raises several issues. First, the petition proposes that the District conduct
plan review on stormwater plans that impact District facilities or basins within the
Di strict. The petitioners have stated in discussion with the Department that this would be
a technical review to ensure compliance with the County Stormwater Management
Ordinance and the District's Surface Water Comprehensive Plan. It would not be for the
purpose of land use review.
As nOted above, there is no express authorization in RCW 85.38 for the District to
conduct plan review. However, the powers authorized to the District Commissioners in
RCW 85.06.080 imply the authority to conduct plan review on development projects
within the District in order to achieve the District's purposes and to ensure conformance
with the District's Surface Water ComprehensiVe Plan.
Second, the District proposes to charge for plan reviews. RCW 85.38.140 establishes
RCW 85.38.140-170 as the exclusive method by which the district measures and imposes
special assessments and adopts its budget. There is no authorization for special districts to
charge for plan review. The petition Should be revised to delete reference to charges for
plan review.
Third, the district proposes the authority to review stormwater plans and to Charge for this
review for projects outside of the district boundary that are tributary to the District's
drainage basinS or facilities. There is no authorization for these activities. The petition
should be revised to delete this.
The petition should be revised as follows: The District shall have the authority to conduct
plan review on developments within the District boundary in order to ensure that
developments are connected to the District's drainage facilities tn a manner consistent
with the District Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
12. Issue Revised Section
Section 4.16 The District shall also have the right to establish connection fees and collect
fees for any project impacting.its system from the stand point of water quality as well as
flow rate and quantity.
Analysis
RCW 85.06.210 provides that land within the District may be connected to the District's
facilities and that the connection cost shall be paid for through special assessments. There
is no authorization for special districts to impose connection fees.
RCW 85.38.145 and 85.38.180(3) authorize districts to charge fees for water quality
enhancement activities. Considering that Port LudlOw Bay meets Washington State
Department of Ecology Class AA (Extraordinary) marine water quality standards, water
quality enhancement activities would most likely be a small portion of District activities.
The petition should be revised as follows: In addition to revenues fi.om District special
assessments; as provided for in RCW 85.38, the District may also establish and collect
fees for water quality enhancement activities.
13. Issue Revised Section
Section 4.17 Permits shall be required to do storm or surface water work. The District
shall charge a fee for such permits. The District shall also inspect such work and charge
for any related fees. Inspection shall be required to verify conformance with permit
requirements.
Analysis
As noted above, there is no express authorization in RCW 85.38 for the District require a
permit or to conduct inspections. The powers authorized to the District Commissioners in
RCW ~85.06.080 imply 'the authority to require developments within the District to
connect to District facilities. This in turn implies the authority to requn'e a permit from
the District and for the District to conduct inspections to ensure that connections are in
conformance with the District's Surface Water Comprehensive Plan. The District is not
authorized to charge an inspection fee.
The petition should be revised as follows: The District shall have the authority to require
new and existing developments within the District boundary to connect to the District's
drainage facilities. A Drainage Permit from the District shall be required for
developments to connect to the District's drainage facilities. The District shall have the
authority to inspect connections to District drainage facilities to ensure that connections -
are made consistent with the District Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
14. Issue
The District could only be financed by special assessments. The petition does not address
how its activities would be financed during the period after incorporation and before
assessments are received.
9
Analysis
The District incorporation must be approved bY District: property owners at a special
election. After approval the assessment system would be developed by the County
Engineer and reviewed by the Board of Commissioners at a public hearing. Final
approval by the Board of Commissioners must be by September 1 in order to allow the
Di strict to adopt a budget and assessments by December 1 Assessments would be due at
the same time as property taxes. Depending on: the date of the special election, there
could be a lag of over a year between District incorporation and collecting assessment
revenues. The petitioners state that they would :seek funds from a bonding company to
finance District operations in the interim.
IV. Public Hearing and District Election
RCW85.38.040 provides that if the County Engineer reports that the proposed projects
are feasible, the Board of Commissioners shall schedule a public hearing on forming the
district. After Conducting their hearing, the Board may by resolution authorize an election
to create the district if it finds that:
· Creation of the district will be conducive to the public health, convenience, and
welfare;
· Creation of the special district will be of special benefit to a majority of lands within
the district; and
· The proposed improvements are feasible and economical and the benefits of the
improvements exceed the costs. (RCW 85.38.050)
The resolution calling for the election may include a request to the County Auditor that
the election be conducted by mail.
