Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091586 .... .. i I E. District No. 1 Commissioner: District No. 2 Commissioner: District No. 3 Commissioner: - Larry W. Dennison, B.G. Brown, Member (Position Vacant) , I I Chairman' I I 1 I I 1 E E E E ~ E' E' E' E' ~I E' E' E' E' EI E' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS E Clerk of the Board: Public Works Director: 3erdine C. Bragg Gary A. Rowe E ~ ~ E M I NOT E S Week of September 15, 1986 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown. J Virail See. Fire Chief, 3efferson County Fire District #6 re: Permission to use County Road Riaht of Way for oarking: Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, was present when Chairman Dennison read a letter from Henry W. Miller, Chairman of the Commissioners of Fire District #6, requesting use of County road right of way along Cape George Road and Goss Road for additional parking. Mr. See added that this area would be used for additional parallel parking along side the road. Gary Rowe reported that this request was just received last Friday and the Department has not had a chance to inspect the area. The following questions need to be answered: 1) What is the width of the right-of-way in this area, and 2) How will the parking on this right-of-way encroach on the roadway and what will be the impact on traffic? Commissioner Brown moved to approve the request for use of right-of-way made by Fire District #6 on the condition that the Public Works Department review the request for any traffic safety impacts. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. AGREEMENT re: Rental of VFW Hall: Commissioner Brown moved to app~ove the following rental agreements for the use of spaces in the VFW Building: Happy Valley Dancers and VFW Post #7014. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. CONTRACT re: Personal Services: CarolYn Lea: The Personal Services Contract with Carolyn Lea to provide secretarial services to the County Commissioners' Office was approved by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chairman Dennison. Apoointments to the Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors: Beverly Howe and Doreen Clemence were each appointed to serve a three year term on the Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors as recommended by that Board, and by motion of Commissioner Brown. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. \',OL J1'2 :L~'f,t 003435 --/ ~ Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 Page: 2 ADDointment to the 3efferson County Centennial Committee: Commissioner Brown moved to appoint Sue Sidle to serve on the Jefferson County Centennial Committee. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. Payments of 3une and 3ulv Billings to Johnston Hunt and Associates: Jefferson County 3ail: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the payment of the 3une and 3uly billings submitted by 30hnston Hunt and Associates on the 3efferson County 3ail project excluding the interest amount listed on each bill. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS DISTRICT COURT AGREEMENT re: CourtServicesi the City of Port TOWn8end: September 16, 1986: The Board initialed the addition of the following to the Agreement with the City of Port Townsend for provision of Court Services, by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chairman De,nnison: "The City shall receive all proceeds from court levied fines. " PUBLIC WORKS ReQUest for Proposals re: Ground Water Monitoring Proaram; Jefferson County Landfill: The Public Works Department is requesting Statements of Qualifications and request to be considered for contract award from engineering firms interested in doing geohydrological studies, groundwater monitoring and a maintenance and operations plan and manual for the County's Miller Road landfill, Director Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Request for Proposals as recommended by the Public Works Director. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. Approoriating Funds for Ground Water Monitorina Program; 3efferson County Miller Road Landfill: Gary Rowe reported that this ground water monitoring project will be on-going and asked that an appropriation from the Solid Waste budget, in the total amount of $100,000.00, be approved to be used, as need, over the period of the project. The money for the project will be generated by fees and any other sources of revenue available. The Board asked for more information on how much will need to be appropriated for this project per year and how the project will be affected if one of the annual appropriations can not be made. HEARING NOTICE re: Vacation of County Road Right-of-Way; Rhododendron Avenue, Chalmers 2nd Additioni Tony Stroeder, oetitioner: An application has been received from Tony Stroeder to vacate the south 40 feet of Rhododendron Avenue in the Plat of Chalmer's Addition, 600 feet in length, adjacent to lots 1 through 11 in Block 23 and lots 13 through 15 of Block 24, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner Brown moved to set October 6, 1986 at 2:15 p.m. as the date and time for the public hearing on this petition. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. ReQUest to Levy Taxes: Brinnon Flood Control District Advisory Board: Chairman Dennison read a letter from the Brinnon Flood Control District Advisory Board, Chairman, Lyle Tinker, asking that the County put the $.25 per $1,000 levy allowable for a flood control district on the November election ballot. Gary Rowe advised that he would check the procedures necessary to put this issue on the ballot. \~P; 1',' '~'i~ OrJ.' ~'3436 . I ,,:' ,~:r:; \ ' I.. . ~ ,l,~.(;,~. ~J --/ Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 Page: 3 September 16, 1986: After checking the laws regarding Flood Control Districts and contact with members of the Brinnon Flood Control District Advisory Board, Gary Rowe reported that there is not enough time before the election to do everything required by law to put this issue on the November ballot. It was explained that even if the issue had gone on the ballot, it would have been an advisory vote only. CONTRACT re: Striping Various County Roads M'10693: !(aspac Corporation of Seattle: September 16, 1986: Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign the Contract with Kaspac Corporation of Seattle, as awarded, for the striping of various county roads. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. PLANNING Refund ReQUest re: Building Permit Fee: Joseph Walden: Commissioner Brown moved and Chairman Dennison seconded the motion to approve the building permit fee refund for 30seph Walden in the amount of $70.00. SEPA Threshold Determination; Sawmill Operation in Gardiner Area; Olympic Northern Forest Products: Rachel Nathanson reviewed the environmental checklist for this project which would include a 40 foot x 108 foot (4,032 square foot) structure to house another sawmill on this 12 acre industrial site on Gardiner Beach Road, immediately east of the Clallam County line. Mr. & Mrs. Ben Levine and 3erry Levine, the project prop?nents were present. This additional sawmill would mill timber which is not normally used for lumber known as "dog hair" fir. Samples of the lumber and pictures of the site were then presented for the Board's information. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources is very interested in getting rid of "dog hair" fir on their property which will then allow replanting with normal fir stock. The sawmill would be run by electricity, Rachel Nathanson continued, and the structure proposed to house the mill would be built with noise attenuating (acoustical paneling) materials. The greatest concern by the County regarding this site is noise. There is 20 foot wide buffer around the 12 acre site, except on the western boundary which is required to be at least 40 feet in width, that was required by the initial review of the project site. There is a current traffic level of four trucks per day, which would not be increased by the addition of this sawmill. The majority of the conditions proposed for this project are the same as those imposed on the original proposal (1 through 6 and 8 through 10 are unchanged from original project). One condition that has been added just for this proposal (Number 7) states that a noise analysis be conducted upon start up of the sawmill to verify that maximum noise limits are not exceed (established by WAC 173.60) and should be performed by a consultant or an individual knowledgeable in the field of noise analysis and agreed upon by the proponent and the Board. The County will no longer have a noise monitoring machine available to verify if this mill is in compliance with the noise standards. 3erry Levine responded to Ms. Nathanson's question regarding how the chips from the sawmill will be handled by stating that the chips that will be produced from the sawmill operation will be conducted to trucks by a system of conveyors. Mr. Levine also stated that four truckloads of material will be traveling in and out of the site on average, when this additional sawmill is operational. After discussion the following concerns regarding the conditions proposed on the site were noted by Jerry Levine: * The design of the building should not be made public because it will be his own proprietary design. 11,) ,on 437 ::- j~J,t' U 3 Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 Page: 4 * Condition #10 is unnecessary because it is a restatement of the County's road restriction law, which restricts traffic on this road because of inclement weather. Commissioner Brown agreed that the County road restrictions would apply to any County Road that is posted and this condition is redundant and should be deleted. Conditions 6 and 7 are pointing toward making sure that this operation stays in compliance with the State Noise law, and the law is written in such a way that no enforcement activity is undertaken until after there is a complaint. Condition 6 is a restatement of the law and Condition 7 adds a burden that goes beyond the requirements of the law, Mr. Levine noted and stated that there is no incentive for this operation to break the noise law and be shut down. He would like to have the flexibility to operate this project to the allowable limits of the law and not have further restrictions placed on