HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012296
1.9iqø.lømll~I_$IIII~
""""""""""""'~'~!~~~:::;;;:;~~'i';'~,~f<::.:~:::":" ""\<':::'~~~:;:~";;;:~;:;:,~;;;::i::""
MINUTES
WEEK OF JANUARY 22, 1996
The Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt at the
conclusion of the Finance Committee meeting with the Auditor and the Treasurer.
Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Robert Hinton were both present.
Approval of the Minutes: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the
Minutes of December 18 and 26, 1995 and January 2, 8, and 16, 1996. Commissioner
Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Bob Minty, Emer2ency Mana2ement Coordinator Discussion re: Blues
Farm Specia. Event Application: Emergency Management Coordinator Bob Minty updated
the Board regarding the Blues Farm Special Event Permit application. He explained that the
permit has been sent to the appropriate departments for review. The Prosecuting Attorney
has reviewed the insurance for this event. The Building Inspector is working with Mr. King
on the electrical requirements and the Health Department is reviewing the health and
sanitation requirements. This festival expects to draw about 4,000 people. The
transportation and parking aspects of the permit are being reviewed by the Sheriff and the
State Department of Transportation. There will be Transit service to the site and Mr. King
has arranged for an extra parking lot.
Commissioner Hinton asked when this festival will take place? Mr. King, the event organizer
answered that it will be held from May through September. He reported that there will be
one concert per month on Sunday only. The stage will be put up and taken down for each
concert. The farm, where the concerts will take place, is located at the intersection of
Highway 101 and Highway 20. Mr. King reported that he has met with the community to
find out their concerns and made plans to address those concerns. The concert area will
open at 8:00 a.m. and the concert will begin at Noon and end by 8:00 p.m. They are
encouraging a family atmosphere.
Bob Minty reported that he will bring this permit back for the Board's consideration when all
of the requirements have been met.
Page 1
VC'.
,~2 :..~..: 74
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
~bert re: Sea Crest ~states: Mr. Glaubert presented a copy of
County Resolution 65-90 to the Board. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul McIlrath
explained that an action was filed in Clallam County Superior Court regarding the Dickinson
Short Plat. The matter was dismissed on the County's motion, for failure of the applicant to
exhaust administrative remedies. The administrative action that needed to be done was the
filing of a subdivision application. He explained that the County is in the process of
reviewing the short plat application submitted by Mr. Glaubert's clients and an administrative
decision will be made on that short plat. Depending on the outcome of that administrative
decision, the applicants could file an appeal, which would be presented to the Board of
Commissioners. He cautioned the Board and Mr. Glaubert that discussing that short plat
application today, could have an impact on the Board's ability to hear a quasi judicial appeal.
Mr. Glaubert explained that he has been in business on the north Peninsula for 20 years
dealing with land use and property issues. This is a property issue that he feels the Board of
Commissioners needs to address for property owners who own land within an Indian
Reservation in Jefferson County. He noted that the last paragraph in Resolution 65-90 has
given County staff a perceived authority to direct the private property owner, or his
representative to deal directly with the Tribal government on land use matters. He noted that
he doesn't want to be put in that position. Commissioner Hinton asked if Mr. Glaubert is
an attorney. Mr. Glaubert answered that he is a land surveyor. Chairman Wojt asked why
Mr. Glaubert doesn't want to deal with the Tribe on tribal lands? He stated that the Tribe
has no process for dealing with these property owners. He stated that he doesn't want to put
his clients in the position of having to deal with another entity in addition to their Board of
Commissioners.
Deputy Director of Public Services, David Goldsmith, explained the history of the resolution
that was presented by Mr. Glaubert. This resolution was a result of a Supreme Court
decision (Brendale) which concluded that Tribal government and the County share
jurisdiction over privately held land within Reservation boundaries. Up to the point of that
decision, Jefferson County took the position that it had no jurisdiction within the boundaries
of the Reservation. As a result of the Brendale case, the Board of Commissioners passed
Resolution 65-90 setting up a dual review process, pending the development of an agreement
between the County and the Tribe on how these applications will be dealt with. A
Memorandum of Understanding was developed between the Tribes, Jefferson County and
Grays Harbor County. Jefferson County and the Tribe came to agreement, however, Grays
Harbor County is still working on this document and has not agreed to it yet. The question
is still how the County deals with the Supreme Court Decision. If the property owned is in
an open area of the reservation, then the jurisdiction is more non-tribal in nature and the
County government must consider the Tribe's issues around the cultural, social and economic
well being of the Tribe during the decision making process. If the property is located in
what is considered a closed area of the Reservation, then the Tribe must recognize the non-
tribal governments interest. In this case it's not clear if these properties are in an open or
closed area. There have been conflicting Court decisions on this issue since the Brendale
case. Mr. Glaubert is asking that the Board make a determination on whether or not a dual
review process is appropriate.
Chairman Wojt explained that it is his understanding that in Jefferson County there are only
three landowners involved in this issue with the Tribe and that the acreage involved is quite
small relative to the size of the Tribal area. The area where these properties are located isn't
developed at present. He feels the tribal interest in maintaining the Tribal lands for
production of timber is a major interest for the Tribe on this property.
Page 2
VOL
22 'Ar - 7t::
rri\)~ tJ
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Quinault Tribe has reviewed the short plat
application and commented on it? David Goldsmith answered that the Tribe has reviewed
and made some comments on this short plat. Paul McIlrath explained that the Brendale
decision requires a case by case analysis of projects. He then reported that the County is in
the process of reviewing and updating the Comprehensive Plan for adoption, and the issue of
inholding (privately held fee lands within Tribal Nation lands) will be dealt with in that
plan.
Mr. Glaubert explained that the area being discussed is along the Pacific Ocean south of
Kalaloch. It is in an old plat (Evergreen Point Plat) that was done in the mid 1930's that
created six, five acre lots, on the ocean. Since the '30's those lots have been divided. Now
the lots along the ocean range from 70 feet to 100 feet in width. There are a number of
property owners in this area. The Dickinson's property is 20 acres in size and is located the
farthest south in the plat. His concern is how the County staff is dealing with the property
owners in this area because of this resolution.
PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Public Services Director Gary Rowe
summarized what was discussed with the City last week regarding population. He reported
that a memorandum of understanding between the City and County staff will be written up
for review and then possible adoption by the City and County
The OFM population projections for the year 2016 are:
Low 38,086 Medium 42,579
High 45,964.
