HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report for Comp Code Deliberations FINALSTAFF REPORT TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND
THE BOARD OF HEALTH,
PRESENTING STAFF'S SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE COMPLIANCE CODE ORDINANCE
AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES
December 4, 2020
Pinky Mingo, Environmental Public Health Director,
Debra Murdock, Code Compliance Coordinator
and
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil DPA,
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Overview of the Proposed Compliance Code.................................................................. 1
1.2
The Hearing Notice.......................................................................................................... 1
1.3
The Hearing and Public Comments.................................................................................. 1
1.4
Staff's Proposed Changes to the Proposed Compliance Code ......................................... 2
2
STAFF'S SUMMARY OF AND RESPONSES TO THE ORAL TESTIMONY AND
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMMENTS TIMELY RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE
HEARINGNOTICE........................................................................................................ 2
2.1
No Oral Testimony or Public Comments Opposed the Proposed Compliance Code...... 2
2.2
Comment on Consistency in the Amount to Appeal to the Hearing Examiner ................ 2
2.3
Comment on Possible Waiver of the Fee for Appeal to the Hearing Examiner for Indigent
Applicants......................................................................................................................... 2
2.4
Comment on Draft Compliance Code Being Too Lenient ............................................... 2
2.5
Comment on Possible Lack of Clarity in Use of the Term "Director." ........................... 4
2,6
Comment about Vesting More Power in an Unelected County Administrator ................ 5
23
Unresponsive Comments.................................................................................................. 5
3 STAFF'S
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
COMMENTS............................................................................................................................ 5
4 SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE CODE ................................ 5
5. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................6
0
December 4, 2020 Staff Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the Proposed Compliance Code.
The proposed Compliance Code, if enacted, will establish a uniform system of code compliance
regulations, centrally declare public nuisances, establish a compliance system including monetary
penalties and county abatement, and provide cost recovery for county related compliance
expenditures. The proposed ordinance adopts new Title 19 JCC (Compliance Code), moves Public
Nuisances to Title 19 JCC and deletes Chapter 8.90 JCC (Public Nuisances), and revises portions
of Title 8 (Health & Safety), Title 15 (Building Codes), Title 17 (Master Planned Resorts), Title
18 JCC (Uniform Development Code).
The goal of the proposed Compliance Code is to make the enforcement system as uniform as
possible. The current system of code compliance is a mixture of criminal enforcement,
enforcement through administrative hearings, and enforcement through civil infractions decided
by the Jefferson County District Court. Notably, in the current Building Code, Title 15, only
criminal enforcement is authorized. The proposed Compliance Code provides tools for code
compliance that the County has never had before for all code violations, including right of entry
(19.10.055), denial of permits (19.10.075), suspension or revocation of permits (19.10.080), notice
to title (19.10.090), stop work order (19.20.020), and civil penalties and costs (Ch. 19.30).
Appeals in the current system can go to the Health Officer, the Board of Health, the hearing
examiner, or the Jefferson County Superior Court. The proposed Compliance Code adopts a
hearing examiner system where final appeals are to the hearing examiner, unless state law suggest
that is not possible. The proposed Compliance Code also adopts an intermediate appeal for persons
challenging a department's code enforcement decision —at no cost —for code violations that are
not being pursued as a public nuisance.
1.2 The Hearing Notice.
A hearing notice was published on October 22, 2020 and October 29, 2020. The hearing was held
on November 19, 2020 for the purpose of taking oral and written testimony regarding the draft
ordinance.
The hearing notice set a period of written public comment beginning on October 22, 2020 and
ending on November 19, 2020 at the end of the Public Hearing, unless extended by the Board of
County Commissioners and the Board of Health.
1.3 The Hearing and Public Comments.
A joint hearing of the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Health was held on
November 19, 2020. At the joint hearing, the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of
Health extended the public comment period to November 20, 2020 at 4:30 p.m.
Oral testimony given at the hearing and timely written public comments received related to the
proposed Compliance Code are summarized below. A copy of the written public comments are
attached as Appendix A.
1
December 4, 2020 Staff Report
No oral testimony or written public comments opposed the proposed Compliance Code.
1.4 Staff's Proposed Changes to the Proposed Compliance Code.
Staff's proposed changes to the proposed Compliance Code in response to the oral testimony and
written public comments received are discussed in Section 3, below.
