HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062104
~~~SO~
,/~SON a"'.~,~
!:r~<9 06\
&(fJ \" ~\
~ ~.. ~I
\ '. .
, !
, j
\.~ ~/
. '~~1!1'!0~/
District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness
District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers
County Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of June 21,2004
Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order. Commissioner Dan Titterness and
Commissioner Patrick Rodgers were present.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: County Administrator David Goldsmith
reported on the following items:
· The Board reviewed a proposed resolution authorizing a ballot proposition to increase sales tax 1/10
of 1 % for emergency communications infrastructure. The Jeff Com Board initiated this request
because the current radio console for outgoing calls is obsolete and replacement parts aren't
available. This tax allows local communities to fund communication centers and it would provide
approximately $150,000 annually that can only be used for the emergency communications network.
The City of Port Townsend, the Fire Districts, and the Law and Justice Council are in favor of
putting the proposition on the ballot. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve
RESOLUTION NO. 28-04 authorizing Ballot Proposition 1 for 1/10 of 1 % sales tax increase
for emergency communications. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by
a unanimous vote.
· Representatives from the Jefferson Land Trust updated the Board on the Highway 20 corridor buffer
purchase. The Land Trust is negotiating the contract and has been working with the EDC and the
Chamber of Commerce to solicit donations from the community. They have received approximately
$8,500 in contributions at this time and their goal is $13,000. A forester has estimated $7,500 to
$10,000 from thinning the timber on the property and a half acre of the property is expected to be
sold to A+ Rentals or another buyer for approximately $25,000. The total sale price is $70,375. The
City of Port Townsend purchased County property earlier this year and it was agreed during
negotiations that $10,000 from those proceeds would be set aside to fund the City's portion of the
corridor buffer. The County needs to contribute approximately $20,000. The closing date is set for
July 6. An agreement will be before the Board next week. Kevin Wydell, owner of A+ Rentals
presented the Board with an alternate proposal.
There is an Agricultural Business Open House this week. The County has revised the land use
policy to make it "ag- friendly" to encourage farming.
The letter from the County Administrator on the 2005 budget call will require that departments
address two scenarios: 1) a 2% increase over the 2004 budget and, 2) a 15% reduction.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 2l, 2004
C)"',',",',"'"
;'.(" .:-~
, ,
~1---- -',,,
-'Nr.."\
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: a citizen cited by the
Health Department for polluting a creek is being required to rid the property of cars and trailers and he feels
that he has been singled out; a request for 100 more signs to alert drivers about the dangers of wildfires;
WSU is doing a great job in the County on rural education for the Firewise Program; in the Board's
deliberation meeting on the Fred Hill Materials MRLO, it appeared that they didn't see a connection
between the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier Project even though the remand ofthe Comprehensive Plan
amendment from the Hearings Board required more environmental review, and the Final Supplemental EIS
doesn't have a lot of analysis about the tie-in between the overlay and the project; the draft nuisance/junk car
ordinance is half-baked, oppressive, and is an over reach of police powers; the County Commissioners don't
have the authority to prohibit weapons in the Courthouse according to State law; approximately 25 citizens
were present to voice their concerns about the noise and pollution from the monster truck competition at the
Jefferson County Fairgrounds; the Port Townsend Little League was told they had to get offtheir fields at
the Fairgrounds because of the monster trucks and they needed to use them for All Star practice; and the Fair
Board needs to look at family events to raise money for the Fairgrounds that aren't a nuisance to the people
in the community.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness
moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. In the temporary absence of Commissioner Rodgers,
Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried.
1. AGREEMENT NO. G0400236 re: Northwest Straits Project, Marine Resources Committee Year 5
Project, CZM310; WSU Cooperative Extension; Washington State Department of Ecology
2. Reduction of Underage Drinking Grant Proposal; Jefferson County Sheriffs Office; Washington
State Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA)
Two AGREEMENTS re: Grant Fundingfor the E911 Communications Center; State
Department of the Military: David Goldsmith asked the Board to review two contracts for grant funding
from the State Military Department for the E91l Communications Center.