the operation. Mr. Levine asked that Condition 7 be deleted. Reject .Condition #2, because it would only allow a shift and a half per day. The operating hours should be the same as allowed for sawmills up and down the West Coast. This particular sawmill project relies more on production output to make a profit than a conventional sawmill, 3erryLevine reported, because the value per piece of lumber is lower. The buffer (Condition #1) around the site looks tacky because of the fringe of trees left and landscaping may be proposed for that area in the future. * * * Mr. Ben Levine added that the environmental laws of the State of Washington state categorically that the County cannot make any rule that is different from the State environmental laws without the State's consent. The discussion of this interpretation of the State law ensued. Rachel Nathanson added that the State Environmental Policy Act allows the County to review projects through the environmental checklist and determine whether or not there are significant impacts from them If there are any significant impacts, the County has the option to mitigate or propose specific conditions of approval so that those impacts are lessened to the point that the project can be approved without having to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The conditions proposed for this project are the same as those placed on the whole site originally and were agreed to by the Levine's previously. This site is surrounded by residential property and there have been many complaints about the noise from the site. Mrs. Ben Levine added that the original mitigation that were established for the 12 acre site could be changed now because the Levine's have purchased 16 additional acres and the surrounding neighbors have been lessened. After further discussion regarding Conditions 2, 6, 7; the Washington State Noise law, its interpretation; and whether the County has the authority to deny the building permit for this new sawmill or not; Rachel Nathanson reported that if Condition #7 is to remain on the project it should address the cumulative noise on the site, not just the noise from the new sawmill proposed. Commissioner Brown moved to table action on this SEPA Threshold Determination until such time as the Board can confer with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding the legality of the County imposing the mitigative measures (condition # 2 and #7) proposed for this project. A letter will be sent to the project proponent verifying that this action has been taken. Shoreline Substantial Develooment Permit; Net Fish Pen Rearina Project, South Point; Olympic Sea Farms (Continued from Meeting. on September 8, 1986): Seventeen interested area residents were present when the matter of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 12 JAtr 003438 Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 Page: 5 submitted by OlYmPic Sea Farms for a salmon net ,pen rearing project at South Point was reconsidered by the Board. Planning/Building Department Director, David Goldsmith, reported that two questions were to be reviewed today by the Board as discussed at the previous meeting: 1) The proposed moratoriums on fish pen rearing projects in Island and San Juan counties, and 2) proposed Condition #7. which would require a Farm Management Plan to address a number of issues on the project. A Memorandum from the Planning Department staff was then presented for the Board's information. The Farm Management Plan proposed could address farm operation issues such as: use of antibiotics; having State Department of Fisheries or Ecology involved in monitoring the project; and the handling of mass fish kills. The applicant has indicated that the facility may be painted, but that is not something that the applicant would prefer to do. Concerns about navigation and commercial fishing impacts, David Goldsmith continued, have been addressed by Conditions 2, 8, 12, 16, 17 and 20. Information from Shoreline Hearings Board cases relating to these issues was reviewed, and the following "where an aquaculture use activity does not seriously interfere with large boats or a clearly indicated navigation passage and a clearly indicated navigation passage remains and where there is sufficient room for other uses (i.e. waterskiing) the project conforms with the Act and the applicable guidelines." There are other cases, as Gina McMather stated, that are applicable to these issues as well. Concerning the net pen rearing project moratoriums in Island and San Juan Counties, David Goldsmith further reported that the San 3uan County moratorium was in effect until 9/28/86 and was imposed to allow an Environmental Impact Statement to be developed on a specific proposal as well as to allow time for some changes to the aquaculture sectidn of their Shoreline Program. Island County is considering the imposition of a moratorium that will relate to three of their aquaculture enterprise zones and areas surrounding them. An additional issue that has surfaced in the last few days relates to the designation of the proposal, Mr. Goldsmith added. There are two aspects of the proposal: 1) the Aquatic environment, and 2) the