2 STAFF'S SUMMARY OF AND RESPONSES TO THE ORAL TESTIMONY AND
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMMENTS TIMELY RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE
HEARING NOTICE
During the written comment period, which was extended until 4:30 p.m. on November 20, 2020,
the County received comments, oral and written, from three persons total on the proposed
Compliance Code. The persons who provided oral testimony at the November 19, 2020 hearing
were John Tevis, Tom Thiersch and Barbara Morey. Mr. Tevis and Mr. Thiersch also provided
written public comments.
2.1 No Oral Testimony or Public Comments Opposed the Proposed Compliance Code.
No oral testimony or written public comments opposed the proposed Compliance Code. The oral
testimony and written public comments suggested modification of the proposed Compliance Code
or expressed concerns about how the proposed Compliance Code will be implemented.
2.2 Comment on Consistency in the Amount to Appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
One commenter suggested that the filing fee for an appeal to the hearing examiner be made
consistent with proposed section 19.35.045, by changing the proposed in Section 19.35.050(1)(a)
from $500 to $250. See 2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record at 001.
RESPONSE: Staff agrees.
2.3 Comment on Possible Waiver of the Fee for Appeal to the Hearing Examiner for
Indigent Applicants.
One Commenter suggested that proposed section 19.35.045 be changed by adding the following
sentence: "This fee may be waived at the Director's discretion for indigent appellants." See 2020
Compliance Code Hearing Record at 001.
RESPONSE: Staff suggests the proposed language may be inconsistent with Resolution 74-95
(attached as Appendix B) dealing with fee waivers. Accordingly, Staff suggests that the following
sentence be added to proposed section 19.35.045 instead: "This fee may be waived for indigent
appellants by the Jefferson County Commissioners, as outlined in Resolution 74-95."
2.4 Comment on Draft Compliance Code Being Too Lenient.
One commenter stated the step identified as "Subsequent Daily Fines" in one of Staff's prior
PowerPoint presentations is too lenient and should be revised to make daily fines mandatory. See
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record at 002. According to the commenter:
2
December 4, 2020 Staff Report
The county has always been far too forgiving of violations, even those that have
lasted for many years. Unless and until the county shows that it is serious and that
penalties will be assessed against willful violators, people will simply continue to
ignore the law. In other words, without meaningful penalties, "enforcement" will
continue to be a joke.
See 2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record at 002. Proposed section 19.15.015(2)(c)(ii) states
that if "the director issues a notice of noncompliance and the notice of noncompliance is not
successfully challenged through appeal as provided by JCC 19.35.015 or JCC 19.40.015, then:"
The person responsible shall be assessed a monetary penalty commencing on the
date set for correction in the notice of noncompliance and thereafter, in accordance
with JCC 19.20.010 or the penalty provisions of the voluntary compliance
agreement, plus all costs incurred by the county to pursue compliance with this
chapter and to abate the nuisance in accordance with JCC 19.20.015 and 19.30.020.
(Emphasis added.) The commenter states, "Note: shall be assessed. Again, if penalties are not
vigorously pursued, the Ordinance will be meaningless." See 2020 Compliance Code Hearing
Record at 001 (emphasis in original.) The commenter suggests that the language in proposed
section 19.20.015(1)(c)(v) be changed as follows:
A statement that the costs and expenses of abatement incurred by the county
pursuant to JCC 19.30.020, and a monetary penalty in an amount per day for each
nuisance as specified in JCC 19.30.010, shall be assessed against the person to
whom the notice of violation and order of abatement is directed; and,
See 2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record at 002. In oral testimony at the hearing, the commenter
suggested that enforcement discretion should be limited as much as possible. And, where the
ordinance uses the word "may" related to enforcement discretion, the language should be changed
to "shall."
