HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092286
..
-~~~~
.
"
~..
\
'\
\,
~ 'II
\'
\
.
iifiji,
.,
EI
_I
EI
_I
-,
iifiji'
681
EI
EI
E'
iifiji
District No. 1 Commissioner:
District No. 2 Commissioner:
District No. 3 Commissioner:
Larry W. Dennison,
B.G. Brown, Member
(Position Vacant)
1
I
,
Chairman 1
1
1
1
I
,
1
E
68
E
E
3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
E
Clerk of the Board:
Public Works Director:
3erdine C. Bragg
Gary A. Rowe
E
iifiji
iifiji
-
..
14 I NUT E S
Week of September 22, 1986
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W.
Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown was present.
Clare Dvkeman, Puaet Sound Water Quality Authoritv re:
Presentation on the Puaet Sound Water Qualitv Authority's Draft "1987
Puae~ Sound Wa~er Qualj~v Manaaemen~ Plan and Envjronmen~al Impac~
Statement": Fourteen interested area residents were present when Clare
Dykeman of the puget Sound Water Quality Authority made a presentation
on the Authority's Draft Water Quality Plan and Impact Statement. Ms.
Dykeman reported that this draft document is somewhat incomplete, but
is a consensus document on which the Authority members would like to
have the public's input in defining priorities and other comments.
Jefferson County residents who would like to have input on this plan
should come to the hearing being held October 6, 1986 in the Superior
Courtroom at 7 p.m. and to submit written comments on what they like
and don't like about the document to the PSWQA. Ms. Dykeman also
encouraged those interested to contact the Authority committee members
directly.
Ms. Dykeman then outlined the several topics that 3efferson County, as
a local government will have to respond to if this document is
approved:
Wetlands:
Two proposals have been made with regard to wetlands: (Page numbers
refer to those in the above noted draft).
1) A five million dollar acquisition of some major wetlands
located near shorelines that- are considered to be
essential to preserving the quality of puget Sound.
Criteria would be set up to identify the wetlands to be
acquired and they would be identified by 3uly 1989.
A working group (see page 655) would be formed to help
identify these wetland and Ms. Dykeman noted that the
suggested list of participants for this group does not
include a representative of local government.
2) Bv October 1, 1987 3efferson County and the City of Port
Townsend would submit a review of their current
Ordinances, Shoreline Program and SEPA guidelines that
relate to wetlands in accordance with the guidelines
listed in the plan (see page 656).
.)
"
VOl
12 rAGf 00 3567
BV June 30, 1989 the County and City would be required to
complete an inventory of wetlands in 3efferson County per
guidelines provided. A cost estimate of $25,000 per County
or City has been made for the production this wetland
inventory.
With regard to costs (see page 658) of the items required to be done by
local governments as stated in the plan, the PSWQA has attempted to
estimate these costs all the way through the plan, but no estimate of
costs to the private sector has been made. No assessment has been made
for what capital improvements will cost, where they are suggested. A
potential source of financing for each program has been listed where
possible.
The issue of wildlife habitat is not addressed in this plan's wetlands
section, but will be included in the scope of work for the 1989 plan.
Stormwater:
The way this plan addresses stormwater and combined sewer overflows,
Jefferson County and the City will not have to do anything until
3anuary 1, 1989. This is when all cities and counties will be required
to develop and adopt ordinances which address quantity and quality
control of stormwater. Model ordinances for use in all areas of the
State will be developed at the State level. Manuals and guidelines
will be issued before that time dealing with the following; how to
control land uses that contribute pollutants to stormwater; how to fund
sewer districts and utilities to deal with stormwater; and research on
the relationship of wetland~ to stormwater and possible use of wetlands
in treating stormwater.
The following is being proposed for major urban areas in dealing with
stormwater:
*
By 3anuary 1, 1988 Combined Sewer Overflow Action Plans must be
developed to reduce the impact of stormwater on the Sound.
The six urban areas around the Sound will be required to apply for
Environmental Protection Agency MPDS permits by December 31, 1987.
These will then trigger the process of identifying all storm
drains, problem areas, monitoring of problem storm drains,
development of regulations for them, etc. (page 646).
The DOE will designate a priority watershed for each of these six
urban areas, and a program for correcting problems in that
priority watershed will be started.
*
*
The term "watershed" has been redefined in the draft plan and it may
have to be changed. Watershed in this plan is defined as "a no~able or
useful, or identifiable par~ of ~he Sound." This could then mean that
Sequim Bay or Bellingham Bay could be considered a watershed. On the
land side this would mean several basins (or watersheds as commonly
defined) contributing to the "watershed". Treatment of stormwater is
mentioned in the plan even though the technology for this is not very
well defined. (See page 63).