The Watterson projection in the year 2014 is 38,377. This is on the low side. The existing
1995 population is 25,100. The City agreed that they could take 6,000 people which would
make the City population 14,100. There were 2,500 people allocated to the Port Ludlow
community, putting the build out population at 2,900. In the Tri Area (area is defined as the
study area) the County is proposing adding 1,500 on top of the existing population, bringing
the population to 4,500. This would leave 3,000 to be absorbed by rural Jefferson County.
This adds up to a total County population of 38,100, which is a low projection. The medium
OFM population projection needs to be addressed. There would be 3,500 in unallocated
population which should go to the Urban area. The low forecast will be used on an interim
basis until there is resolution on what is to be done with the Tri Area.
P LIC C :MMENT PERIOD. The following items were discussed: A
building permit that was issued on Marrowstone Island for a residence with proof of water
being a well and how that decision impacts the issue of salt water intrusion; a resident of the
Quinault area urged the Board not to forget the residents of this area; an invitation to the
Board to attend the City's hearing on water at the Grange in Chimacum tonight at 7 p.m.;
and the trials of the Tri Area in keeping their identity as a community;
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA:
Commissioner Hinton moved to delete items 1, 2 and 3 and to approve and adopt the balance
of the Consent Agenda items as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. DELETE Resolution re: Establishing a Policy on the Use and Purchase of Bottled Water by
County Departments
DELETE Setting Part-time Employee Wage Rates for 1996; Recreation Department
DELETE Setting Part-time Employee Wage Rates for 1996; Public Works Department
2.
3.
Page 3
.VOL
22 rAC~ 76
10.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
N ENT AGE A - ntinu d:
AGREEMENT re: 1996 Community Services Grant Funding; Continued Availability
and Use of the Port Townsend Senior Center; Port Townsend Senior Association
AGREEMENT re: 1996 Hotel/Motel Funding for Services Provided; Jefferson
County Historical Society
AGREEMENT re: 1996 Community Services Grant Funding; Domestic
Violence/Sexual Assault Program
HEARING NOTICE re: Creation of a "No Shooting" Area in the Vicinity of Port
Ludlow; set for February 6, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Bay Club, Port Ludlow
Approve Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions of a 2 Lot Preliminary Long Sub-
division; Lords Lake Loop Road, Quilcene; C. Douglas Carter, Applicant
Approve Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; American Legion
#26 for $75.00
Approve Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; American Legion
#26 for $385.00
THE
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS:
PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER
Discussion re: Emer¡:ency Moratorium Ordinance No. 19-11-21-95: Public
Hearin¡: Summary: Community Development Director, Al Scalf, reported that he has
summarized the comments from the public hearing. The concerns were in the following
areas: Vesting rights; hardship concerns such as people not being able to submit applications
and the economic disadvantage created by a moratorium; and miscellaneous issues such as
lots of record, economic development, etc.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that with regard to vesting rights there were a number of
permits that came in before the moratorium was put in place. There were 12 projects that
are waiting for a decision along with Pope Resources regarding the declaratory action from
Superior Court. These applicants were told that as soon as there was a decision on the
Declaratory Action, the County would make a determination on their applications. The
Board needs to make a policy decision on what to do with these 12 applications and he feels
the Board should do that now instead of waiting 30 days for the moratorium to end. This is
a policy decision that the Board should make and it isn't necessary for the Prosecuting
Attorney to review each of these applications.
Chainnan Wojt stated that the issue is more complicated than that. One complication is that
these applications are not the same as the Pope Resources applications. He doesn't see how
the Board can deal with just 12 applications and not deal with the whole issue of the
moratorium.
Al Scalf reported that the Prosecuting Attorney has the memo identifying all of these
applications and he is reviewing it. There has not been any response from him yet. The
Prosecuting Attorney has a number of concerns about vesting rights and is reluctant to say
that the vesting rights applied to the Pope Resources projects also apply to other projects.
The Judge only reviewed standards for the Pope Resources projects that were part of the
judgment action.
Page 4
~ VOL
22 rAG, 77
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels the applicants that have been held up because of the
moratorium have been very patient in waiting for the declaratory judgment decision. The
County has had that decision for several months and there still hasn't been any direction for
those applications. He feels that it is the responsibility of the Director of Community
Development to provide consistency and predictability in the development review process. It
is his responsibility to check and know that the County's codes and procedures meet the
substantive requirements and when in doubt about the regulations or requirements, to consult
with legal staff. But he should always keep in mind that the Board makes the policies and
final decisions for the County.
Commissioner Hinton continued by noting that the following should not be done: creating an
unnecessary delay for land use applications, let personalities dictate government action, take
an action to intentionally frustrate a developers application attempts, adopt rules that are
unduly oppressive, vague or discretionary, and let politics interfere with development
applications. He feels Washington State vested rights doctrine and associated statutes are
very clear. The doctrine has been applied to nearly all permits and there is considerable case
law supporting that doctrine. This doctrine protects land owners who have taken substantial
steps toward completion of their project in reliance on government codes and regulations.
The purpose of the doctrine is to allow land owners to determine or fix the rules that will
govern their land development. The doctrine prohibits governments from changing the rules
after a land owner has filed a timely application for a permit or land use application and has
taken substantial steps toward that development in conformance with government rules and
regulations. RCW 58.17.33 states that a land owner has vested rights to development
control and policies which were in effect at the time a fully completed subdivision application
was filed. Any development controls which are thereafter adopted can not be applied to a
pending application. The only exceptions found to this vesting rule apply in cases where
outdated codes jeopardize the public health and safety or would jeopardize adopted SEP A
policies.
He explained that the right to develop is vested only if the applicant files a permit application
that 1) complies with all existing ordinances, regulations and codes, 2) is filed during the
effective period of the ordinance, or regulation under which the applicant seeks to develop,
3) it is either substantially or fully complete, and 4) if the permit is thereafter issued. (case
law and RCW 19.27.095.) If the application does not comply with existing zoning ordinance
and codes there is no right to develop and the application is void. Standards for building
permits state the permit must be "fully" complete under RCW 19.27.095 (1), while standards
for all other permits state that the permit must be "substantially" complete. Under one
Washington case, (Mercer Enterprises v. City of Bremerton) the court found that an
application was considered vested even if it required some future information to complete the
processing before a permit could be issued. The last element for vesting requires that the
permit be issued. If the applicant complies with applicable laws they are entitled to a permit
as a matter of right regardless of the opinion of the issuing officials. If the landowner meets
all standards prescribed in the ordinance, policy or regulation, the government has no
discretion to deny the permit and refusal to do so is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of
law.