RESPONSE: Staff does not agree that the proposed Compliance Code is too lenient. The proposed
Compliance Code provides Staff with enforcement tools it never had before for all code violations,
including right of entry (19.10.055), denial of permits (19.10.075), suspension or revocation of
permits (19.10.080), notice to title (19.10.090), stop work order (19.20.020), and civil penalties
and costs (Ch. 19.30). And, taking away the enforcement discretion granted in the proposed
Compliance Code will make it harder to bring violators into voluntary compliance. If violators
know it does not matter what they do to comply, they are going to face the maximum fine possible,
they are less likely to focus on voluntary compliance and more likely to focus on the penalty. Staff
believes violators should spend funds on getting into compliance whenever possible instead of
paying fines. As the proposed Compliance Code states, "While voluntary compliance through
warnings and voluntary compliance agreements are desired as a first step, enforcement and
monetary penalties should be used for remedial purposes as needed to assure and effect compliance
with this chapter." Proposed section 19.05.010(8). And:
The county emphasizes voluntary compliance with statutes, regulations,
ordinances, and avoidance of public nuisances by education, prevention, and
3
December 4, 2020 Staff Report
voluntary compliance as a first step. County departments should be sensitive to the
possibility that residents may not be aware of this chapter and should give warnings
prior to enforcing this chapter, unless there is an immediate adverse impact.
Warnings should be in writing, whenever possible.
Proposed section 19.05.010(7). However, when violators fail to get with the program, the proposed
Compliance Code provides tools to obtain compliance that the County never has had before for all
code violations. As the proposed Compliance Code makes clear: "The county shall pursue
compliance (including voluntary compliance) with this chapter actively and vigorously in order to
protect the public health and safety. The county's intention is to pursue compliance consistently,
with adherence to, and respectful of, fundamental constitutional principles." Proposed section
19.05.010(6) (emphasis added).
2,5 Comment on Possible Lack of Clarity in Use of the Term "Director."
One commenter stated, "In a document rich in detail regarding infractions, there is precious little
about how each department will pursue their responsibilities. When you write about a `director'
(page 7) please name the department that this individual works for." See 2020 Compliance Code
Hearing Record at 007.
RESPONSE:
The Code Compliance Coordinator is "responsible for coordinating and enforcing ordinances,
statutes, and regulations under this title." Currently, the Code Compliance Coordinator chairs a
monthly cross -departmental compliance committee meeting that is attended by representatives of
the Department of Community Development, the Fire Marshall, the Public Health Department, the
Prosecuting Attorney's Office, the Public Works Department, and the Sheriff's Department. These
compliance committee meetings have been effective in moving forward the most serious code
compliance violations. All departments who participate in the compliance committee meetings
support the adoption of the proposed Compliance Code. Staff expects this process to continue after
adoption of the proposed Compliance Code.
Staff agrees the detail of how individual enforcement matters will be handled is not discussed in
the proposed Compliance Code. But that is not its purpose. The purpose of this new Title 19 of
the Jefferson County Code (JCC) is to provide "uniform and efficient regulation for civil code
violations and acts or omissions which annoy, injure, or endanger the public health and safety.
Uniform and efficient procedures with consistent application tailored to each county
department's mission should be used to accomplish the purposes of this chapter." JCC
19.05.010(4) (emphasis added). Proposed section 19.10.015(13). Other titles of the JCC provide
the substance for a violation. For example, the Department of Community Development is
responsible for violations of Titles 15 (Building Code) and Title 18 (Unified Development
Code) of the JCC and Environmental Public Health is responsible for Chapter 8.10 JCC (solid
waste violations) and Chapter 8.15 JCC (on -site sewage violations).
The head of a Department ultimately is accountable for enforcing civil code violations of the code
section(s) for which the Department is responsible. Proposed sections 19.10.015(19) and
19.10.015(21).
fl
December 4, 2020 Staff Report
2.6 Comment about Vesting More Power in an Unelected County Administrator.
One commenter stated, "we are discouraged by the deliberate vagueness in the language of the
ordinance and alarmed by the likelihood that even more power will be vested in the unelected
County Administrator." See 2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record at 006. "I would also call on
the county commissioners themselves to step up here.... With regard to the hard work occasioned
by the eventual passing of this ordinance, carve out a role for yourselves. For example, each of
you could resolve code violations in the districts you represent." See 2020 Compliance Code
Hearing Record at 007.
RESPONSE: Staff does not believe it is practical have members of the county legislative body
responsible for day-to-day code compliance. This ordinance gives Staff the tools they have been
lacking for effective code compliance for all code violations, including right of entry (19.10.055),
denial of permits (19.10.075), suspension or revocation of permits (19.10.080), notice to title
(19.10.090), stop work order (19.20.020), and civil penalties and costs (Ch. 19.30).
2.7 Unresponsive Comments.
Comments were received that were related to COVID-19, not the proposed Compliance Code.