RCW 85.38.060 provides that the Board shall designate one of the dates specified in
RCW 29.13.020 for the election to create a special district. The dates are the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in February, the second Tuesday in March, the fourth Tuesday in
April, the third Tuesday in May, the third Tuesday in September, or the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in November. The cutoff date for a Board resolution authorizing
the election is 45 prior to the election date.
If the District were established this year, RCW 85.38.100 specifies that election of
District Commissioners could not occur until the next special district general election
date on the first Tuesday after the frrst Monday in February, 2002. RCW 85.38 070
provides that the Board of Commissioners shall appoint the initial District
Commissioners to serve in the interim.
V. Assessment system
RCW 85.38.140 through 170 set forth a system of special assessments to fund district
activities. The special assessments are levied on. real property and improvements that will
use the district's facilities or receive benefit from the districts operations or facilities.
Special assessments on real property_, other than improvements, are a function of the
value of benefit or use per acre: and the assessment zone in which the property is located.
10
Special assessments on improvements are !afuncti0n of the value of benefit or use
assigned to the type or class of:improvements and the assessment zone.
Assessment zones shall be established in which each zone reflects a different ratio of
benefit or use. Real property receiving no benefit shall be designated "nonbenefit". If all
real property in the district is found to have the same relative benefit or use, a single
assessment zone may be established.
RCW 85.38.160 states that the County Engineer shall prepare a preliminary system of
assessment for the district. The system shall include
· assessment zones,
· the acreage in each assessment zone,
· a dollar value of benefit or use per acre, and
· types of improvements.
The assessment system would be developed aiter creation of the District. The Department
would likely engage an engineering consulting firm to deVelop the system in cooperation
with the District Commissioners.
RCW 85.38.160 further states that the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
preliminary assessment system in a public' hearing. The Board may revise the County
Engineer's preliminary system. The Board shall adopt the assessments by ordinance,
prior to September 1 in the year it is to be finalized. The system of assessment shall be
revieWed by the County Engineer and finalized by the Board at least every 4 years.
RCW 85.38.. 170 states that the district board shall adopt a resolution approving a budget
and special assessments sufficient to finance the budget On or before December 1. Special
assessments are due at the same time as property taxes. The County Treasurer would
collect the special assessments.
11
LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSION
March 10, 2000
Jefferson County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Subject: Revisions to Petition for Formation of Port Ludlow Drainage District
Gentlemen:
After consultations withlthe County Engineer's office and with our own legal and engineering
advisors, the following revisions are offered to the Peliti°n for Formation of a Port LUdlow
Drainage DiStrict submitted to your: office on October 14, 1999:
Petition Section l(d) Objectives of the District (paragraph 2); change to read:
"Future annexations would increase the District size." Delete the following sentence
begirming "In that event..."
9
Petition Section l(e) Objectives of the DiStrict; change to read:
"Fundingfor District operations shall be provided solely through a system of special
assessments on property within the District. The assessment system would be developed in
accordance with the requirements of the Revised Code of Washington, RCW 85.38. The
assessment system would consider assessment zones, the value of benefit or use per acre,
and the types of improvements. Jefferson County would bill for and collect special
assessments for the District. Special assessments would be due at the same time as
property taxes.
o
Petition Section 4,15; change to read:
"The District shall have the authority to conduct plan review of developments within the
District boundary in order to ensure the developments are connected to the District's
drainage facilities tn a manner consistent with the District Storm Water Comprehensive
Plan."
Petition Section 4.16; change to read:
"In addition to revenues from District special assessments, as provided for in R CW 85.38.
the District may also establish and collecr fees for water quality enhancement activities."
Petition Section 4.17; change to read:
"The District shall have the authority to require new and existing developments within the
District boundary' to connect to the District's drainage facilities. A Drainage Permit fi'om
the District shall be required for developments to connect to the DistricFs drainage
POST OFFICE BOX 65060
PORT _UDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365
facilities. ~ The District shall
facilities to ensure that connections are made Cons
Comprehensive Plan."
~ctions to District: drainage
with the District Storm Water
Thank you for your consideration of this petition. If approved, arrangements for conducting a
public heating in the proposed District's boundary may.be made by contacting Mr. Richard
Smith at 437-9201.