Non-Point Source Pollution:
3efferson County will have stormwater contributing to non-point source
pollution, even though- this plan has chosen to deal with stormwater
separately. Non-point source pollution in rural areas from farms and
septic systems and landfills is what is being highlighted in this
portion of the plan.
What is proposed in the plan (Seepage 67) is as follows: Three dates
for local governments to note:
1) March 1, 1987 - Counties and any participating City will
designate a water quality coordinator.
VOl.
f2
fAt~
on
3568
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22,1986
Page: 3
2) By 3anuary 1, 1988 - Counties must complete an inventory
of non point sources of pollution and an inventory of
watersheds.
3) By March 1, 1989 - Counties must submit an action plan
to the State, with a schedule of subsequent Action plan
programs.
The local government can choose one of two ways to do the inventory of
non point pollution sources and watersheds. These alternatives offer
the choice of either the local government or the State determining how
the clean up of non point source pollution wi11 be implemented. The
inventory of non point source pollution problem areas will be done by
looking at beneficial uses such as shellfish, recreational areas,
fisheries, etc. Groundwater can be included if the County feels that
it is a beneficial use. Then the local government has a choice to tell
the State that in Jefferson County the problems will be addressed in
this manner:
1) Bv Watershed -- One particular area (watershed)
will be chosen to start the treatment of all forms
of non point source pollution. Minimum state
standards for non point source pollution will have
to be met in all other problem areas identified by
the inventory.
**** OR *****
2) Bv Source If through the inventory it has been
determined that there is one major source of non
point pollution, County-wide, that needs to be
addressed (i.e. septic systems, animal
management), then treatment of this one problem
will be started first. Minimum State standards for
other non point pollution sources have to be met
also, in all identified problem areas of the
County.
Minimum Standards:
The following will be required as minimum standards for dealing with
non point source pollution:
FARMS:
*
A committee will be formed at the State level including
representatives from the Department of Agriculture,
Department of Ecology, etc., and all animal interests.
Mandatory stream fencing.
Animal density limitations will be required.
The plan suggests full funding of existing Dairy Waste
Management Programs.
*
*
*
The Authority intends that the agricultural proposal will effect people
with. farm animals who are not involved in the Dairy Waste Management
Program.
ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (Page 66)
The Authority would like the following minimum standards:
1) Quicker method for correcting failing systems so standards
have been set for accelerated correction of failing septic
systems.
a) Procedure for identifying location and status of all
septic systems (local governments need to provide input
on cost of this proposal).
'VOl
12 rAGE on
35G9,~
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 4
b) If correction is not feasible the basic intent of,the
plan is that having a failing system on a site that can
not be corrected is unacceptable.
2) Set up standards for maintenance of on site septic systems to
include:
a) Periodic inspection program.
b) Mandatory pump out when necessary.
c) Education and enforcement procedures.
d) Financing - septic maintenance districts, etc.
The following are suggestions for Sound wide management of septic
systems, independent of County plans: (Page 611)
DSHS and Soil Conservation Service revise existing regulations
including:
*
*
*
*
Inspection during construction.
Replacement of failed systems that cannot be repaired.
Percolation tests in rainy season be required.
Minimum vertical separation of three feet (No waiver
allowed) .
Above ground inspection ports.
Use of alternative technology.
More specific information be provided by a seller to a buyer
when property is sold.
Point Source Pollution:
*
*
*
The Authority is suggesting that the DOE set criteria for sediment
standards. This would allow a move toward a system of permits for
municipal treatment plants and industry that would be related to
toxicity. Increasing enforcement and focusing on better enforcement of
existing permits as well as trying to get unpermitted dischargers into
the system is being suggested.
Items that will effect Port Townsend and local industry are:
* Monitoring outfall for toxicants (this is not done now).
* Monitoring biological populations at the end of the outfall
pipe. The purpose of this monitoring is an effort to
understand the impacts of outfall. This would be one time,
not on-going, monitoring.
Permit fees will be increased by four to five times the
current fee. (page 624).
More training of plant operators.
*
*
This part of the plan will require legislation and will be
controversial.
Other Items the Plan Has Dealt With:
*
Monitoring of puget Sound - An Interagency Committee will be
set up to do this monitoring.
Research - A research consortium may be developed.
General education programs will be developed.
Public involvement is encouraged.