Commissioner Tittemess moved to approve Agreement No. E05-020 and E05-042 to provide financial
assistance for E911 calls originating in Jefferson County from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. In the
temporary absence of Commissioner Rodgers, Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion with carried.
HEARING re: Renaming a County Road; Dilly Dally Drive to Burnt Tree Lane: Chairman
Huntingford opened the public hearing. Kelli Larson, Public Works Department, reported that all the
property owners on this road signed the petition, the affected agencies were contacted and had a chance to
respond, and the proposed name is acceptable to the Jeff Com Committee that has been working on the
addressing system. Staff recommends that the Board approve the road name change.
The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for against the road
name change, Chairman Huntingford closed the hearing.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21,2004
IJ"'" "',
.::'" ,.2.,.L
- --: - ...
~1\11;-"~-;\';'"
Commissioner Titterness moved to accept the staff recommendation to approve RESOLUTION NO. 29-
04, changing the name of a private road from Dilly Dally Drive to Burnt Tree Lane. Commissioner Rodgers
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Intent to Declare County Surplus Personal Property: The Chair opened the
public hearing. David Goldsmith explained that this is County property that is overseen by the ER&R Fund
and, in some cases, the equipment won't be replaced. The Board is required to declare the property as
"surplus" before it goes to public auction.
The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. Hearing no comments for against the intent
to declare surplus personal property, Chairman Huntingford closed the hearing.
Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 30-04, declaring certain County personal
property as surplus. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Amending the 2004-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
The Chair opened the public hearing. Bruce Laurie, Public Works Department, explained that the Barlow
Bridge project on Oil City Road in the Westend needs to be added to the 2004-2009 TIP in order for the
County to get state and federal funds. This project will also be on next year's TIP, but the Department wants
to start on the engineering and get as far as possible on the project this year.
The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. Hearing no comments for against the
amendment to the TIP, Chairman Huntingford closed the hearing.
Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 31-04, amending the Six Year
Transportation Plan for 2004-2009 to include the Barlow Bridge project. Commissioner Rodgers seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Discussion re: Best Beginnings Program: Julia Danskin, Health Department, was present to
discuss similarities between the Health Department's Best Beginnings Program and Jefferson Mental
Health's Blossoming Child Program. She explained that the Mental Health Resource Center receives grant
funding for parenting classes in a classroom setting. They offer transportation, a meal and craft time. The
women served by the Best Beginnings Program are pregnant or parenting with infants, and the nurses visit
them at home. Blossoming Child serves children who are a little older and many of the mothers are
working.
In the Best Beginnings Program, nurses intervene with mothers during their pregnancy and after they have
their babies, and this helps provide a one-on-one parent modeling relationship. She feels that both programs
are important because they serve clientele with different needs. Very often high risk mothers are isolated,
don't have transportation, and may not feel comfortable around other people~
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 2004
...,<",:,"
Commissioner Titterness volunteered to attend the Port Townsend City Council meeting to request that they
contribute $12,500 to keep the Best Beginnings Program going through the end of2004. He suggested that
the County contribute an equal amount. The other Board members agreed but cautioned that an alternative
funding source will need to be found in order for the Best Beginnings Program to continue in 2005.
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Enforcement Against and Abatement of
Public Nuisances in the County, Including Repetitious Loud Noises and Junk Vehicles: Chairman
Huntingford opened the public hearing. David Goldsmith reported that the Board asked the Civil Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney to draft an ordinance addressing junk and abandoned vehicles and noise. The draft
ordinance has been reviewed by the enforcement staff.
The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing.
Dan Thompson, Qui1cene, stated that the draft ordinance threatens some of the liberties in the US
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Washington. The US Constitution was written to specifY
particular activities that government is authorized to perform and # 9 and #10 in The Bill afRights reiterate
the reservation of rights. It is very important for a property owner to be able to use, dispose of, and control
his property. Reasonable people understand boundaries and realize that they can't violate their neighbor's
rights. Property owners have the right to store things on their property that some people may find offensive.