Sincerelys/
Ja~es L. Laker, Secretary
LCdlow Maintenance Commission
LUDLOW MAINTENANCE COMMISSI:ON
October 14, 1999
Jefferson: County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Subject:
OCT 1 8 1999
Petition for Establishment of Port Ludlow Drainage District
Gentlemen:
In accordance with RCW 85.38.020, a petition;for the establishment of a Port Ludlow
Drainage District is submitted for your consideration. Enclosed are the following:
1. A petition signed by 10 property owners within the boundaries of the
proposed Port Ludlow Drainage District
2. A statement outlining the objectives sought by creation of the proposed Port
Ludlow Drainage District and projects propOsed to be completed
3. PrOof of a bond .in the amount of $5,000.00
4. A map showing the boundaries of the proposed Port Ludlow Drainage District
The contact person for this petition is Mr. Walter Cairns, who may be reached during
daytime hours at 437-0503. LudloTM Maintenance COmmission will assist in providing a
suitable place to hold a public hearing for the proposal.
Yours trulY,
, Secretary
/ Ludlow Maintenance Commission Board of Trustees
POST OFFICE BOX 65060
PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365
PETITION FOR ESTABLISHMENT
OF
PORT LUDLOW: DRAINAGE :DISTRICT
To: Jefferson County Commissioners
In accordance with RCW 85.38.020, the following property owners hereby petition the Jefferson
County Commissioners to establish a "Port Ludlow Drainage DistriCt,'' whose boundaries m'e set
forth in the attacheddescription and map. Also attached is a statement outlining the objectives
sought by the creation of the proposed district and projects proposed to be completed.
I, the undersigned, am a registered voter residing within the boundaries of the prol~sed "Port Ludlow Drainage District"
Lot 43, Area 3
LegaID~p~onofP~p~7 Port Ludlow No. 2
Legal D~seripQon of Property Lot 63, Area 2
Port Ludlow No. 2
Address
Lot 28, Area 2
Legal I~sctiption of Pmp~-ty
Printed Name / k.2. · -
r. ........~'~. -~t~(L ~ . k ~_~u'~- Port Ludlow No 1
PfinZdNa~ ~ ~ L:~l~pdonof~p~ Lot 64, Area 2 /-
- . · _ -_ --_ : .
b~amre ~z/ / f ~ I~a~ss ~
:-- (..:/_: :- _ _ _ ~,_ :~,C
Legal D~-iption of~perty/ Lot 1 1 · Area 1
Port Ludlow-. No. 1
Addr~s~
Lot 42
L:gal D~.~pfion of P~P~W
Port LUdlow No. 3
Lot 1 64, Area 3
Port Ludlow No. 2
Establishment of
The Port Ludlow Drainage
District
1. Objectives of the District
(a). The first is to set in place an administrative body, legally formed, to insure and
direct maintenance of existing storm and surface water facilities on all commonly
owned LMC property.
CD). The second immediate purpose is to provide authoriW for preparation of a surface
water management plan for all of the North Bay service area. This wiU necessarily
involve engineering consultant solicitation and a financing-method to pay for such
a plan.
(c).
Upon completion and approval by the appropriate governmental agencies of the
surface water comprehensive plan, a phased group of improvements would be
undertaken to correct drainage deficiencies. These improvement projects would be
sequenced in a manner that would minimi~.e the financial impacts on North Bay
property owners. Additionally the plan would be designed to assist the ACC in
providing a methodology for each individual lot to be connected to the system. Long
range maintenance and operation would include operation expenses to restore and
preserve the District's facilities in thesame or as good a condition as when installed.
This would also include District operating equipment as well as a future District office.
Rev. 1
(d). The Drainage District, al responsibility for drainage
of all areas in North Bay (within the Drainage District boundaries) not owned by
Jefferson County. This would include but not be limited to the following:
1. All reserve and park areas owned by LMC
2. All interior drainage between private lots
3. The resort area
4. Port Ludlow Plat SeVen drainage system
5. All condominium and apartment areas
6. All commercial business areas
7. All storage areas
8. Sewage Treatment Plant site
Future annexations would increase the District size, In that event, an acceptable
connection fee would be established to proportionally defray both capital and or
maintenance costs.
The basic service provided by the District would be to control surface water runoff.
Specifically excluded would be damage caused by wave and tidal action, ground water,
and liquefaction due to seismic events.
Drainage system design and material specifications would be in accordance with
current standards of the State of Washington and Jefferson County as a mlnlmnm.
All storm water easements within the green belts would be acquired from Olympic
Water and Sewer Inc. All existing drain piping, waterways and appurtenances
Rev. 1
would be acquired from the County, except those within the :County road fight-of-way, -
and in the case of Port Ludlow Plat 5, from Olympic Resource Management.