Oil Spills.
*
>Ie
*
*
Items NOT dealt with by the Plan (Chapter 10): These items should be
covered in another planning cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Trans-boundary issues.
Air emissions
Pesticides
Ground water
Water conservation
Pen Rearing of Fish (Aquaculture).
'lOt
12 PAC~ O~l
3570
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 5
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
What is the final w~ter quality goal?
The Authority 1id not try to figure out what it
would take to hring the water quality back to what
it was at some I particular point in time. The
effort in thisjplan is prevention of more pollution
and the protec~ion of beneficial resources.
What happens to the I plan after the public hearings are held
and comments received?
i
This plan is a~ Environmental Impact Statement and
the public co~ents have to be in by October 17,
1986. The PSW~A staff will summarize the hearings
and comments r,ceived. The Authority members will
meet November i and 7 to discuss these comments and
decide on how he final plan will be affected by
them. They wi 1 meet again on November .12 in
Tacoma to set priorities. Based on those
priorities and! comments, the staff will work toward
producing the final plan which will be reviewed by
the Authority at their December 17 meeting in
Seattle. I
During the week of December 8 a briefing will be
held in all tW.lve puget Sound counties on the
r
final EIS document. All comments need to be
received by th.t date. This will trigger the 10
day comment period which will end December 17, when
the final planiwill be extracted from the EIS. The
final plan wili be ready for approval by the
I
Authority on J~uary 5, 1987.
I
her.lpresentation by noting that the PSWQA staff is
back to meet with the County before the October
I
diSjUSS any comments the County may want to
I
I
Dr. Russell 3a~kson re: Restricting Shootina in marsh
adjacent to County'S OaklBav Park: Dr. 3ackson came before the Board
to ask that the County dE,lfine a "No Shooting" zone in the marsh land
that is adjacent to the ~ounty's Oak Bay Park. Dr. 3ackson advised
that he would like to se~ the ducks and geese and other wildlife in
this area protected. Af~er reviewing the maps and an aerial photo
provided by Public workslDirector, Gary Rowe, it was found that most of
the marsh land is CountYiproperty. The Board suggested that Dr.
3ackson contact the priv~te property owners in this area and ask them
to post their property with "No Hunting and No Shooting" signs. The
Parks Department Directo~ will be contacted als.o, to investigate the
installation of more suc~ signs in the County Park and to alert the
State Game Officer to patrol in this area more frequently.
. I
I
I
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPfRTMENTS:
i
I
r
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Ms. Dykeman finished
very willing to come
17, 1986 deadline to
explain further.
PUBLIC WORKS
BID OPENING re
Works Director opened th
at the appointed time an
Charles Avenue Pro ect eN 0514: The Public
bids received on the Charles Avenue Project
read them as follows:
I
i
I
vt 12 rAt;!: on 3571
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 6
BIDDERS:
BID TOTALS:
Shold Excavating, Hadlock
$64,449.76
Seton Construction, Inc. Port Townsend
55,323.26
Blue Cascade Construction, Port Orchard
90,366.01
OHNO Construction Co., Seattle
108,254.31
Lakeside Industries, Port Angeles
69,882.17
Engineers Estimate
95,729.02
Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Oepartment check the
bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for the bid award.
Chairman Dennison seconded the motion.
Seotember 23, 1986: Commissioner Brown moved to award the bid to Seton
Construction, Inc. of Port Townsend for the amount of $55,323.26 as
recommended by the Public Works Department. Chairman ,Dennison seconded
the motion.
CONTRACT re: Provision of Computer Assisted Appraisal
Proarams for the Assessor's Office; Computech: This contract, in the
amount of $12,500.00; with Computech, Gary Rowe reported in the
presence of 3ack Westerman, Assessor and Jeff Chapman,
Cartographer/Appraiser, for phase two of the contract for computer
assisted appraisal programs. This price is negotiated because the
program is being developed by Computech for 3efferson, Whatcom and
Mason counties.
3ack Westerman explained that this program will be used for the 1987
evaluation season, which begins in the fall of 1986. The code sheet
for the computer assisted appraisal is now being used by the appraisers
in the field. When this program is up and running properly, the
Assessor's Office will be able to do an annual appraisal update of all
areas in the County, at the same time that one particular area is being
re-evaluated. All the appraisal work will be handled easily with a
three man appraisal crew for a number of years with this computer
program.
Commissioner Brown moved to approve the contract with Computech for the
Assessors Office as presented. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion.