In Regulatory Reform (Section 101 and 102), the Legislature recognized the conflicts that
may arise during the planning process and protected applicants that had submitted permit
applications that meet current requirements, and provided a vehicle to identify deficiencies
for possible future plan or development regulation amendments. The legislature also
recognized under Section 111, that development regulations adopted under the Act are
presumed valid upon adoption and valid until such time that the Board may find, by a
preponderance of evidence, that a municipality erroneously interpreted or applied this
chapter. Although the Hearings Board found part of the ordinance out of compliance, they
Page 5
VOL
22 fAΠ78
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
did not invalidate the County's ordinance, however, invalidity shall not extinguish rights
vested under State or local laws before the date of the Board's (WWGMHB) order.
Commissioner Hinton concluded by noting that he hasn't found anything in the GMA,
amendments or Regulatory Reform that authorizes the Hearings Boards or local governments
to substitute their judgment by amending or voiding the vesting doctrine, State statutes, local
ordinance, regulations or established case law. This was also affirmed by the December,
1995 declaratory judgment for Pope Resources Teal Lake project. He feels there is no
compelling reason, procedural or substantive requirements, or legal basis for Jefferson
County to further delay the permit or application process. He proposed that all applications
filed prior to the moratorium, that met compliance, were filed during the effective period of
the ordinance or regulation, and were fully or substantially complete, shall continue through
the permit process.
Commissioner Hinton moved to delete lines 5 through 7 of Section 6.30, Ordinance No. 19-
1121-95. Section 6.30 shall read tl Applications for subdivisions that have yet to receive
preliminary plat approval shall continue to be processed through the effective period of this
ordinance provided that such application shall not. require the extension of urban services. "
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. He asked if this proposed amendment will
address the five projects at the bottom of Al ScalPs memo? Al Scalf answered that those
projects will go through the process, but they will be reviewed for whether they require an
extension of urban services (Fire Code standards, etc.)
Al Scalf explained that the moratorium is still in effect and no subdivision applications are
being accepted. The applications referred to in his memo will proceed to be processed under
the standards in effect on the date of the completed application. Commissioner Huntingford
added that Al Scalf has recommended that the projects that have been identified as having the
possibility of extending urban services either be denied or revised to meet the criteria.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commis-
sioner Hinton voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt abstained from voting. The motion
carried.
Discussion re: Lots of Record: Commissioner Huntingford noted that the staff
needs some clear direction from the Board regarding the Board's position on existing lots of
record. He feels that existing lots of record should be buildable sites as long as they meet
the health requirements (water and septic/sewer.) If the lots don't meet the health require-
ments the property owner will have to combine some lots to make a buildable site.
Chairman Wojt stated that if Commissioner Huntingford's suggestion is applied one person
who owns 6 lots would be given carte blanc to divide those lots. This may not even
approach the density that will be established for that rural area. Commissioner Huntingford
stated that he is saying that those 6 lots are already divided and they are building sites.
Chairman Wojt stated that he feels they aren't divided because they are under one ownership.
He noted that if all these lots are considered buildable, then the densities being developed for
the rural area will not apply to them. Commissioner Hinton added that what is being
discussed are already subdivided parcels.
Chairman Wojt questioned if lots in old plats that have never been developed, since they
were platted in the 1800's, are really vested and should be considered a lot of record?
Commissioner Huntingford explained that because the Board has not clearly stated what will
be done, people are already going out and breaking up the ownership of their lots so they
don't have contiguous ownership of lots.
Page 6
VOL
22 i'Ar;~ 79
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Chairman Wojt stated concern that if the smaller lots of record are allowed to be grouped
together in such a way that they become buildable sites, there might be a high density in that
area. Commissioner Huntingford cautioned the Board to remember that any change in the
zoning rules will be hard on people, but if existing lots of record, that are buildable, and
have gone through the process, are taken away, then the County must be prepared to pay the
law suits that will come with that action.
Chairman Wojt noted that it depends on how the parcels were originally divided - some were
platted in 1898 into hundreds of lots and what Commissioner Huntingford is proposing would
say that those lots are "existing lots of record" and therefore buildable sites. Commissioner
Huntingford explained that even now a small lot may not be buildable if it doesn't meet
health requirements.
Chairman Wojt then asked how this would impact his property which is a six acre piece
identified as three or four parcels. There are just tax numbers on those parcels. The land
was never subdivided. He feels that this recommendation would generate a lot of infrastruc-
ture costs because of the increased density. In the Tri Area it could mean having to develop
a sewer system which that community may not want.
Chairman Wojt stated that he feels the question is a definition of lot of record. What about
someone who had 10, one acre lots? Chairman Wojt feels in that case, if the density was
established for the area at one unit per five acres, the property owner would have two
buildable sites, not 10. Commissioner Hinton asked how parcels become lots if they have
never been subdivided? Commissioner Wojt explained that in the case of his property, there
were questions about how the survey was done so there were land transactions to establish
the boundaries of the property.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if Chairman Wojt could sell one of his parcels independent
of the other parcels? Commissioner Wojt stated that he could and that he has separate title
and description to each parcel. He feels there is room to argue about the definition of a lot
of record. Chairman Huntingford explained that his definition of a lot of record is any piece
of property owned that the person has clear title to, whether it has gone through the
subdivision process or not. That property owner has a building site if it meets the health
requirements.
Commissioner Hinton stated that he has a problem with some of the decisions that have come
down from the Hearings Boards regarding the community plan. The Board has supported the
community planning process and the Community Planning Committees have developed their
community plans in good faith according to the guidelines of Growth Management and the
County Planning staff. He has a problem with having to go back to them now, because of
the Hearings Board decisions, and telling the Community Planning Committees that their
plans are null and void. This planning was done by a grass roots approach, and he feels the
County needs to honor those plans. Chairman Wojt pointed out that there was not a grass
roots plan for the Tri Area. The Tri Area is an area where the issue of lots of record will
have an impact.
Commissioner Huntingford moved that the County acknowledge "existing lots of record" as
buildable sites as long as they meet the health requirements and the only consolidation that
can take place is to meet health requirements. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion.
He stated that he doesn't feel there should be any reference to consolidation, because that is
something that is done now. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would delete the
reference to combining lots to meet health requirements from the motion. He restated his
motion to say "the County will acknowledge existing lots of record as long as they meet
current health requirements."
Page 7
'iOL
22 r~Π80
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner
Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion
carried .
Discussion and Possible Adoption of Proposed Marrowstone Island Water
Policy: Al Scalf reported that the building permit issued on Marrowstone Island, as brought
up this morning at the Public Comment session, was issued with the guidance of the
Prosecuting Attorney that there was no statutory standard that would allow the County to
deny the building permit. He reported that the Planning Commission has a copy of this draft
policy for review and input.