Property values are based on the sale ofthe property and no one can guarantee what a property will be worth
in the future. A lot of people who choose to live in rural areas have distance between their neighbors so they
won't offend them whenever they do something. The draft ordinance mentions fire or health hazards.
These could be a violation of other peoples rights but they are already addressed by other laws. In the
proposed ordinance, County staff will go out and look for problems. According to the 4th Amendment, they
cannot go onto private property unless they have a search warrant, showing probable cause, signed by a
judge and listing items or persons to be searched or seized. It is important to separate the things that are a
violation of people's rights from some people's aesthetic point-of-view. It is clear that people's aesthetic
views don't have a place in legislation. Horrendous fines and procedures for abatement suggest totalitarian
government and that isn't what Americans want.
Frank Kelly, South Point Road, suggested that the Board hold public hearings when working people can
attend, especially when the law will impact many people. The proposed ordinance is broad and vague
regarding construed uses, but it is specific enough to prohibit many of the basic liberties that rural property
owners have a right to enjoy. He is concerned about the County's land use decisions when an interpretation
of the statute is determined by the current political philosophy and he finds this unprofessional. Can staff
really determine what is "reasonable?" The proposed ordinance was obviously developed from similar
ordinances from other jurisdictions, and it really doesn't fit a rural county. Many ofthe elements in the City
of Seattle's ordinance are less restrictive. Conflicts usually arise from disputes between neighbors and there
are some worse case scenarios that the County has had to address. To a certain degree, he favors tighter
restrictions to give law enforcement the tools to deal with some of the outright abuses. The proposed
ordinance wouldn't prohibit the Monster Truck Show at the Fairgrounds. It would prevent him from
listening to music from more than 50 feet, but it doesn't have any restrictions about cars that have loud
modified sound systems. He lives near the Fred Hill Materials Shine Pit and the noise from operation isn't
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 2004
.;;,..01'
""
covered under the ordinance. The County shouldn't be able to come onto private property for petty reasons
like an unkept woodpile. He understands that an ordinance is necessary to address gross abuses and worse
case scenarios. Most of his neighbors don't trust the County to be a fair and impartial judge.
David Hamilton, Port Ludlow, stated that he respects the comments he has heard, but he has a different view
to express. About ten years ago, he bought a rental house on Rhody Drive and, since that time, the neighbor
has accumulated over 60 vehicles on a single residential lot. His rental house is for sale and there have been
a lot of people looking, but the Realtor has observed that many of the prospective buyers don't like what
they see next door. The Realtor has suggested that he lower the price of the house $10,000 to $15,000. He
feels his property value has been decreased because of the neighbor's yard.
Gary Leavitt, stated he used to live at Lake Leland but now he lives in Port Townsend. The County told him
he couldn't live on the Lake Leland property and he had to clean it up. He is cleaning it up and losing
money on the vehicles. What bothers him is that when he drives over Mount Walker, there are junk vehicles
on property that have been there for as long as he can remember and there are junk vehicles on private
property all over the County. If the County makes one person clean up their property, they need to make
other people do the same.
Ken Ackerman, Center Road, stated that he does not agree that this ordinance should cover lumber piles,
junk vehicles and loud animals. Most ofthe people who have lumber, vehicles or animals have lived in the
County longer than the people doing the complaining. A lot of the cars that people keep are parts cars
because they have older cars and can't get parts. People have a right to have lumber on their property if they
have a sawmill. The cows that are bellowing were probably there before the neighbors who object to the
noise moved in to the area. People have the right to collect whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt
anyone. Farm animals, lumber or woodpiles, and machinery shouldn't be included in this ordinance. This is
the United States of America and we should be able to do what we want with our property. There are
generations of families in the County that have lived this way for years and they shouldn't be told what to do
with their property. Public hearings on issues like this should be scheduled so that working people can
attend. Property owners shouldn't have to pay to get rid of junk vehicles and items on their property.
Bill Campbell, Port Townsend, stated that he agrees that the nuisance ordinance should be directed at things
that go beyond a person's property and damage someone else. It shouldn't be an aesthetic issue. The
ordinance needs to specify what constitutes damages. To have your own personal property rights violated by
someone else should forfeit their rights. However, everyone shouldn't have to comply with an overall
aesthetic.