Hearing Notice: Franchise Application; East Marrowstone Road~
Mr. & Mrs. Savold: Gary Rowe reported that Mr. & Mrs. Savold would
like a franchise to run a water line from their well~ down East
Marrowstone Road to their residence. Commissioner Brown moved to
approve Resolution No. 72-86 setting the public hearing for this
franchise for October 13, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Dennison seconded
the motion.
Graves Road Vacation; ReQUest to Rescind: After discussion
with Mike Graves the petitioner for a road vacation tabled by the Board
on October 14, 1985, Gary Rowe reported that Mr. Graves does not wish
to pursue this vacation petition any further. Consideration of this
road vacation was taken off the table by motion of Commissioner Brown,
seconded by Chairman Dennison. Commissioner Brown then moved to deny
the road vacation as requested by the applicant, Michael Graves.
Chairman Dennison seconded the motion.
The Public Works Department will contact everyone involved with the
initial road vacation application and advise them of the Board's
action.
: YOL ,12 ~Af)f 00 35,72
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 7
AGREEMENT re: Temoorarv Help; Jim Pearson: This Temporary
Help Agreement with Jim Pearson is for work on the Public Works survey
crew,to begin September 29, 1986, Gary Rowe reported. Mr. Pearson
would be a non-union employee paid $8.71 per hour. Commissioner Brown
moved to approve the Temporary Help Agreement with 3im Pearson.
Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. The Agreement will be sent to
the Teamsters Union for their approval.
Notice of30b Opening: Part Time Custodial Work: In
reviewing the custodial needs of the Multi Services Building and Port
Townsend Community Center, Gary Rowe reported that a part time, 79 hour
per month, position would be adequate to provide. these services. The
Board concurred that this position be advertised as a part time
position to be paid at a rate of $6.50 per hour.
Plans: Chimacum Intersection: The improvements proposed to
the Chimacum Intersection, Gary Rowe reported are as follows;
resurfacing the intersection (Chimacum Road, Center RoaQ, Beaver Valley
Road and Rhody Drive), new crosswalks, new stop bars, a new flashing
beacon for the overhead light, new signs and some new curbs. These
improvements will be done as a minor change order to the Beaver Valley
Road Project. After further review of the improvement plans,
Commissioner Brown moved to approve the plans for the Chimacum
Intersection as presented. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion.
Chanae In Status of the Quilcene Road Shop: Public Works
Director, Gary Rowe, reported that with the retirement of one of the
employees of the Quilcene road shop at the end of the month, it is felt
that the needs in this area can be served by assigning the two other
employees to the Hadlock Shop. Staff will be assigned to work out of
the Quilcene Shop, as needed, seasonally. The Board concurred with
this change in status of the Quilcene Shop from a shop that is staffed
full time to one that will be used as necessary.
Seotember 23, 1986: The Board concurred with the Memorandum written by
the Public Works Director regarding the closure of the QUilcene shop
and the transfer of the two employees to the Hadlock shop.
Memoranda from Public Works Director re: Hiring of 90 day
Temporary Emplovees and ReQUest for two full time oositions: Gary Rowe
presented the following requests for the Board's consideration:
Hirina 90 Dav Temoorary Emplovees: Recommendation that this
not be done on a regular basis when a full time technician
position may be more suitable. This would also alleviate
some of the need to hire a consultant for some jobs.
Request to Hire a Full Time Secretary: The work load of the
Public Works office is such that a full time secretary is
needed for the department.
No action was taken by the Board on these requests.
PLANNING
Uodate on Chimacum Chiooer Ooeration: Evergreen Fibre: The
Evergreen Fibre chipper operation in Hadlock was granted a variance
from the noise standards (in accordance with WAC 173.60 and County
Resolution) to allow operation until September 7, 1986 while the
installation of a structure around the chipper was completed, Assistant
Planner, Rachel Nathanson reported. The building was substantially
finished and the bu~lding inspector visited the site the week after the
September 7th deadline." An additional noise analysis was performed
VOl
12. fAC:- on
3573
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 8
after the chipper operation was moved into the new building, and Ms.
Nathanson presented the results of that analysis to the Board. The
operation is in compliance with the noise standards.
Since the County still has the King County noise meter on loan, Ms.
Nathanson advised that she would do a noise analysis on the site before
that meter has to be returned, to double check the noise analysis
submitted by Evergreen Fibre. The Planning Department will write a
letter to Mr. Learned, a neighboring property owner, after this
verification is made, advising him of the findings.