upland land use of the project. The uplands were classified by the Planning Department staff as a "Conservancy" shoreline de.signation, which is incorrect. It is a "Suburban" shoreline designation. The upland activities are not considered aquaculture, they are non-water commercial activities, which are a secondary use under the Shoreline program. These activities should have been reviewed against the secondary use criteria of the Shoreline Master Program and reviewed under that criteria by the Shoreline Commission in their public hearing process. The Shoreline Commission reviewed the aquatic and upland uses as a primary use. This was a procedural error. Discussion ensued about the effect of the designation error on the review of the upland portion of the project and if there would be any changes in their findings; how the designations should be applied to projects that transcend two different environments; and interpretation of the map that outlines the various uses defined in specific areas in the Shoreline Master Program. The Shoreline Commission did not review the upland portion of the project under the secondary use criteria, and their findings are incomplete in that respect, David Goldsmith stated. The advertising for the Shoreline Commission public hearing does not state the designation that the project will be r'eviewed under, it just states that the project is to be reviewed. The Board could review the uplands portion of the project under the seconda,ry use criteria in this meeting or at a public hearing to be set at their discretion or the matter can be remanded back to the Shoreline Commission for review by that advisory body. The following testimony was noted as received sipce the Board's last deliberation on this project: Letter dated 9/12/86 from Gina McMather; a letter dated 9/9/86 from Donalda Porter; a let:ter dated 9/12/86 from Dr. Philip Leveque; phone calls received on 9/11j/86 in favor of the project from Dennis DeLahunt, David Kirkland, a~~ 30hn Forrester of Sea iDt 12 U.tf 00 3439 Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 , Page: 6 Farms of Norway; and a letter received 9/15/86 f~om Dennis DeLahunt in support of the project. The following is a summary of the comments made: Ken Feriancic, reoresentina OlYmpic Sea Farms: Mr. Ferjancic noted that the application was originally submitted under the "suburban" designation for the uplands portion. This designation was chosen in trying to interpret the Shoreline Master Program designation areas. The facilities on the upland portion of this project will visually remain essentially as they are now. The tavern will be converted to an office and the residence will house a different occupant. The paved parking areas will be used for parking and an access staging area. There will be no processing on the site and provisions for bleeding the fish will be addressed in the Farm Management Plan. In response to questions raised at the last meeting regarding the DNR Executive Order (copy provided of Order signed September 9, 1986) Mr. Ferjancic presented answers in writing to those items. Dennis De Lahunt, Olympic.Sea Farms: Mr. De Lahunt stated that postponing a decision on this permit now would have a devastating impact on the project and may cause it to fail. The Shoreline Commission reviewed this project as thoroughly as any project as ever been reviewed. Gina McMather, reoresentina the Commercial fishina interests: Ms. McMather stated her concerns regarding the economic impact of this fishing territory conflict with this project were somewhat dismissed as being irrelevant and not within the purview of the Shoreline Commission. Dave Gastman, South Point prooertv owner: Mr. Gastman stated that he feels the one part of the project has to be in conjunction with the other part and asked what the difference is in the suburban designation? Donalda Porter: Mrs. Porter stated that a problem that has not been faced is the processing and bleeding of the'fish. There are no accommodations at present for doing this on the site and asked where this would this be done; in the uplands or in the aquatic part of the project? Chairman Dennison advised that processing and bleeding of the fish was addressed by the applicant and it will be done on the upland portion of the project which will be dealt with during the review of that portion of the project. Commissioner Brown stated that if the upland portion of the project is to be reviewed again by the Shoreline Commission, then the Board shoUld deal with the aquatic portion of the project right now. After some discussion of the best way to proceed, the Board agreed to review the aquatic portion of the project. AQUATIC PORTION OF THE PR03ECT: The Chairman reported that a memo was received from the Planning Department regarding concerns expressed on the aquatic portion of this project. One way to deal with many of those con~erns is through Condition #7 the Farm Management Plan. The foll~wing items would be addressed through that plan: 1) The use of steroids and hormones (will not be allowed), 2) How to dispose of mass fish, kills asa result of disease or, other causes, 3) Having the State Departments of Fisheries, Agriculture and Ecology