These comments came from Cathy Adler, Annette Huenke, Kees Kloff, R. (Burt) Merle, Stephen
Schmacker, and the Townsend Kibbutz. Some of these comments were not timely.
Barbara Morey's comments related to "Revisions to Policy: Basic Sanitation for Non - Permitted
Living Conditions," not the proposed Compliance Code.
As these comments are not responsive to the proposed Compliance Code, no Staff response is
made in this report.
3 STAFF'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Staff recommends two changes to the proposed Compliance Code:
• $500 in proposed section 19.35.050(l)(a) should be changed to $250; and,
• The following sentence should be added to proposed section 19.35.045 instead: "This fee
may be waived for indigent appellants by the Jefferson County Commissioners, as outlined
in Resolution 74-95."
4 SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE CODE
A State Environmental Policy Checklist (Checklist) was prepared that complies with WAC 197-
11-330(1)(c). On October 7, 2020 the County's SEPA responsible official issued a Determination
of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340(1). The DNS was sent to the Department of
Ecology's SEPA Registry, was placed in the project file and was published on the County's web
site.
5
December 4, 2020 Staff Report
5. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deliberate on the proposed
Compliance Code on December 10, 2020 and take action to adopt the proposed Compliance Code
with the changes recommended by Staff in this report.
0
APPENDIX A
Julie Shannon
Ut
From: Randon Draper
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:26 PM
To: jeffbocc; Board of Health
Cc: Philip Hunsucker
Subject: Public Comment for Proposed Compliance Code Ordinance
BoCC and Board of Health:
This is a written public comment on the Proposed Compliance Code Ordinance scheduled for a joint public hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Health at 2:30 p.m. on November 19, 2020.
Commissioner Brotherton requested our office to provide a possible revision to the proposed Compliance Code to
provide relief from filing fees for indigent appellants. In addition, we noticed Sections 19.35.045 and 19.35.050 of the
proposed Compliance Code are in conflict as they require different amounts for the filing fee for an appeal to the
hearing examiner ($250 and $500 respectively). The amount should be $250 in both places. To these ends, we propose
the following edits:
For 19.35.045, add the following sentence: "This fee may be waived at the Director's discretion for indigent appellants."
immediately following the sentence "A $250 filing fee is required to file an appeal with the hearing examiner."
For 19.35.050(1)(a), replace the amount of "$500" with the amount of "$250" and add the following at the end of the
subsection: "If the appellant cannot afford to pay the filing fee, they may submit an application form provided to them
by the Office of the Hearing Examiner to request a fee waiver. The application shall provide sufficient information
regarding the appellant's finances for the Director to determine if the fee should be waived."
Respectfully,
Randon
Randon Draper
Civil Deputy Prosetuting,Attorney
P -�xN��i't nii:, Attar 11p#a,"s W icc
11.0. Box 1220, Port Tr:,tr :t ,i1, VVA w '36i3
Pn. 360-33-�424,i i d:ro 3'i: _
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 001
jeffbocc
From: tprosys@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:37 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: TESTIMONY for hearing on PROPOSED COMPLIANCE CODE ORDINANCE
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners and Board Members:
In the BOH Code Enforcement presentation (PPT, slide 7)
The step identified as "Subsequent Daily Fines" is too lenient. The language on the slide should be revised like this:
"Case is actively monitored for compliance. If compliance is not achieved, daily fines may shall be imposed
through subsequent NOVs. Subsequent NOVs may be appealed. Once compliance is achieved, enforcement case
is closed and fees becomes due."
The county has always been far too forgiving of violations, even those that have lasted for many years. Unless and until
the county shows that it is serious and that penalties will be assessed against willful violators, people will simply
continue to ignore the law. In other words, without meaningful penalties, "enforcement" will continue to be a joke.
The Ordinance states:
(ii) The person responsible shall be assessed a monetary penalty commencing on the date set for correction in the
notice of noncompliance and thereafter, in accordance with JCC 19.20.010 or the penalty provisions of the
voluntary compliance agreement, plus all costs incurred by the county to pursue compliance with this chapter and
to abate the nuisance in accordance with JCC 19.20.015 and 19.30.020.
Note: shall be assessed
Again, if penalties are not vigorously pursued, the Ordinance will be meaningless.