Environmental Health Director, Larry Fay, explained that the State Department of Ecology
has concerns for the potential for sea water intrusion on Marrowstone Island. Residents of
the County have also been concerned about whether or not sea water intrusion is occurring
and if it's getting worse, how much development the Island can sustain on groundwater. He
has received a packet of information from Gale Bloomstrom, the DOE Shoreland Water
Resources Supervisor for the Southwest Region, that addressed groundwater management
areas and groundwater management plans. The cover letter with that package included a
paragraph that addressed the DOE concerns about seawater intrusion and potential impair-
ment of existing senior water rights. She concluded". . .because of this, it is Ecology's
position that groundwater on the Island is not available for appropriation and no further
development of ground water should occur. To prevent impairment of existing rights,
requests to use new groundwater sources for domestic supply should be denied. " This has
caused a certain amount of consternation for the Health Department because any application
for a building permit has to demonstrate that there is an adequate supply of potable water.
The draft policy is to address this issue.
Larry Fay explained that RCW 19.27.097 requires proof of potable water before a building
permit is issued for a structure that would require water.
. The DOE has developed guidelines for Counties to use in determining adequacy
of supply. They define adequate for an individual supply as 400 gallons per
day.
Potable means conformance with water quality standards established in the State
drinking water regulations. They recommend that the County test for
bacteriological quality and nitrates.
Individual wells should be constructed in accordance with the DOE well
construction standards.
The guidelines allow for treatment of water sources that don't meet the drinking
water standards, and recommend that when treatment is required it be whole
house treatment rather than a point of use treatment device.
The guidelines discuss alternative sources of supply including catchments, de-
salination and hauling. These may be considered for use if all other criteria are
met.
.
.
.
.
In 1990 the County adopted Resolution No. 99-90 which states that the County will use the
guidelines for administering the RCW until County rules are adopted. In 1993 the Jefferson
County Board of Health adopted policy 93-02 that is consistent with the original guidelines.
The guidelines do state clearly that impairment to senior water rights, whether there are
quantity or water quality issues, is a DOE responsibility. The guidelines also allow the DOE
or the County to require additional testing if there are concerns about availability or quality.
The DOE letter doesn't take any steps to modify the status of exempt wells, it doesn't change
the fundamental water right in this area, it recommends that the County doesn't issue a
Page 8
VOL
22 r~r,' 81
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
building permit, but it doesn't restrict an individual's ability to drill a well or use that water
for other purposes. That creates the problem for the County of how to manage the water
supply issue (fundamentally a resource and water rights question) with approval for building
permits.
Larry Fay then reviewed the changes he is recommending to the County's policy to clearly
spell out how building permit applications on Marrowstone Island will be handled. He feels
these changes are consistent with the guidelines, and the underlying statutes that deal with
water rights, and also address some of the more pressing problems associated with high
chloride wells. The recommendations for changes in the policy are:
. If a property owner has a properly constructed well that meets the 400 gallons per day
standard and meets the drinking water standard for chlorides (chloride concentration of
less that 250 milligrams per liter), the County would determine that is an adequate
supply and issue a building permit.
For a properly constructed well that exceeds the 250 milligrams per liter of chlorides,
and it has been established that the chloride level as attributable to sea water intrusion,
the determination would be made that the water supply is not adequate for the issuance
of a building permit.
For a properly constructed well that exceeds the 250 milligrams per liter of chlorides,
and it has been established that the chloride level is not attributable to sea water
intrusion, the building permit would be allowed with appropriate treatment.
A simple determination of whether or not the chloride levels are attributable to
seawater intrusion would be to establish the elevation of the finished well or the
screened interval, and if that is above sea level, the problem would not be considered
sea water intrusion.
If treatment were allowed for a well where high chloride levels were attributable to
sea water intrusion, the treatment would be limited to a point of use device rather than
a whole household devise. The most common reverse osmosis systems are a separate
fixture under the sink that provides potable water. Potable needs are considerably less
than whole household needs. A small system would have less impact on the aquifer
than whole house treatment.
The use of catchment systems may be adequate in some circumstance. The primary
concern is the 400 gallons per day. Marrowstone Island has about 18 inches of
rainfall per year and a catchment area on a normal residential lot would net a typical
capacity of approximately 100 to 200 gallons per day. Does the County want to
consider catchment systems adequate knowing that the amount of water is considerably
less than the guidelines spell out for adequacy. Potability is not an issue because there
are several ways to accommodate it. Developing a policy for the use of catchment
systems would allow someone who has a bad well an option to construct a dwelling.
A catchment policy should include:
1) The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the potability and ad-
equacy criteria are met through submission of a catchment plan that
addresses the average daily water need for the proposed structure, the
annual water need for the structure, a calculation of the catchment area
based on precipitation patterns in the area including losses due to
inefficiencies in the system and a factor for drought years.
Storage requirements including the capacity needed to store runoff during
the wet season.
Discussion of what materials make for appropriate water storage.
Generalized treatment of the water from the catchment.
Notice to title that specifies that the system is a catchment and is de-
signed to handle a specific capacity.
.
.
.
.
2)
3)
4)
5)
Page 9
.VOL
22 rAe,' 82
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
The DOE has a program of monitoring a limited number of wells (43) on Marrowstone
Island since 1990. They did biennial measurement in '90, '91, and '92 and then nothing was
done until December of 1995. The raw data from the December sampling is being reviewed.
A preliminary review of this data doesn't show any definite patterns of change, that indicate
that the situation is better or worse. What it does show is that scattered throughout
Marrowstone Island are some good wells and some bad wells.
The letter from the Department of Ecology seems to indicate that the County should manage
groundwater supplies through the issuance of building permits. The State laws are set up to
manage the resource through the administration of water rights, which is DOE's responsibil-
ity. The County cannot regulate the withdrawal of groundwater. He noted that if the Board
agrees with this type of approach they will develop a resolution for the Board to approve as
soon as possible. This will give the policy direction for the Department to be able to answer
questions from property owners, real estate people, etc.
Don Cote, Chairman of the Marrowstone Island Groundwater Committee, stated that in
general he supports this policy. The DOE letters have been devastating and have created
rumors, etc., around the Island. He feels this policy will allow options for the property
owners on the Island. He feels this policy needs to be refined to address reverse osmosis
systems, catchment systems, etc. He would like to see the County and the Marrowstone
Island Groundwater Committee have the opportunity to work together to solve the perceived
problems on the Island.
Paul Heinzinger submitted his comments in writing (see attached) and stated that he feels that
before this policy is adopted, a draft should be discussed in an open meeting on Marrowstone
Island so that the community has input into it.