join in the monitoring Ptogram, 4) Painting or camouflaging of the metal over water structures to an acceptable level, and 5) the use of antibiotics. The Board would have the final authority to approve or disapprove the Farm Management Plan. A letter was received from Gina McMather andFra~ Fletcher regarding the impact that the net pens would have on the commercial salmon '/OL 1f'~ , #' " lAiI't "'" it"'i",\L 00 3440 I i I Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 19~6 Page: 7 fishery in that area (gillnet and perseine fish~ng operations), the Chairman further reported. The issues of navig~tion impacts of this project are dealt with through the Army Corp of 'Engineers Section 8 and 10 permit process. The Chairman then asked if anyone would like to ladd any new information or issues regarding this project. The following testimony was received: Gina McMather: The problem of, navigation as rel,ated to gillnets is a problem of having an obstruction in the way of a drift situation in a small, highly congested, fishing area 'of statewide importance. The best approximation of the width of the channel in this area is a mile and one half. (Refer t,o letter submitted by Frank Fletcher for more information and a map). Ms. McMather further stated that the State Department of' Fisheries advised her that 170,000 Chum salmon were caught in one 24 hour period in area 9 (this is the area above the Hood Canal B~idge). Area 9 is not open as often or for as long as other fishing areas. Fishing is established as a statewide industry and the area near this proposed project is a key fishing area. Chairman Dennison asked where the fishing industry would be displaced? Ms. McMather then explained how the fishing is d:one in this area, and stated that Mr. Fletcher reports that there would be six or eight sets that would not be able to be made in this area with the fish pens in place. She also stated that this issue has been brought before the Commissioners during their meeting times that ha~e coincided with the dates that the fishing areas have been open and that is why the commercial fishermen have not been able to attend. Discussion ensued about how the fisherman set their nets and if tney could or could not set their nets in portions of this area, with t~e net pens in place. Ms. McMather stated that she is not knowledgeable enough about the commercial fishing techniques to answer the tec~ical questions, they should be directed at the commercial fishermen. Chairman Dennison reiterated that the displaceme~t issue is how much area is being taken away from the fishing industry. The question is whether the area just outside the floating pen srtructure and it's anchor lines or is it some huge area of water th~t is being lost as fishing area? Commissioner Brown added that fi~herman have to navigate around obstacles all the time with their nets. Dennis DeLahunt: Fishing around obstacles isn't! new to fishermen. The distance across the Canal at South Point is, 1.9 miles. The Deep Water Bay area of the San Juan Islands has rthree active net pen operations in it and the fishermen in that area have found it easy to fish around the pens. The fishing has actually improved in that area. The issue is who has jurisdictibn in the waters, which is a Department of Fisheries concern. Ken Ferjancic: With regard to the map provided by Mr. Fletcher, the drift areas noted can be started at a point further out in the Canal, and can end at a point before the pe~s. Dave Gastman: Mr. Gastman stated that he has watched the fishing boats come into the South Point area over the pas~ 30 years, and they don't interfere with it at all. ' Chairman Dennison advised that his understandingi as far as navigation issues involved with this project are concerned, I is that the Board can make a finding regarding navigation, but the issfe will be finally reso,lved by the Army Corp of Engineers. That is~ue should be dealt with by Fisheries and the Army Corps of Engineer~ through their permit process. The Board can make a recommendation that the pen array be set up in such a way as to minimize the impact on th~ drift net fishery. The proponent was asked if there is another way that the fish pens can be arrayed that would minimize this impact? ' '. !t 1"ill CtM)~ 00 3441 . . Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 Page: 8 Mr. Ferjancic stated that the configuration of the fish pens went through extensive discussion by the Shoreline Commission who found the configuration acceptable. The environmental conditions were accommodated in the final configuration. The anchoring system will be arranged in a manner that will accommodate the commerci.al fishing industry to the greatest possible extent, and still assure the integrity of the pen system during storms. Donalda Porter: Mrs. Porter asked that the letter from Dr. Leveque of Molalla, Oregon be made part of the record. The Board advised that the concerns raised in this letter will be addressed in the Farm Management Plan. Dr. Leveque has been quoted in a national magazine recently regarding the issue of poisoning food. Dennis DeLahunt: The University of Washington has recently published a study done on fish farming that dealt