Shoreline Substantial Deve 1 ooment Permit; Review of Upland
Portion of Project; Fish Net Pen Rearina Project, South Point; Olympic
Sea Farms: Eight interested area residents were in attendance when,
Planning Director, David Goldsmith, reported that the Shoreline
Commission had reviewed the upland portion of this project in
accordance with the secondary use criteria under the suburban shoreline
program designation. The Shoreline Commission recommends that the
Board approve the upland portion of this project since they find that
it is consistent with the provisions of the Shoreline Management Master
Program. The findings of the original staff report were amended to
reflect that the proposal involves a suburban designation and a
commercial development and that the proposal is classified both as
aquaculture and a primary use in the aquatic environment and a
secondary use in a suburban environment.
A letter has been submitted by Mr. Hull, David Goldsmith added,
concerning the discrepancy of the shoreline review. The issues that
Mr. Hull has raised in his letter are:
1) Was the public somehow misled in the advertisement and
handling of this application? Mr. Goldsmith reported
that the advertisement for the project did not include
information about the designation under which the
project would be reviewed. It stated that the project
would be reviewed at the Shoreline Commission meeting.
2) Was the procedural handling of the mis-classification
done correctly by splitting the project into two
portions and reviewing the designations for each? The
Shoreline Master Program allows for review of projects
with more than one element under more than one
designation. This project consists mainly of an aquatic
structure with accessory upland uses. After the mis-
designation was brought to the Board's and public's
attention the Shoreline Commission reviewed the matter
again. The Shoreline Commission did not feel that
anyone was misled and after their re-review of the
project under the correct designation they did not make
any change in their recommendations regarding the
project.
3) Report in the Daily News regarding the next Shoreline
Commission meeting date at which the matter would be
discussed. Mr. Goldsmith reported that he had stated
that the matter would be taken to the next Shoreline
Commission meeting (The next meeting was the Wednesday
after the Board's Monday meeting) and if the Shoreline
Commission decided to readvertise a hearing on the
project the soonest that could be done would be October
15, 1986.
Discussion ensued regarding the statements and issue made by Mr. Hull.
Mr. Hull stated that he is addressing the impact upon persons and
populations external to this project such as people who walk along the
beaches and tidelands in the vicinity of the project and would
therefore be subject to the impact of this project. The upland
property owners are alsf affected by this project that is installed in
the aquatic zone. ~.,.,
';Cli. 12 rAf;~ on 3574
,.
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 9
Commissioner Brown stated that the aesthetic impacts of this project
could be discussed at many hearings and never be addressed to
everyone's satisfaction. After asking for further clarification of Mr.
Hull's point regarding the consideration of the two elements of the
project under two designations, Chairman Dennison stated that the
project's effect, as a whole, on the environment was considered. The
upland portion of the project was then separated from the aquatic
portion of the project and re-reviewed under a different designation
because the mis-designation was discovered. None of the environmental
concerns regarding this project were precluded from consideration.
Mr. Ed McMinn stated that it is his feeling that the people that use
the beaches and look at the beaches are not being considered at all.
The Shoreline Master Program deals with the issue of impacts on
adjacent property, but there is no way to deal with the impacts on
every property that is within the line of view of any project, Chairman
Dennison responded. The Board is considering a project based on County
policy which was passed many years ago (The Shoreline Management Master
Program) .
Mrs. Donalda Porter asked how the fish processing will be dealt with
and if the issue raised in Dr. Leveque's letter'regarding the
contamination of the human food chain would be addressed? Chairman
Dennison advised that the fish' bleeding will be dealt with by the Farm
Management Plan which will have to be approved by the Board before the
fish are put into the pens. As far as the issues raised by Dr.
Leveque, the Board has determined that there is no significant impact
posed by the aquatic portion of the project which was approved by the
Board at the last meeting. The drugs used in this type of project are
approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration and will be dealt
with by the Farm Management plan.
The discussion continued about the public notification regarding the
project and if the public's concerns have been addressed. Mr. Ken
Ferjancic, representing the project proponent, added that a meeting was'
held at the site with the local area property owners, and the project
was discussed. A second meeting at the site was held for the Shoreline
Commission members for an explanation of the project and its' impact on
the property owners' views, of the site. Associate Planner Bob Duffy
reported, in response to Mrs. Porter's assertion that the property
owners of the Goodfellow's Manhattan Beach Tracts were never notified
of the public meeting, that the spokesperson for the Bridgehaven
Community Club had advised that he would deliver a copy of the meeting
notice to every home in the area and a notice of the meeting was
published in the newspaper.