Ralph Rush, Marrowstone Island resident, stated that he agrees with Mr. Heinzinger's
statement. No one person speaks for Marrowstone Island. It is a diverse community. Larry
Fay has done a good job on this draft policy, but he feels that the community needs to
review it and give their input on it.
Galen Sorter, Marrowstone Island resident, agreed that he would like the Board to have a
community meeting on this policy. Everyone perceives there is a problem and they assume
that it is salt water intrusion. They have found that some standing water has higher
concentrations of chlorides than some of the wells on the Island. There is evidence of salt in
the dirt on the Island.
Larry Fay added that this policy addresses individual building permit applications. The
issues of subdivisions, longer term evaluation of groundwater on the Island, and working
more with the community need to be addressed.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if the residents would like to have representatives of DOE
at a community meeting? Don Cote answered they would like to have a meeting including
DOE, but they want more time to get the Committee organized and moving in a positive
direction before DOE representatives are included. He suggested Mayas a target date for
such a meeting. He added that the people of the Island need help from government entities
to fund a water testing laboratory and the gathering of information and data on the monitor-
ing that is being done.
Paul Heinzinger stated that most of what is being discussed here are short term solutions.
He suggested that the County contact Whidbey Island groups that have been working on the
same problems to learn from their experience. Whidbey Island has been working on the
problem of salt water intrusion since 1988.
Page 10
VOL
22 rAG~ 83
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Al Scalf proposed that he and Larry Fay go out to the community and take information from
the public and the Planning Commission, review it and try to incorporate it into a resolution
to be presented to the Board sometime in February.
Bill Clin¡:an, President of Rel:ion 2 Fire Chiefs and Westport Fire Depart-
ment re: Establishin¡: a Rel:ional Fire Marshall: Mike Ajax, County Building Offi-
cial/Fire Marshall, reported that when the State Fire Marshall's Office was dissolved, the
State Patrol took over the arson investigations and they divided the State into 8 regions.
When this was done the eastern side of Jefferson County was put into Region 1 (along with
Kitsap, Clallam, and Mason counties) and the west side of the County was placed into
Region 2 (with Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties). He explained that he participates in
Region 1 meetings once a month to talk about joint issues. Region 1 has applied for a
$10,000 grant from the State for arson investigation, training, and code enforcement
services.
There is a bill before the State Senate (SB6403) to require Counties to do fire investigations.
This will impact small jurisdictions like Jefferson County. The Sheriffs Office currently
investigates arsons, but if this legislation passes that responsibility will be handed over to the
Fire Marshall's Office. He noted that in the Hadlock fire investigation, this region was first
to utilize the Task Force for arson investigation. 15 Fire Marshals from the four counties in
Region 1 worked in two man teams to document what happened in that fire.
Bill Clingan, President of the Region 2 Fire Chiefs, reported that they are trying to hire a
Regional Fire Marshall. They are only interested in serving the west part of Jefferson
County. Region 2 is also applying to the State for a grant. Grays Harbor and Pacific
County have already agreed to hiring one Fire Marshall to handle putting together the Arson
Task Force, life and fire safety inspections, be the training coordinator, and work with each
County and City on Uniform Fire Code enforcement for the entire region. This Fire
Marshall would answer to the Region 2 Fire Chiefs Association.
Mike Ajax noted that the Jefferson County Fire Code Advisory Board and Appeals Board are
just getting up and running and he feels it would be premature to join into this agreement
right now. The biggest problem in the West End is the Correctional Facility. He does all of
the plan review for that facility.
Mr. Clingan reported that their biggest concern is the schools and enforcement of the
Uniform Fire Code in that type of facility. Commissioner Hinton asked if the Regional 2
group is involved with the Tribes? Mr. Clingan stated that the Tribes can chose to belong or
not belong to the Fire Chiefs Association.
Tom McNerney, Jefferson County Fire Code Advisory Committee, noted that the Region 2
Fire Marshall would report to the Region 2 Fire Chiefs Association and part of his duties
would be to enforce the Uniform Fire Code. He feels this would mean that the County
would be delegating its authority to another entity. He also feels it would be premature to
delegate the administrative authority of the County to an entity in another area.
Mike Ajax stated that this Regional map splits the County and places a portion in Region 1
and a portion in Region 2. He will bring this issue up at the next meeting of his regional
group. Mr. Clingan stated that he will keep the Board advised of the costs of this proposal.
Commissioner Huntingford asked that the Fire Chief in the West End be contacted for his
input about this proposal and the proposal to put the County all in Region 1.
Page 11
VOL
22 r.~ri 84
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and
reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. The Board met in
Executive Session with representatives of the Teamsters Union and the Public Works
Department regarding employee grievances. The Board then met as the County Health
Board. The meeting was recessed after the Health Board meeting and then reconvened at 7
p.m. at the Paradise Bay Community Club for the following hearing. All three Board
members were present.
HEARING re: Establishin¡: Road Improvement District No.3: Bywater
Bay: Commissioner Hinton opened the meeting in the temporary absence of Chairman Wojt
by explaining the that purpose of the hearing is for property owners in the Bywater Bay area
to comment on the proposed Road Improvement District for this area.
Assistant County Engineer, Bob Nesbitt, explained that a Road Improvement District was
petitioned for the Bywater Bay area by property owners. The first step in the RID process is
to call for a meeting of the people in the area to decide if they want the RID, what the
boundary should be and the method of assessment for the proposed road improvements. He
further explained that lengths of road improvement can be added and subtracted within the
boundary of the RID, which would simply reduce the overall cost of the improvement
project. The area where the road is not improved would still be part of the RID and the
property owners in that area would share in the cost of the development of the rest of the
road. All of the property owners within the proposed boundary have been sent a notice of
this hearing and been advised that they could withdraw their name or add their name to the
petition until 5 p.m. yesterday by contacting the County Commissioners Office. There have
only been two people who have reversed their vote on the petition -- one asked to have their
name taken off the petition and one wanted their name added to the petition.
Chairman Wojt then opened the public hearing.
Jack Gillett, representing his son John Bredehoft (owner of White Rock IV, Lot 4), stated
that he would like one more intersection added to the road improvements (see attached letter)
at Bywater Way North and Alpine Court. He feels this intersection will be used quite
frequently and will be subject to the same deterioration as other intersections in this area.
He is asking that just the intersection be constructed, with an apron of 25 feet on both sides.
This improvement would allow the residents to get their mail at the intersection and increase
police and fire protection response in that area.