Bea Robbins, Port Townsend, stated that she doesn't want to see someone's living taken away ifthey own a
saw mill or make a living raising animals or cows. She lives on a picturesque private road and, since she
moved in 10 years ago, the neighbor has put junk cars on the side of the road. It isn't out in the country and
the houses are close together. She bought a home near her residence to rent out for income, but people
don't want to pay a decent rent in a neighborhood with junk cars.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21, 2004
",,~"O'
o
Elizabeth Macy, Port Townsend, stated that the property that Bea Robbins mentioned has many abandoned
vehicles and years of trash and garbage all over it. Everyone in the area is on a private well and she doesn't
know if the cars are leaking oil and gas. The property owner started a fire to burn some of the trash when he
was cleaning up the property and the trees caught on fire. The fire department had to come back three times
and he was burning things that are against the law to burn. There are dogs running loose and the garbage
attracts rats and feral cats. This is more than just a nuisance, it is a health threat to the neighbors and an
environmental threat. Talking to the property owner just makes it worse. The description of a 'junk car" in
the ordinance is very specific and wouldn't apply to a parts car.
Steven Jackson, Port Ludlow, said that he respects every argument he has heard and the law may be too
tightly written. No one has mentioned barking dogs. A dog constantly barking all the time makes living in a
neighborhood difficult. He wants the Board to pass an ordinance that will allow the authorities to do
something about the situation.
George Sickel, Brinnon, agrees that people's rights should not be taken away. At. the Commissioner's "On
the Road" Meeting in Brinnon he brought up the subject of a "car farm" that has cropped up in the
community. The enforcement staff talked with the property owner who put up a tarp fence. (See attached
photos in permanent record.) The owner works on cars in the road and there is a pickup truck filled with
garbage sitting in the driveway. There needs to be some kind of enforcement for people who grossly abuse
the system and create health hazards. A property can have cars on it and be fenced and clean. The
ordinance needs to be reworked, especially regarding cutting wood and playing music.
Mike Belenski, stated that "nuisance" is a term used to designate the wrongful endangerment of a legal right
or interest or, in other words, "Is my conduct infringing on your rights?" An ordinance cannot make
something a nuisance that is not a nuisance. He recently called the County to get copies of the complaints
regarding junk cars, loud noises, and barking dogs and he was told that there was no list. Is this ordinance
supposed to target a few people that the County doesn't like? For Jefferson County to enact and justify a
legislative regulation under police power there must be a public health, safety, or welfare issue present. The
ordinance is unduly oppressive, overly restrictive, unconstitutionally vague, and does not balance the public
interest against the persons being regulated. An ordinance must provide adequate notice to persons of
common understanding the behavior prohibited and the specific intent required. It must provide citizens,
Police Officers, and Courts with sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement. From the title of the
ordinance, it is clear that junk vehicles and repetitious loud noises are examples of an indefinite number of
public nuisances that are contained in the document. Is there a list of these specific nuisances? Is a
chainsaw or a nail gun considered a nuisance? Listening to music is not infringing on a neighbor's rights.
There needs to be a rational balancing of a person's rights vs. the public interest. People shouldn't have to
guess what is unlawful. Where is the line between lawful and unlawful? The proposed ordinance is overly
broad, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of police power. It is obvious that it was taken from several
similar ordinances. The ordinance says that a radio should not be heard more than 50 feet from the source
which is much more restrictive than a similar ordinance for the City of Seattle. Section 9 is on enforcement
but the enforcement information isn't found in the enforcement chapter, it is found in Section 2. The statute
regarding violations should be 36.32.120. The ordinance says it is a misdemeanor to violate any provision
ofthe chapter and such violation shall be punishable by imprisonment injail for 90 days or $250 fine. This
means that it is a crime to violate this ordinance. In Section 21 on page 8, a violation is a monetary penalty.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21,2004
e~'K2é'" >~
"'',,;:''''-
-i· ," ~,
-1/1,,,(,'
Which is it? The violation and the penalty for the violation need to be clear. In Section 1, Abate of
Conditions Which Constitute a Public Nuisance, it says that RCW 9.66.010 designates public nuisance as a
crime. The ordinance goes on to say that appropriate civil penalties and fees can be imposed. It's a crime,
not a civil infraction. It also says there are procedures to dispute such penalties and fees, but none are listed.