extensively with that issue and found no identifiable problem. Ken Ferjancic: One of the reasons for the DNR Executive Order being issued was to allow small scale salmon pen aquaculture to provide physical, biological and other information that is needed to evaluate larger operations. Issues such as those noted by Dr. Leveque, where there is conclusive evidence, would be included in the farm management plan so they could be monitored and addressed. Commissioner Brown moved to remand the change in the designation of the upland portion of the project from "conservancy" to "suburban" back to the Shoreline Commission for their review. Commissioner Brown further moved to include the Memorandum (dated September 15, 1986) from the Planning Department along with the previously ppoposed conditions for this project and that the aquatic portion of the Shoreline permit be approved, pending the outcome of the Shoreline Commission review of the upland portion. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion for discussion. Chairman Dennison asked at what point the Army Corps of Engineers will review this project and issue the necessary permits? Mr. Ferjancic reported that the Army Corps of Engineers permit applications have been submitted and are currently under review. A decision on these permits is expected in the next two weeks and after that there is a 30 day review period of the permits by federal and state agencies. The Army Corps of Engineers permit approvals trigger the hydraulic permit required by the State Department of Fisheries and Game. Any County comments on the navigation and commercial fishing displacement issues on the project can be submitted to the Corps in writing, David Goldsmith advised. The Corps will not release their Section 10 permit until the County Shoreline Permit is issued. The Chairman then called for the question. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Dennis DeLahunt asked if it would be acceptable to the Board if the Shoreline Commission members could be polled at their meeting tomorrow night as to their opinion on the impact that the change in designation of the upland portion of the project would make any difference? If the majority of the member felt there would be no difference could the Board act on this matter as soon as possible? Commissioner Brown advised that the Shoreline Commission would have to decide how and in what time frame they will handle this review. HUMAN SERVICES Methadone Treatment to be Prohibited for use as a Drua Abuse Treatment in 3efferson County: Commissioner Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 71-86 prohibiting Methadone treatment as a drug abuse treatment option in 3efferson County, as recommended by the Jefferson County Alcohol/Drug Abuse Advisory Board. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. lZ 'iAk 00 3442 .. . . Commissioners' Minutes Week of September 15, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION Page: 9 AGREEMENT re: Rental of School District Swimming Pool Facility for 1986/1987: Port Townsend School District #50: This agreement for the Parks and Recreation Department's use of School District #50's swimming pool from September 1, 1986 to April 17, 1987, was approved as recommended by Parks/Recreation Department Director Warren Steurer, by motion of Commissioner Brown and seconded by Chairman Dennison. TREASURER Petitions for Prooerty Tax Refund (24): The following Petitions for property tax refund for Protection Island property owners were approved by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chairman Dennison: Karlis Balodis $16.09 Don Christian 7.40 30hn T. Crawford 2.69 Peter A. Doyle 17.37 30hn 3. Fennell 4.77 Ronald Humphries 3.47 30hn G. Nason 15.45 Bobby L. Nolen 9.01 Larry R. Pratt 11.58 Diane 3. Rogers 2.38 Donald Schill 10.94 Paul Strand 10.29 Randall Lewis Beauchamp Michael Clark Albert Crist Bob R. Ervin E. Arthur Gettys Mary C. Legg Philip Nichols Wallace M. Nopson Marlene M. Ririe John R. Roundhill Warren St.30hn Lloyd D. Westmiller $8.04 14.16 2.58 4.57 8.78 14.80 8.78 18.90 7.72 10.94 3.98 7.40 The meeting was recessed Monday evening and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all Board members present. Closure of Courthouse the Dav after Christmas 1986: Commissioner Brown moved to honor the Employees Guild request to close the Courthouse the day after Christmas. The employees will be required to take and floating holiday or a day of vacation for this time off. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. UGN Week set for Seotember 22 to 29, 1986: Commissioner Brown moved to sign a Proclamation declaring the week of September 22 to 29, 1986 as "umv~Kw and to encourage every citizen in 3efferson County to preserve the tradition of helping one another by volunteering and contributing. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. ,.;...~~'~"" ,/ ~~,,, ~ VCIJ-~,1 /...~~~~'i.,,~,~.:: ,.,i", "~,,'..~),,\ ! ... :V', .", ' ~ \_ (~~'\< ,.~:I';~! " . p'~ " " " .,,,,,,A41.", SEAL \ v.., \.:....... ..'>~ " \,:,'~, i ' .. ,\" , X.,~O,,,3 ~./,. .' '''''''';f~ ATTEST: 1.;:. 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I~ (Position Vacant) -I; l:~ tilk 00 3443