David Goldsmith responsed to a comment made by Mr. Hull that the
county's Shoreline Management .Master Program has been wrong since
inception regarding the shoreline designations and uses associated with
each of them, that the categories for primary and secondary uses were
established by State law. Jefferson County's Shoreline Management
Master Program as well as every other city and county master program in
the State, make up the State's program and were originally reviewed and
adopted by the State.
Commissioner Brown moved to approve the total project, including the
upland portion, with all of the conditions as noted. Chairman Dennison
seconded the motion.
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SH2-86: Revision -
Date of Operation: Fish Net Pen Rearina Project, Hood Head; Sea Farms
of Norway: Associate Planner, Bob Duffy reported that this request for
a revision of the dates of operation for the Sea Farm of Norway salmon
rearing net pen project at Hood Head, is to change the dates of permit
work from November 15, 1986 to November 15, 1987. Due to environmental
considerations the testing approved by this permit can not be completed
by the required test termination date. These tests need to be
conducted during the summer months.
\,'1'1.
12 rAr,~ on 3575
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 22, 1986
Page: 10
The project application for the Hood Head site was not objected to by
the neighborhood residents providing the applicant did not pursue
putting a net pen operation at the Oak Bay site. Sea Farms of Norway
has agreed, in writing, to withdraw from the Oak Bay site.
The Planning Department recommends that this revision be approved and
the other permit conditions remain unchanged. Commissioner Brown moved
to approve the revision in the Sea Farm of Norway Shoreline Permit
#SH2-86 as recommended by the Planning Department. ChairmanDennison
seconded the motion.
Buildina Permit Fee Refund ReQUests: The following building
permit refunds were approved by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded
by Chairman Dennison:
Angeles Service Center
Hank Gordon
$ 91. 50
$276.80
SEPA Threshold Determination; Jefferson County Fire District
#6, Caoe Georae: Building Addition: Assistant Planner, Rachel
Nathanson reviewed the environmental checklist for this two story,
4,800 square foot addition to the Cape George Fire Hall. No
significant impacts were noted and the standard conditions of approval
have been outlined for the project.
Commissioner Brown moved to issue a Determination of Non-significance
for the Cape George Fire Hall building addition. Chairman Dennison
seconded the motion.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Hearina Notice re: Proposed Amendement to Ordinance No. 1-85;
3efferson County Health Department Fee Schedule: This request to amend
the Health Department fee schedule to increase the fee for influenza
immunizations was postponed by the Board until the Health Department
reviews all of their fees during the budget process at the end of the
year.
Dancina:
Hall for
seconded
AGREEMENT re: Rental of the VFW Hall; Deborah Shomer - Sufi
Commissioner Brown moved to approve the rental of the VFW
Sufi Dancing as proposed by Deborah Shomer. Chairman Dennison
the motion.
The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and
reconvened on Tuesday morning with both Board members present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of August 18, 25, September
2 and September 8, 1986 were approved as corrected by motion of
Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chairman Dennison.
Aooointment of Deoutv Clerk of the Board: Commissioner Brown
moved to approve Resolution No. 73-86 appointing Lorna Delaney Deputy
Clerk of the Board to assist with the duties of the Clerk in her
absence. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. A change in Mrs.
Delaney's work hours from 7 hours per day to 8 hours per day was also
approved by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded by Chairman
Dennison.
ReQUest from Port Townsend School District #50 re: Exclusive
Use of County Tennis Courts in Port Townsend for the High School Girl's
VOL
12 rAC;~ · on 3576
'f'!- ~- l ~
Commissioners' Meetil'lg Minutes: Wec;tkof September 22, 1986
Page: 11
TeDDie Team Bome Matches:Comm1ssioner Brown moved to appr()v,e the
request from Vince Lux, Port Townsend High School Athletic. Director for
exclusive use/of theC()~ty Tennis Courts for the PTHSGirl's Tennis
Team home matches. Chair~ Dennison secQndedtne motion.'
Eatablishina the date of the 1987 Budaet Su.bmissionS. Review
. BearinClS andl'inal AdoDtion: Resolu.tion No.74~86 was approved by
motion of Commissioner Brown, . seconded by Chairman Dennison'
establishing the alternate date of the first week in December for final
adoption of theJ'efferson County Budgt for 1987.
JZDERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMM SSIONERS
'.'/ff~
,B.G. Brown,. Member
3erdine C.8ragg
Clerk of the Board
~...
(Position Vacant)
, I
i
VOl
12 ~Ar,f on
3577