So, the language in 19.20.015 Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement at (1)(c)(v) should be changed:
(v) A statement that the costs and expenses of abatement incurred by the county pursuant to JCC 19.30.020, and a
monetary penalty in an amount per day for each nuisance as specified in JCC 19.30.010, f:�ay shall be assessed against the
person to whom the notice of violation and order of abatement is directed; and,
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 002
Tom Thiersch
Jefferson County
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 003
Julie Shannon
From: Annette Huenke <amh@olympus.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Board of Health i
Subject: public comment, 11/19 meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
Good afternoon.
I'd like to address recent comments made by Board of Health members as reported by the Leader.
Dr. Locke says "we all know we're heading into a crisis in Washington State." This sounds like the language that came
out of the Imperial College this winter, which turned out to be cataclysmically wrong. No, we don't know we're heading
into a crisis, that is simply a prediction based on results of unreliable testing.
Commissioner Dean is 'disturbed at so much distrust,' as if a lack of confidence in a medical -industrial complex largely
funded by profit -driven pharmaceutical corporations and so-called 'philanthropies' who stand to benefit from every
single aspect of this crisis, is unwarranted. Over recent decades Merck, Pfizer, Glaxo and others have paid over thirty-
five billion dollars in fines for criminal activity like manipulating and concealing data . Do you need reminding that it was
the US Public Health Service and the CDC who conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment between 1932 and 1975? 1
could go on. Who in their right mind assumes that government and its agencies have only good intentions or always
make the right choices? It is dangerously naive for policy -makers to navigate this realm denying the overwhelming
influence of money.
I find it 'offensive'that legitimate peer -reviewed science is being willfully ignored by local authorities who now have
unprecedented control over the populace with zero liability for negative outcomes. Dismissing out -of -hand the
considered opinions of credible physicians and scientists as 'untrue rhetoric and conspiracy theories' is offensive. This is
a back -handed call for the deplorable, undemocratic exercise of censorship.
One of those credible physicians was quoted on Tuesday — Cambridge and Royal College -educated pathologist Dr.
Roger Hodkinson said
"There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It's outrageous. This is
the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.
There is absolutely nothing to be done to contain this virus other than protecting your more vulnerable
people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season.
...positive tests, which do not accurately reflect whether you have the virus, are driving "public hysteria,"
adding "testing should stop unless you show up at a hospital with respiratory problems." [source
Dr. Locke might say that this man has no place in "the science group," because his professional opinion is unwelcome
consider the possibility that Dr. Hodkinson, along with scores of his colleagues, comprehends phenomenon that Dr.
Locke does not.
sincerely,
Annette Huenke
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 004
5708 Jackman St.
Port Townsend
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 005
Julie Shannon
From: John Tevis <johnetevis@gmail.com> ,
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 2:20 PM 1l��� � ?
To: Board of Health = ° µk t f x
Subject: public comment regarding Compliance Code Ordinance
Attachments: WSU study on Code Enf Oct 2016.pdf, a typo.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Board of Health and the Board of County Commissioners:
In October of 2016, Philip Morley directed a study about the lack of code enforcement in Jefferson
County (attached), authored by Laura Lewis, then director of the local WSU extension. As you
know, my neighbors and I have advocated for the last two and a half years for a coherent code
enforcement program in Jefferson County that would emphasize interdepartmental cooperation
and public -faced accessibility. Ms. Lewis's study couldn't have been more clear on those
points. A few of you were aware of the problem at least since the publication of the report, as
evidenced by its distribution chain. Yet when we jump-started the conversation about this county-
wide issue in April 2018, many of you looked at us as if we were speaking Greek. Others of you
denied the problem existed and stood in our way.
We support —by and large —the County's efforts to tweak the language in this ordinance to bring
the worst offenders to heel. Though we question the sudden urgency to complete a project four
years in the making, we appreciate that the county faces a myriad of inter -related problems. But
we are discouraged by the deliberate vagueness in the language of the ordinance and alarmed by
the likelihood that even more power will be vested in the unelected County Administrator. We
also know from experience that hiring someone to address code compliance issues doesn't mean
that the county will actually address these issues, a situation that will only be exacerbated by the
unclear language regarding the county's discretion to pursue code violations. In a county where
solid waste is dumped willy nilly on abandoned propertiesour code compliance officer cites
people for building a yurt. In the middle of a housing crisis.