(e). Jefferson County would provide revenue collection. Ultimately the District
could bill and collect its own annual operational fees. Funding for drainage
specific improvements would be provided by the affected property owners on
a cost/benefit basis. Billing would be provided by Jefferson County similar to .
our annual taxes. Ail such assessments and fees .would be in accordance with
current Washington State law as designated in Title 85 and other applicable
State provisions. Fees for annual operation and maintenance would be collected
by Jefferson County.
The Projects proposed:
' North Bay of Port Ludlow is separate area shown on the map that accompanies
this proposal.
The storm water collection system started when portions of North Bay were
initially platted in 1968. The most recent portion was completed in 1998in: an area
known initially as sector 7-a 22-1ot subdivision. The old pipe; corrugated, galvanized,
steel pipe has deteriorated in many areas. The total scope of the problem is currently
unknown. Therefore to state in general terms what projects are required is difficult,
especially when standards of the State :have changed drastically since 1968.
As a result, a first priority of the District would be to finance a surface water
comprehensive plan. This plan would disclose aH known problems together with
recommendations on how their repair: or replacement would be accomplished.
Rev. 1
3
3. See the attached map of this prOposed for boundaries of the Port Ludlow
Drainage District.
Legal Description:
Boundary Description
of Proposal port Ludlow
Drainage District
Beginning at the NE corner of lot 11 Port Ludlow No. 5, Volume 6 pg. 34;
thence Westerly along the North line of said PL No. 5 to the intersection with
the East margin of Port Ludlow Dr, commonly known as Oak Bay Road; thence
South Easterly along said East margin to the intersection with the North line of
Sec. 9, T28 N., R. 1 E., WM,; thence Westerly along said North Ln. to the NW
corner of said Sec. 9; thence Southerly along the west line of said Sec. 9, 1319~ 55
feet to the NE corner of the SE ~A of the. NE ¼ of Sec. 8, T28 N., R1E, W.M;
thence Westerly on the North line of said SE ¼ to the: Northwest corner of the
SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Sec. 8, T28 N, R1E, W.M; thence South Westerly along
the West llne of said SE ¼ of the NE ZA of See. 8 T28 N, R1E N.M to the South
Westerly margin at Swansonville Road and:the NW corner of Port Ludlow No. 1
Area 3 Vol. 5 pg. 28; thence continuing South Westerly along said West line of
the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Sec. 8 T28 N, R1E. to its intersection with the NW corner
and West line of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of section 8 T28 N. RIE Wadi.; thence
continuing Southwesterly along said West into the North line of Waiker Way.;
thence Westerly along said North line and its extensiOns to its intersection with
Rev. 1
the East line of Port Ludlow:No. 4 Vol. 6 Pg. 54 - 56; thence Westerly and
Northerly to the North line of said PL No. 4; thence Westerly along said
North line to a point common to both said PL No, 4 and Port Ludlow No. 6
Vol. 9 pg. 40-41 and the North line of said PL No. 6; thence Westerly along said
North line to the NW corner of said PL No. 6 and the West line of said PL No. 6;
thence Southerly and Easterly along said Westerly line of said PL No. 6 to the
Northerly Margin of Oak Bay Road; thence continuing along the South Easterly
prodUction of said line to its intersection with the MI~NL of Port Ludlow Bay;
thence Northerly and Easterly along said M I~VL whether natural or manmade
continuously to the Easterly production of the South line of lot 37 of the plat of
Port Ludlow No. 1 Area 2 Vol. 5 pg. 27; thence Westerly along said South line to
the East line of said plat of PL NO, 1; thence Northerly along said East line to the
North line of said plat of PL No. 1 Area 2; thence Westerly along said North line to
its intersection with the East line of Port Ludlow No. 2 Vol. 5 pg. 42; thence
Northerly along said East line to the North line of said 'PL No. 2; thence Westerly
along said North line to the East line of Port Ludlow No. 5 Vol. 6 pg. 34; thence
Northerly along said East line to the ~N'E corner of lot 11 said PL No. 5 and the
point of beginning.
Less all rights of way dedicated to Jefferson County.
4. As a special district we expect to engage in the following activities:
Engage in flood control activities, and investigate, plan, construct, acquire,
repair, maintain, and operate improvements, works, projects, and facilities
necessary to prevent inundation or: flooding, Such facilities include surface
water conveyance systems, channels, and other Works, appliances, machinery,
and equipment.