Larry Love, Bywater Way, stated that there is a covenant on his property title that says the
property owners in this area are to share equally in the cost of the road maintenance. He
asked if the property owners in the area of the RID, if it is approved, are still responsible for
sharing in cost of maintaining any parts of the road that were left in primitive condition?
Bob Nesbitt reported that the maintenance of the improved roads will be done by the County
because those portions of road will become County roads. The portions of the roads that are
not improved will continue to be private roads. Public Works Director Klara Fabry added
that it is her understanding that the maintenance of the private roads will still be the
responsibility of the property owners in that area. An unidentified woman stated that Alpine
Court going south from Bywater Way leads to the secondary community well. If that road
has to be kept open to service this well, she assumes everyone will have to pay to keep that
road open.
Joe Klinker stated that if the road is expanded to include the Bywater Way North/Alpine
Court intersection, it will serve 6 to 8 more parcels.
Page 12
VOL
2 2 r^G~ 85
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Barbara Crow said that Bywater Way continues until it comes back to Paradise Bay Road
and there are many lots in that area. Anytime they come from the north they take that way
into this area. It is a well traveled road.
Hank Brooks said that there are three entrances into this area, but the boundary of the RID
only includes two of the entrances. Bob Nesbitt reported that the property owners in the
area of the third entrance did not want to be included in the petition for the formation of the
RID.
An unidentified woman 'asked if that means that those people will not be participating
monetarily in the RID also? Bob Nesbitt indicated that is correct. She asked if the property
owners in the RID will still be expected to share in the cost of maintaining the private roads
in that area? Bob Nesbitt explained that he isn't familiar with the covenants on these
properties. An unidentified man stated that this is probably a legal opinion because it is a
question of title to the property.
Marcia Ruskin, Park View Lane, stated that if the property owners in the Olympic Ridge
area don't want the road improved as proposed in their area, they will still participate in the
RID costs because the only way they can get to their area is over one of the roads included
in the improvement district. The people at the end of Bywater Way North have access to
their area from Paradise Bay Road, independent of the roads included in the RID.
Bob Nesbitt then reviewed the boundary of the RID, what roads are scheduled for improve-
ment, and how the improvement areas could be changed.
Janet Williams, Lot 15 on Olympic Ridge, stated that there are several property owners
along Olympic Ridge that would like to see the improved portion of the road stopped further
back (to about Lot 14.)
Betty Brooks asked what is required at the end of the improved road? Bob Nesbitt answered
that a turn around that will accommodate a fire truck turning (90 feet diameter) is required
where the road improvement stops. A "hammer head" configuration with about 40 feet of
space on each side can also be used.
Joe Klinker, Olympic Court, stated that he is the property owner that will have a turn around
in front of his property. He asked what would happen if there are three or four people who
live along Olympic Ridge that say they are in favor of the improvement district, but they
don't want to have the road improved all the way in their area and there are a number who
say they do want the road improved as suggested? Does this go back to a majority rule?
How is it determined how far the road will be improved?
Klara Fabry clarified that the purpose of this meeting is to finalize the boundary for the RID.
The road improvement project can be finalized at a later date to be shorter or longer than
what has been proposed within that boundary. Commissioner Hinton asked how the payment
of costs for the RID are to be divided -- by parcels, by frontage, etc.?
Bob Nesbitt explained that there are four ways to pay for the improvements in the District.
There was an estimate of costs but there won't be any final figures available until there is a
survey done of the area and a determination can be made on how much materials have to be
moved and how much road is to be paved. The estimate of costs ranges from $500,000 to
$800,000. Total cost is divided in half and then that number is divided by the number of
parcels. Each parcel would then pay the same amount, no matter the size or the frontage
along the road. The remaining costs can then be split between the property owners within the
boundary in one of the following ways:
Page 13
VOL
2 2 rAG~ 86
1)
2)
3)
4)
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Based on the amount of front footage of the road.
Based on the area of property each owner has within the boundary.
Based on assessed value of each property within the boundary.
Everyone pays and equal share.
An unidentified man stated that he owns two lots, one is fronted by the proposed improved
road, and the other is along a portion of road that won't be developed. How will they be
treated? Bob Nesbitt reported that he would have to pay by lot for each of these lots if they
are each within the boundary of the RID.
Jack Gillette added that if the intersection at Alpine Court is paved as suggested, then those
lots would be served by the improved roads. He asked when they will know if that intersec-
tion will be included or not? Bob Nesbitt advised that this can be decided tonight by the
property owners present.
An unidentified man asked for a definition of "frontage." Bob Nesbitt explained that
frontage means the actual front footage of a parcel on the road being improved by the
formation of the RID. In the case of a lot that is on a corner the front footage would be
considered all the way around the corner.
Dallas Crow said that he has Lot 13 which has frontage on both sides of the road as well as
a curve. Bob Nesbitt reported that he would only be charged for one side of the road
frontage, but he would be charged for the frontage along the corner. This assessment
method doesn't work well in a rural area where the lots are not all the same size. He
added that the area method of assessment isn't very good either. He doesn't feel that either
of these assessment methods lend themselves to this type of development.
An unidentified man suggested that the assessment be shared equally by the property owners.
Bob Major asked if there will be another meeting to allow the people time to digest the
information presented and get more information on the questions that have come up?
Chairman Wojt stated that this is the only meeting scheduled. Commissioner Hinton noted
that the question regarding the covenants on these properties needs to be answered.
Dallas Crow explained that Bywater Way North, the area where the property owners said
they didn't want to be included in the RID, is still part of the road maintenance for private
roads. He doesn't feel that they should have to pay for private road improvements in that
area, if those people didn't want to participate in the RID. Another man explained that the
property owners will have to vote to change their covenants through their property owners
associations.
Roger Dunn, Lot 15, Olympic Ridge Drive, asked if there is still on option that the road
improvements proposed not be done? Chairman Wojt explained that the discussion is
regarding if what is on the map is what the people who own property within the proposed
boundary want to see improved. Mr. Dunn noted that there is a sparse representation of the
property owners in that area at this meeting.
Bob Nesbitt reported that every property owner in the area was mailed a notice of this
hearing and what is being proposed.
Janet Williams lot 15, stated that she feels that people are not fully informed of what it
means to have the County take over these roads and they don't have enough facts and
information to respond. On some of the small roads, Olympic Ridge for example, an
Page 14
VOL
22 rAΠ87
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
improved road would really change the road. She doesn't know if all of the owners on
Olympic Ridge knew that a lot of trees would be cut down and the character of the road
would change.
Commissioner Hinton asked if there are a lot of absentee owners in this area? An unidenti-
fied man answered that in the Olympic Ridge area its about half absentee owners and half
owners who live in the area.