Speaking of priorities, shortly after Ms. Murdock was hired and began her work in the summer of
2019, we called on her to help us with a new problem of illegal dumping in our neighborhood:
seven RVs chock full of metal debris dumped across the street from our homes. Not my job, in
short, was her reply. In a sleight of county hand, her job description had changed and solid waste
was not in her portfolio. That responsibility was shifted right back to where it had been for
years, hidden from the public in Environmental Health and funded only for a half-time position by
a state grant. For the first nine months of her tenure she prioritized the investigation of a decade -
long backlog of complaints and not the most pressing concerns facing the county.
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 006
14 months later, the last two trailers were finally hauled away last month, largely through the
efforts of Pinky Mingo, who, when you visit the code compliance page on DCD's website, is not
listed. Because, as you know, she works in Environmental Health. Who but a county employee or
someone who has spent years working on this issue would know this? If you need to report a
solid waste violation in Jefferson County, you must call the general number for Public
Health. After two and half years of support for this position, we are right back at square one; we
resent your use of our advocacy for such obfuscation.
We need specific language in this ordinance that works for citizens instead of creating
the opportunity for mission creep. In a document rich in detail regarding infractions, there is
precious little about how each department will pursue their responsibilities. When you write
about a "director" (page 7) please name the department that this individual works for. When you
describe the guidelines (19.10.035) for which problems are to be addressed first, please make
clear in black and white that the "director" or the director's proxy actually addresses the serious
problems, rather than citing people for expanding a deck.
I would also call on the county commissioners themselves to step up here. I —we all —applaud
you for your hard work. But we didn't ask you to run for your offices. This is an
emergency. Your own job descriptions allow great leeway in asserting your executive authority as
well as your normal legislative and quasi-judicial responsibilities. With regard to the hard work
occasioned by the eventual passing of this ordinance, carve out a role for yourselves. For
example, each of you could resolve code violations in the districts you represent. That would
place Commissioner Dean squarely in charge of the inhumane situation at the Fairgrounds and
leave the unincorporated parts of the county that are swimming in solid waste to Greg Brotherton
and the incoming commissioner from District 2. That way the code compliance officer will have
time to cite people for building yurts. Thank you.
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 007
U'lefferson County
Draft Report on Code Enforcement Activities in Jefferson County
Overview
When: October 28 h, 2016
Where: BOCC chambers
Present: Jefferson County Departments present: Community Development, Health,
Noxious Weed Board, Sheriff's Office, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, and Extension
Objective
This meeting was organized to discuss the current challenges of code enforcement across
several Jefferson County Departments and Programs. The majority of Jefferson County
code violations and complaints are currently unresolved because of the high volume of
reports and lack of capacity within and between departments to close cases. Additionally,
each department has different policies and procedures for management of code violations
and complaints. The first step of this initial meeting was to detail each departments
policies and procedures for recording and managing code violations and complaints.
Then participants each provided examples of systems in other jurisdictions that might be
applicable. Finally, we had a brainstorming session to discuss how a future Jefferson
County code enforcement program might operate.
The presentations from each department demonstrated the complexity of the current
Jefferson County code enforcement and complaint management systems across
programs. Each department typically receives several hundred complaints each year and
also discovers code violations through inspection and other department activities. None of
the participating departments is currently able to meet the demand of their code
enforcement system. However, each department did report certain actions they are
currently using that encourage voluntary compliance and provide citizen education.
Taking these successes and acknowledging the current challenges, we discussed how a
more functional and sustainable code enforcement program could operate. The overall
consensus of the group was that Jefferson County needs a holistic code enforcement
policy and procedure across all departments with a centralized team to manage and
coordinate these activities. Developing policies and procedures that streamline processes
through better triage and cross -department coordination was the highest priority.
Following below is an outline of current policies for each of the participating departments
as well as recommendations that were developed during our discussion session:
Department of Community Development:
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 008
• Public groups are very interested in compliance and enforcement
• 100+ complaints/year (voluntarily reported)
o Some can be resolved by front office
o Others are more lengthy
• Currently DCD uses a form to document complaint
o If complaint involves another Department, a copy is sent to them
• Share a lot of complaints with the Health Department
• Occasionally will have to do a site visit
• Triage is important (life -safety issues) — letters are sent first, wait for voluntary
compliance
• Work well with Sheriff's office when necessary
• —50% of complaints are resolved through voluntary compliance
DCDs Greatest Concerns:
• Never having a resolution
• Some complaints are over 10 years old
• More complaints then they have the capacity to manage
Department of Public Health:
• 200+ complaints/year — many more then this when you include inspection
violations
• Triage and time constraints
o Inspections find code violations
o Community complaints
o Life -Safety Criteria for Triage
• Need to validate complaint to make sure it is a violation
• Inspections can result in compliance issues that need to be resolved ASAP
o What happens when a person doesn't have the resources to become
compliant (need an abatement fund to support compliance to deal with
issues of poverty)?