Rev. 1
Engage in drainage cOntrol, stormwater, control, and surface water control
activities, and investigate, Plan, construct, acquire~ repair,lmaintaln, and
operate improvements,'Works, projects, and facilities necessary to control and
treat storm water, surface water, and flood water, Such facilities include drains,
ditches, nonsanitary sewers, pumps, and Other works, appliances, machinery,
and equipment.
3. Take actions necessary to protect life and property from inundation or flow
storm waters, or surface waters.
Acquire, purchase, condemn by power of eminent domain pursuant to chapters
8.08 and 8.25 RCW, or lease, in its own name, necessary property, property
right, facilities, and equipment.
5. Sell or exchange surplus property, property fights, facilities and equipment.
6. Accept funds and property bY loan, grant, gift, or otherwise from the United
States the State of Washington, or any other public or private source.
7. Rire staff, employees, or services, or .use voluntary labor.
8. Sue and be sued.
9. Cooperate with or join the United States, the State of Washington, orany other
public or private entity or person for district purposes.
10. Enter into contracts.
11. Exercise any of the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes.
12. Annex other areas in accordance with current RCW's.
13. Finance special district projects based On flow:from the special project
drainage sub-basin.
14. Maintain the surface water collection system in accordance with RCW
85.15.020
"Maintenance" means and includes not merely operating expenses r2lld
such upkeep and other work commonly classed as .maintenance as shall be
necessary to restore and preserve the district's systems of improvement and
the machinery and equipment operated in connection therewith in the same
Rev. 1
or as goOd condition as when ioriginally constructed and installed, but also the
making of such changes in the betterment's to the original works,: improvements
and installations as shall, subject to approval of the Board of County
Commissioners, be by the board deemed necessary to put the systems of
improvements into such condition as will provide protection and services as
contemplated and intended by the original construction and any enlargement
and extensions thereafter made.
15. The District shall have all right of plan review and the right to bill for such
review. Plan review shall be conducted on all projects tributary to any
waterway or surface water conveyance system whether the project is within
the boundary of the District or not.
16. The District shall also have the right to establish connection fees and collect
such fees for any project impacting its system from the standpoint of water
quality as well as flow rate and quantity.
17. Permits shall be required to do storm or surface water work. The proposed
District shall charge a fee for such permits. The District shall also inspect
such work and charge for any fees related. Inspection shall be required to
verify conformance with permit requirements.
Rev. 1
7
PROPOSED
PORT LUDLOW
DRAINAGE DISTRICT
(Revision 1 )
m
m
Arn west
Amwest: Su~'y InsUrance 'Company
BOND NO' 111001805
DISTRICT PETITION INDEMNITY BOND
KNOW ALL MEN 8Y THESE PRESENTS: That we, Ludlow Maintenance
Commission, Inc. of PO Box 65060, Port Ludlow, Washington 98365, as Principal,
and AMWEST SURETY INSURANCE =COMPANY, a corporation duly licensed to do
business n the State of Washington, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
Jefferson C.ount~,, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. as Obligee, 'n the penal sum
of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), lawful money of the United States, to be
paid to the said Obligee, for which payment well and truly to be made, we bind
ourselves and our lega! representative:s, jointly and severally by these-presents.
THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That whereas, the said
Principal has petitioned for the establishment of a special district per RCW
85.38.020 and is required to post a surety bond 9uaranteem~] defrayment of
possible costs incurred by the county in considering] the creation of this special
district by the said Obligee.
NOW THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully perform the duties and in all
things comply with the laws and ordinances, including all Amendments thereto,
appertaining to the petition made, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to
remain in full force and effect.
This bond may be terminated at any time by the Surety upon sending notice in
writing to the Obligee with whom this bond is filed, and to the Principal, and at the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the mailing of said notice, this bond shall ipso
facto terminate and the Surety shall :thereupon be relieved from any liability for any
acts or omission of the Principal subsequent to said date.
DATED THIS 18th day of October, 1999
EFFECTIVE DATE 10/18/1999
AMWEST SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY
Carol Keenan
rney-in~Fact
Signature
Ludlow Maintenance Cog3~ission, Inc.