Larry Love stated that he has been working with Bob Nesbitt on this RID proposal for quite
some time. He has talked with many people in this area about the proposal. He sent out a
letter with an explanation of what an RID is to all property owners. There was a favorable
reply from the property owners on the petition to the County Commissioners. 60% of the
property owners in the proposed RID area voted for petitioning the County. 15% of the
property owners were opposed to petitioning the County. 25 % of the property owners did
not respond to the letter. The response came from local and absentee property owners.
Betty Brooks. Olympic Ridge, asked how the road would change if it became a County road?
Bob Nesbitt responded that there would be a 20 foot wide road with two foot shoulders on
either side. If the road that exists is inside the right-of-way, and in the center of the right of
way, it would only mean that it would be widened two feet on either side. The road would
be paved.
Mrs. Brooks asked where the road would end? Bob Nesbitt answered that there would have
to be a hammerhead turnaround at the end of the improved road, but the plans from the plat
indicates a place for a hammerhead turnaround that hasn't been built. She then asked about
the section of road where it divides around some trees? There's a sixty foot right-of-way
and a 24 foot road can't be put in with trees in the middle of it. The trees would have to
either be removed or property donated so the road could be moved to one side or the other
of the trees. There can't be islands in the middle of the road.
Marcia Ruskin, Lot 5 - Park View Lane, asked if the roads could be chip sealed instead of
paved? Bob Nesbitt explained that chip sealing is a form of paving. The volume and type of
traffic determine if chip seal or hot mix asphalt will be used in paving the road. Asphalt is
used if there is going to be heavy truck traffic. On light volume roads, chip seal is used.
He noted that chip seal would be used on Hoodsview Court, Park View Lane, Ship View
Court, and Bywater Bay North. A determination will have to be made on the surfacing used
for Hidden Springs and the main Bywater Bay Road.
Larry Love stated that when they were asked to get some figures together for this proposal,
they went to a contractor and got bids for asphalt paving that were less than chip seal. Bob
Nesbitt stated that is possible. The contractor may not have added the standard, union wage
rates in the bid. State law requires if this is a County project, that the contractor pay union
scale wages. Chip seal surfacing on roads (two shots) costs about $16,000 per mile (County
costs.) He then explained what the chip seal process is and how it is done.
Joe Klinker. Lot 20, explained what it means for the County to take the road over. He
asked, once the RID goes through and the payment amount is set, how are the payments
handled? Bob Nesbitt explained that from the day the final assessment is determined, each
property owner has 30 days to pay the full amount of their assessment. If the property
owner doesn't pay in full within the 30 days, then they are assessed a certain amount each
year. The County Treasurer will sell municipal bonds (either 5, 10 or 15 years) for a
specific number of years. If the bond was for a 10 year period, the property owner would
have their assessment spread out for 10 years and there would be an amount added for the
interest on the bonds. This assessment would be separate from the taxes on the property.
Page 15
VOL
22 rAG~ 88
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Mr. Klinker continued by noting that the improvements to the road would make the property
values in that area go up. If the County takes over the roads, the maintenance on the side of
the roads (cleaning ditches, brush cutting, etc.) is also the County's responsibility. Bob
Nesbitt noted that once the road is a County road the County is responsible for the mainte-
nance from right-of-way edge to right-of-way edge. Mr. Klinker asked if the Sheriff is
obligated to cruise all the County roads in any given period of time? Commissioner Hinton
reported that the Sheriff's Deputies don't necessarily travel the roads at a particular time, but
these roads would be within their jurisdiction. The Sheriff's Deputies have no authority to
do traffic control on a private road.
Mr. Klinker concluded by saying that the property owners are doing this RID in an effort to
make this area a better place to live. If this RID isn't done, many of the people who have
been voluntarily doing part of the maintenance (keeping the sides of the roads up and filling
the potholes with gravel) will quit doing it. Some of the disadvantages to doing this RID
are that some trees will have to be taken down, and the property owners will lose some
money. Over time, however, there won't be much money lost, when compared to the
amount that the property owners are currently paying for maintenance of the road. Mr.
Klinker added that he is in support of including the intersection in this project. The decision
tonight is how to proceed, not whether or not the RID should go forward.
Marcia Ruskin added that the amount being paid for maintenance now has not been adequate.
Chairman Wojt advised that the outside boundaries of the RID need to be established by the
property owners present at this hearing.
Joe Klinker pointed out that the property owners can pursue the information needed on the
Covenant (CC&R's) issue, if the RID goes forward.
Commissioner Hinton asked if the contractor's estimate on the road improvements is close to
the estimate given by the County Engineer for the cost of the project? Bob Nesbitt stated
that the contractor's figures are close to $500,000. An unidentified woman said that there is
about a mile portion of Olympic Ridge that may not be improved as proposed, which would
reduce the overall cost of the RID.
Chairman Wojt asked if anyone present feels that the overall boundary needs to be changed?
Commissioner Huntingford clarified that the boundary needs to be set tonight and once the
boundary is set the road improvement project can be expanded, scaled down, or changed
inside those boundaries. Bob Nesbitt added that from the Olympic Ridge area, there were
nine petition signatures for the RID as proposed, and five signatures against the RID petition
and two property owners that didn't vote.
Mary? stated that they voted for the RID petition and are within the boundary, but they
don't want to have the road (Olympic Ridge) in front of them paved.
An unidentified man asked about Alpine Court and if it would always be a private road?
Chairman W ojt explained that if the road is included in the RID boundary and included as
part of the improvement project, then it would be brought up to standard and made a County
road. Alpine Court is not currently part of the proposed improvement project.
Chairman Wojt asked that the group vote on approving the area proposed as the boundary of
the RID. A man stated that he agrees with the boundary as long as the covenant issue can be
resolved so that the property owners in the RID are not required to pay for the maintenance
of the private roads in the North Bywater Bay area.
Page 16
VOL
22 fMl 89
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Betty Brooks asked how the property owners along Olympic Ridge, that are part of the RID,
can request that a portion of the road not be improved? Chairman Wojt explained that a
mechanism would have to be set up to allow the property owners in that area to say how far
they want the road improvement to extend. Commissioner Huntingford reminded everyone
present that once the boundary is established, the actual road improvements can be changed,
and the property owners in that area will have to agree on how far the improved road will
go.
The discussion continued regarding the best way to proceed with establishing the boundary,
while making sure that property owners agree on the roads to be improved within that
boundary. A man who had participated in an RID in another County reported his experience
with the process and urged the property owners present not to draw the process out any
longer than necessary. He added that the property owners in that area continued to be
responsible for the private road maintenance until they voted to change their covenants to
address that issue.