In the definition section, there are definitions referenced that aren't in the ordinance and words that are in
the document and should be defined aren't listed. He feels the document is a license to harass people.
Regarding Public Disturbance - Noise on page 6, paragraph 15 (g) says "for purposes of this chapter a
public disturbance noise is not a nuisance." If it's not a nuisance, it's just noise. What is the criteria? The
ordinance should be very clear about what a noise is and at what point it becomes unlawful. The time of day
or night when an unlawful noise occurs also needs to be clarified. There is no definition of noise in the
document. The problem must be clear, along with what needs to be done to correct it, and the penalty if it is
not corrected needs to be understood. There has to be clear line between obeying the law and not obeying
the law. The State motor vehicle code, RCW 46.55.240, states that ordinances pertaining to cars as public
nuisances shall outline a hearing process that is followed before the cars can be removed.
Dick Forsyth, Port Hadlock, stated that people's economic status maybe a factor in keeping a junk car for
spare parts. He also does artwork using scrap metal pieces he has in his yard. It needs to be taken into
consideration if people use the things in their yard on a regular basis.
Harold Valia. Frog Mountain Kennels, stated that there are abandoned cars in his neighborhood that are full
of rubbish and obviously a health hazard. When he lived in California it was against the law to park an RV
or a boat on your property and there were ordinances about the color of house paint. This extreme was due
to home owners concerns about their property values and it wasn't reasonable. He thinks that ordinances
should deal with health and safety. Regarding the noise issue, a certain time of day or night when noise is
allowed should be specified in the ordinance.
Dan Thompson, stated that page 4, paragraph 11 in the ordinance defines a nuisance violation as "doing an
act, omitting to perform any act or duty, or permitting or allowing any act or omission, which significantly
affects, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others, is unreasonably offensive to the
senses, or interferes with or disrupts the free use of that property by any lawful owner or occupant." How
could the owner of the property violate his own rights? Also on page l2 regarding enforcement, paragraph 5
says, "Any person who knowingly hinders, delays or obstructs any County employee acting on direction of
the Director in the discharge of the County employee's official powers or duties in abating a nuisance under
this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not exceeding ninety days and/or
a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.) A misdemeanor used to be $500 or less. It isn't clear
when the abatement process begins. There are so many inconsistencies in the ordinance and it is too vague.
Too much is left up to the discretion of the employee dealing with enforcement.
Elizabeth Macy, asked if people could hand in written suggestions and changes?
The Board agreed to take written comment on the proposed ordinance until Friday, June 25 at 5 p.m.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 21,2004
~"""".,
" ·..··..·1
:::ii'::
+;'I'I,:",~-f"
Frank Kelly, stated that he agreed with most of the comments Mike Belenski made. He reviewed the
Seattle's Noise Ordinance and, even in the evening, private conversations or music was not as restrictive as
in the proposed ordinance.
Ken Ackerman, asked if noise from machinery or cars will be limited by the ordinance?
Hearing no further comment for or against the ordinance, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Board
agreed that the draft ordinance will be reviewed and revised and ifthe changes are substantial, another
public hearing may be held. People asked that the hearing be scheduled in the evening.
,. "'_....~...',. '. ...
" " 'y C'
MEETING ADJ.~U~~~c>
SEAL: . r~ '\. ,'\ Q .
,," , ¡. Ii /' ~ ',~"
',' \;. , " '
", '2':':¡":'"~J.'" . ;I
ATTEST:
()1út rr¡~~
£tie Matthes, CMC (/ U
Deputy Clerk of the Board
".
,\ J ~ ;."
"
Itterness, Member
~
Page 8