Pnnc~pal
Signature
F. ATTORNEY
Amwest Surety lnsurance Company
firation Date: 11/24/00 POWERNUMBER 0000951040
This document is printed on white paper containing the artificial ~vatermarked logo ( ~ ) of Amwest Surety Insurance Company on the fi'ont and brown security paper
on the back. Only unaltered originals of :the Limited Power Of Attorney ("POA") are valid. This POA may not be used in conjunction with any other POA. No
representations or warranties regarding this POA may be made by any person. This POA zs governed by the laws of the State of Nebraska and is only valid Until the
expiration date. Amwest Surety Insurance Company (the "Company") shall not be liable on any limited POA which is fraudulently produced, forged or otherwise
disu-ibuted without the permission.of the Company. Any party concerned about the validitY: of this POA or an accompanying Company bond should call your local Amwest
branch office at (206) 522-3111
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENT, that Amwest Surety Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, does hereby make, constitute and appoint:
Homer S. Smith. III
Kennith R. Carter
Carol, Keenan
Denise ./. Koehl
As Employees of Homer Smith Insurance, Inc.
its true and lawful Attorney-in-fact, with limited power and authority for and on behalf of the Company as surety to execute, deliver and ~;ffix the seal of the company thereto
d' a seal is required on bonds, undertakings, recognizances, reinsurance agreement for a Miller Act or other performance bond 0r other written obligations in the nature thereof
as follows:
All Bonds up to S5,000,000.00
and to bind the company thereby. This appointment is made under and by authority of the By-Laws of the Company, which are now.in Ell force and effect.
L the undersigned secretary of Amwest Surety Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that This Power of Attorney remains in ~ull force and
effoct and has not been revoked and furthermore, that the resolutions of the Board of Directors of Amwes~ Surety Insurance Company set forth on this Power of Attorney, and
that the relevant provisions of the By-Laws of each company, are now in full force and effect
/ IC~rcn G. Cohen, Secretary.
* ' * * * * * ' * * ' * ' * ' ' * RgSOLUTIONS OF TI~ BOARD OF D[RgCTORS * * * ' * ' ' * * * ' ' * * ' ' * ' ' * * * ' * ' ' *
T~s POA is signed and sealed by facsirmle under and by the authority of the foRowin$ resolutions adopted bythe Board of Directors of Amwes~ Surety Insurance Company
at a meeting duly held on December I5, 1975:
RESOLVED, that thc President or any Vice President, in conjuncaon with the Secretary or any Assistant SecretarY, may appoint attorneys-in-fact or agents with
authority aa defined or limited in the instrument evidencing the appointment in each case, t'or and on behalf of the Company, to execute and deliver and affix thc seal of the
Company to bonds, undertakings, recognizances, and suretyship obligations of all kinds; and said officers may remove any such attorney-in-fact or agent and revoke any POA
previously granted to such ~rson.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any bond, undertaking, recognizance, or suretyship obligation shall be valid and bind upon the Company:
(i) when signed by the President or any Vice President and attested and sealed (ifa seal be required) by any Secretary or Assistant Secretory; or
(ii) when signed by thc President or any Vice President or Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and countersigned and sealed (if a seal be required) by a duly
authorized attorney-in-fact or agent; or
(iii) when duly executed and sealed (if a seal be required) by one or more atmrn~s-in-fact or agents pursuant to and within the limits of the author~'
evidenced by the power of attorney issued by the Comlmny to such person or persons.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that thc signature of any authorized officer and the seal ofthe Comlmay tray be affixed by facsimile to any POA or certification thereof
authorizing the execution and delivery of any bond, undertaking, recognizance, or other suretyship obligations of the Company; and such signature and seal when so used shail
have the same force and =fleet as though manually affixed.
[N WITNESS WHEREOF. Amwest Surety Insurance Company has caused these present to be signed by its proper officers, and its corporate seals to be hereunto affixed this
25~ day of September. 1998.
Savage, Presidefit / Karen G. Cohen, Secretary.
State of Calitbrnia
County of Los Angeles
On September 25, 1998 before me, Peggy B. Lot%n Notary Public. personally apgeared John E. Savage and Karen G. Cohen, personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subseribedlto the within ins~ument and acknowledged to me all that he/she/they executed the
same in hist3ter/thelr authorized capacity(les), and that by hi~iher/tbeir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted.
executed the ins~umcnt.
.=OOi~ DEC.~4 ~0'"-'
",,,.~'~ ................. z x",~ 3"
WITNESS my ~ and official seal.
5230 Las Virgenes Road Calabasas, CA 91302
TEL 818 871-2000