Bob Nesbitt asked if there are separate covenants for each land subdivision in this area, or if
one set of covenants cover the whole area?
Ron Byers answered that there is no master association for the whole area. There are seven
different subdivisions in this area. Each subdivision has its own covenants, but only two of
the subdivisions have homeowners associations. Excluding what is called White Rock III
from this RID will not have any effect.
Bob Nesbitt reported that the following five subdivisions are in the proposed boundary of the
RID: Bridgeview Estates II, Olympic Ridge Estates, Bridgeview Estates III, White Rock IY
and White Rock II.
Marcia Ruskin asked if it is true that the property owners on Park View would not be
responsible for the private road maintenance for the area on Olympic Ridge which chooses
not to be part of the road improvement, even though they are included and part of the RID,
because there is no mutual covenant governing the maintenance of the private roads in these
areas?
Commissioner Hinton asked if everyone in this area pays a road maintenance fee? Joe
Klinker answered that the property owners in the area do pay a maintenance now. It has
been done as a combined, non-formal effort with all of the property owners participating. A
contractor is hired to do the work and then he bills each lot individually.
Commissioner Huntingford asked what the next step is in this process? Bob Nesbitt
answered that a clarification will have to be made on the issue of the covenants. The
discussion continued regarding the boundary of the RID and the roads that would be
improved within those boundaries.
A motion was made and seconded by property owners present, that the boundary be adopted
as proposed except for the two lots on the east side that were inadvertently included in the
boundary on the map.
Peter Wagner, Lot 14, stated that the road on Olympic Ridge is unique because there is an
island of trees that keep it a nice, quite, slow road. The County taking over this road will
change the character of that drive. The lot owners are concerned about this, are not
educated about it and are not aware of what the vote is about.
Page 17
VOL
22 rA.Gç 90
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
Chairman Wojt explained that the motion is regarding the establishment of the overall
boundary for the RID. What the road improvements will be inside of that boundary still
needs to be determined by the property owners in that area. The majority of the people in
the Olympic Ridge area wanted to be included in the RID. Bob Nesbitt explained that the
two lots being excluded from the boundary (Lot 23 and 24) have no access from within the
proposed RID boundary. Their access is off of Paradise Bay Road.
Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. A majority of the property owners
present voted by a show of hands, in favor of the motion. The motion carried.
Jean Ferrier, Lot 21 Olympic Ridge, voted against the motion and stated that she feels that it
is premature to hand these roads over to the County. She feels keeping the roads in this area
private is still an option. She is not in favor of anyone but the community taking care of
these roads. If the County does this RID, the people on the unpaved roads will maintain
them themselves. Olympic Ridge is not a heavily traveled road and needs less maintenance.
She feels if this happens people will be coerced into joining the district.
Chairman Wojt asked how the County will be notified of the property owners determination
regarding the roads to be improved and the areas where they want changes to the proposal?
Larry Love suggested that the Olympic Ridge Property Owners Association contact all of
their members and have them vote for the improvement option they want in that area.
The Clerk of the Board asked that the property owner associations provide a formal, written
notice to the County of their decision on how far the road improvements should extend. Mr.
Klinker advised that a written vote of the property owners in that area will be taken.
An unidentified man asked about the water utility for the area that was recently taken over
by the PUD and if there would be property owners ripping up the new road to put in their
water services? Chairman Wojt explained that the PUD would have to get a franchise from
the County to put waterlines in the County road right-of-way and that franchise includes a
condition that the roadway be returned to its original condition.
The same man noted that when he purchased his property, he gave a 60 foot easement for
the road right-of-way, and asked if he will have to deed a portion of his property to the
County for this RID? Bob Nesbitt explained that once the RID is approved and established,
all the people that have property with a right-of-way that will be improved, will deed that
right-of-way to the County, fee simple. This is an advantage to the property owner because
that amount of property will be deducted from the total acreage that the property owner pays
taxes on. The man then asked, if he deeds the right-of-way to the County, how will that
impact the overall integrity of his five acre parcel, especially in light of new Growth
Management regulations? Chairman Wojt explained that the densities established by the
Growth Management regulations will impact his site.
Marcia Ruskin said that Park View Lane bisects three of the lots on that road. She asked if
the County uses the center of the current road as the center of the new road, can the property
owner chose to have the expansion of the road be only on the west side of the right-of-way?
Bob Nesbitt indicated that can be done depending on where the road lies within the right-of-
way. A survey will be done to make sure where the current road is located within the right-
of-way. Klara Fabry reported that the deeded right-of-way has to be from the centerline of
the proposed road.
The method of assessment needs to be decided at this hearing, Chairman Wojt reported.
Page 18
VOL
22 rM,; 91
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Minutes of January 22, 1996
It was moved and seconded by the property owners present that the assessment be done
equally. Bob Nesbitt reported that he has information on the what the assessment would be
for each property under two different assessment methods and for two different amounts
($500,000 and $800,000.)
Jean Ferrier, said that the method of assessment has not been discussed in any prior letters
and she feels that since a majority of property owners are not present tonight, they should be
notified and there should be input by everyone on this issue.
The Clerk of the Board reported that a certified, return receipt requested, letter was sent to
every property owner and it stated that the method of assessment would be determined at this
meeting.
Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion which was that all property owners pay an
equal share of the assessment. A man asked for clarification on how much would be paid if
a property owner owned two lots? Several people indicated that to them that means an equal
share per lot, but that is not what the motion says. The motion was amended and the
amendment was seconded by the property owners to say that the assessment would be equal
amounts per lot.. Chairman Wojt clarified that this would mean if a person owned two lots,
they would pay an equal share for each lot. He then called for a vote on the amendment to
the motion. A majority of property owners present voted, by a show of hands, for the
amendment to the motion, which carried.
Chairman Wojt then called for a vote on the amended motion. A majority of the property
owners voted, by a show of hands, for the amended motion. The motion carried.
Klara Fabry restated that the estimated total cost of the road improvements for this RID are
between $500,000 and $800,000. Bob Nesbitt explained that if the costs come it at
$500,000, that will be about $6,800 per lot, if the cost is $800,000 the assessment would be
about $11,000 per lot. Exact figures will be determined after the surveying and engineering
work is done. The assessment can be paid in full within 30 days of the billing, or it can be
paid in a yearly amount plus interest over the period of the bonds that will be issued by the
County Treasurer. The interest paid on the bond is not tax deductible.
Hearing no further comments, the Chairman closed the hearing.
Page 19
VOL
22 r~f.; 92