• Volume of complaints has been going up rapidly
• Increases in complaints with foreclosures
• Complaints are also referred from other agencies — DNR, ECO, Health, WSDA
Noxious Weed Control Program:
• The majority of complaints come from neighbors
• 150-200 people submit a complaint/annually
• Current System:
o Send Letter immediately without verification
o Second Letter sent to follow-up to make sure they are aware it is a problem
(still no verification yet)
0 60% of complaints are resolved voluntarily through the first two letters
received
0 100+ need further follow-up
o Adding a FAQ page to the website has had a positive impact
Sheriff's Office:
* Need PA Civil Deputy
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 009
• One of their officer's does Civil Work
• Can get a search warrant, but not effective currently because there is not a Civil
Deputy Attorney
Prosecuting Attorney's Office:
• Need a Civil Deputy Attorney
General Concerns:
• We need to be clear about what the county can or cannot do in terms of
enforcement
• There needs to be consistency across all county departments - for example DCD
takes anonymous complaints but Health does not
Examples From Other Jurisdictions
• Clallam County ran a compliance program that was more focused on old
corn fiance ather then enforcement - focused primarily on abandoned cars and
illegal dumping
• Clearing House in Kitsap County called "Open Line" - used to triage all complaints
and call flow
• KNAT: Kitsap Nuisance Abatement Team - collaborative approach; team identified
people across departments who could work together
Recommendations for the future of Jefferson County Code Enforcement
A code enforcement manager could coordinate and manage code violations and
complaints in all Jefferson County Departments and could coordinate and collaborate
code violations and health and safety issues with the City of Port Townsend and the Fire
Departments. There was a strong desire to be closely associated with the Sheriff's Office
and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for management of enforcement actions.
• One possibility was to collaborate on other violation management, such as:
o Civil Division
o Code Enforcement
o Animal Control
o Noise
• Person/Team could be the focal/contact point for all complaints
o Triage as a county and prioritize those violations that are life/safety
concerns
• Avoiding violations through education and deliberate outreach would lead to less
infractions
• Goal = Voluntary Compliance
• Opportunity for consistency for code compliance within a department and across
all county departments
• Policies across the county would create a timeline for compliance and enforcement
based on a triage process
• Need for a clearing -house and person/team to hold all of this together
• Fire and City of PT should be collaborators
• A Code Officer/Team could also potentially check on civil complaints while en
route to other sites
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 010
..� tr.a .
jeffMocc _ _ RE��,..� �
From: Barbara Morey <bemorey@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:32 PM
To: boh@jeffersoncountypublichealth.org; jeffbocc
Cc: Carol McCreary; Gary Keister; vikis@ecopraxis.org; Jesse E. Thomas; Julia Cochrane;
Justine Gonzalez -Berg
Subject: Hearing: Revisions to Policy: Basic Sanitation for Non -Permitted Living Conditions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links,
especially from unknown senders.
To the BOH AND BOCC:
Regarding the Revision to Policy re: Enforcement - Basic Sanitation for Non -permitted Living
Conditions p 29- 36, Tables 2 and 3 Temporary Encampments
PLEASE REVISE THE WORDING regarding the portable kitchen requirements in tables 2 and 3 as
follows:
"A Portable kitchen trailer for cooking and hand washing are required if congregate/shared meals are
prepared on site for encampment residents."
Additionally:
"A portable kitchen unit is not required if meals are individually prepared by each household, such as
those tenting independently or living in an RV. However, potable water and garbage disposal should
be available at the temporary encampment for use by individual camping units."
SECONDLY: RE: Encampments on private property
Please refer to the Kitsap Emergency Housing Resolution that Greg has shared with you.
It is important that guidelines for sanitation include private property as well as public, religious, or non-
profit owned property. All of these un-permitted encampments --including those that are in the
backyards of county residents are "Non -Permitted Living Conditions" and exist in reality. Wouldn't it
make sense to protect health and environment in the un-permitted tent encampments out by the Mill,
in the forests, or in a private backyard by providing sanitation guidelines, and even sanitation support,
such as garbage and sanitation services at these encampments? Perhaps through the BOH or
OlyCAP or Emergency Management or the landowner.
Encampments on private land still exist. Denying that in a policy, doesn't make it any less true. We
can't outlaw homelessness, but we can, as a community, make sure that even these unsupported and
unstructured "non -permitted" encampments on private land have adequate sanitation and garbage
collection to protect public heath and the environment.
That is the basic understanding that underlies the ability of a private land owner to add porta potties
and/or hand washing stations for "guests" camping temporarily on private land on table 2.
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 011
Third: I believe that it would clarify septic system requirements and usage capacity in the county by
referring to number of occupants the system is meant to handle as opposed to number of bedrooms?
Instead of "5 bedroom house," it could be "8 individuals" or a number that is equivalent to a septic
capacity of 60 gals per day per person (gray and black water total), or another direct measure
defining the number of people that can safely live on site.
Thank you for your work and efforts to address temporary encampments of various kinds in the
additions to policy for Jefferson County.
It takes the whole village,
Barbara Morey, Housing Advocate
206 326-9022
Port Townsend
Nevertheless, she persisted...
2020 Compliance Code Hearing Record 012
(i C: a LL L\Cf is
APPENDIX B
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF A POLICY
FOR CONSIDERATION OF
FEE WAIVER REQUESTS
ASSOCIATED WITH
COUNTY ORDINANCES
RESOLUTION NO. 74-95
WHEREAS, Federal, State and local laws require public agencies to treat all parties equally, so there is
no potential for discrimination; and,
WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinances establish fees to, in part, compensate the general public for
costs associated with the review of projects or activities, provision of services; and,
WHEREAS, requests are submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for waiver of fees by
individuals and organizations, and;
WHEREAS, the following findings are made with regard to the matter of requests for the waiver of fees:
1) The waiver of fees for one party and not another can be viewed as discriminatory, unless there is a
stated policy when and under what circumstances said waiver would occur.
2) The Washington State Constitution prohibits the gift of public funds and the waiving of fees can amount
to a gift as the costs associated with providing services are shifted entirely to the public for the benefit
of the applicant.
3) Fees set by County Ordinance do not differentiate between worthy causes or worthy organizations and
are to be applied equally to private individuals and public agencies.
4) The waiving of fees creates a budget impact for the department not receiving the fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that there may be circumstances where the requested waiver
of fees may be in the public interest and of public benefit for a project or activity and the public should participate by
the waiving of the fee(s).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to assure that all parties requesting a waiver of fees are treated equally
and to determine if the requested waiver of fees is in the public interest and of public benefit, the following policy
(Attachment A to this Resolution) is hereby adopted.
Wt..
APPRt)lW-ff- , day of 1995.
SEAL: . •, .... �^
AP
ATTEST: G[_'"
Loma L. Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Vol FAGS J 05&
Attachment A -- Resolution No. 74-95
Policy for Consideration of Administration Fee Waiver Requests
ATTACHMENT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 74-95
POLICY FOR CONSIDERATION OF
FEE WAIVER REQUESTS
POLICY STATEMENT
The waiving of fees for individuals or organizations may be seen as: 1) being a gift
of public fiuids, 2) being a discriminatory act, and 3) having an impact on
individual County department/funds budgets. Jefferson County has determined that
there may be circumstances, however, where the public interest and public benefit
in a project or activity is such that the public should participate by the waiving of
fees associated with such a project or activity.
REQUEST AND DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
All requests for waiver of fees shall be made in writing to the department
administering the fee to be waived.
The Department will forward the request to the Board of County Commissioners
with their recommendation for approval or denial.
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall review all requests to waive
the fees associated with any individual project or activity. Requests may only be
approved when the following criteria can be met:
1) There is substantial public interest and benefit in the project or activity to the
degree said project or activity could be a County project or activity, but is
not because an alternative method for the project/activity was found.
2) Any and all similar requests will receive the same approval regardless of the
person or organization requesting the waiver.
3) A corresponding amount from a Fund, to be designated by the Board of
Commissioners at the time of the approval, will be transferred to the
Department where the fee is waived.
voi- 21 Fasr wv