The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM110606 District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commlaaloner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of November 6,2006 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee Interview; Jerry Gorsline: The Board interviewed Jerry Gorsline who is interested in being appointed to the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee as a representative from Commissioner District No.2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the minutes of October 2,9, and 16,2006. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the minutes of October 23, 2006. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion. The Chair called for the vote on the motion. Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Rodgers voted for the motion. Chairman Johnson abstained from voting because he was not present at the October 23,2006 meeting. The motion carried. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: County Administrator John Fischbach reported on the following items: · The Kitsap County Judge who heard Security Services Northwest (SSNW) vs Jefferson County has issued an order. The Hearing Examiner is tasked with determining the nature and scope of the SSNW operations as of January, 1992 and this will determine the future use of the facility. There will not be a new evidentiary hearing. The terms of the temporary restraining order remain in place. There will not be an award of costs to SSNW. · The Port Ludlow Chamber will not be renewing their contract in 2007 for administration of the Gateway Visitor's Center. The Jefferson County Historical Society may be willing to take over the operation. · He gave the Board a packet of information that outlined the steps in the process that resulted in the revision of the Unified Development Code (UDC) section on sign regulations earlier this year. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 ~,'O""_ $ ..~:< "'Sl1n.,.<S · The grant contract with the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development for $60,000 for the County land bank analysis will be on the agenda within the next few weeks. · The County also received a grant for $13,146 for supplemental indigent public defense costs. Authorization For Outside Counsel To Sign Agreement Amendment; Washington Environmental Council: The County Administrator explained that the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) has consented to the expanded time1ine for the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance. He read the amendment to the Second Settlement Agreement and asked that the Board authorize outside counsel to sign the amendment. Commissioner Sullivan moved to authorize outside counsel Mark Johnsen to sign the second amendment to the Second Settlement Agreement for the implementation of Jefferson County's amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens. Several people commented about the proposed revisions to the No-Shooting Zone Ordinance; several people expressed concerns about the liability and environmental issues if an Off Road Vehic1e facility is built in Quilcene; and several people commented about the process used by the Commissioners to receive input on issues from constituents and the influence of that information on their decisions. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. HEARING NOTICE re: 2007 Jefferson County Budget; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, November 27,2006 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Setting the 2007 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for Levy in 2006 and Collection in 2007; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, November 27,2006 at 11:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 3. RESOLUTION NO. 69-06 re: Adopting the Housing Action Plan (Public Hearing Held October 9,2006) 4. AGREEMENT re: Breast and Cervical Health Care Screening and Referral Services Program; Jefferson County Public Health; Seattle & King County Public Health 5. AGREEMENT re: Quality Health Care for Jefferson County Jail Inmates; Jefferson County Sheriff; Miguel Balderrama, MD 6. AGREEMENT NO. G0600035, Amendment No.1 re: Marine Resources Committee Year 6 Administration and Action Project Grant; WSU Extension Office; Washington State Department of Ecology Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6, 2006 S.""' '[f, ~ ....~ ,~ ~~$It, "'(\~~- 7. AGREEMENT re: Perform Continuous Testing for Jefferson County Correction Officer; Jefferson County Civil Service Commission; Public Safety Testing.Com 8. AGREEMENT re: Provide Emergency Radio Infrastructure Improvements; JeffCom; Greentree Communications Co. 9. EASEMENT re: Extend Public Water Lines Through Quilcene County Park to Serve Customers Across US Highway 101; Jefferson County Central Services; Public Utility District (PUD) No. 1 10. Acceptance of Assignment re: Transfer of Road Facilities Permit U96-40 for the 1.5 Inch Water Line Under US Highway 101; Jefferson County Central Services; Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 11. Final Approval ofFishermans Point Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) and Long Plat; SUB03-00044/MLA03-00656; to Subdivide 56.47 Acres into 8 Residential Lots and Reserve Tracts; Daniel J. Evans & Nancy B. Evans, Evans Revocable Trust, Fishermans Pt. Properties LLC, Fishermans Pt. Homeowners c/o Mary Kippenhan, Ellsworth Alvord, Jr. and Roger W. Evans, Camille Evans Life Estate; Proponents 12. Advisory Board Reappointments (2); Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A) Advisory Board; Martha Anthony and Ian Napier Each to Serve Another Three (3) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2009 13. Advisory Board Reappointment: Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Board (SW AC) Representing Port Townsend Paper Corporation; Two (2) Year Term Expiring November 7,2008; Kirstin Marshall and V. Alice McConaughy as Alternate 14. Advisory Board Resignations (2); Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee; Kevin Miller, Real Estate Interest and Herb Beck, Commissioner District No.3 Representative 15. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Library District Board of Trustees; Suzanne Rehder 16. Advisory Board Appointment; Jefferson County Library District Board of Trustees; Five (5) Year Term Expiring September 16, 2011; Susan Whitmire Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee Interview; Michael Adams: The Board interviewed Michael Adams who is interested in being appointed to the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee representing the shellfish industry. HEARING re: Proposed Changes in Language to No Shooting Area Ordinance No. 03- 0227-95: This public hearing was originally advertised and scheduled for 10:05 a.m. on the Commissioners' agenda. It was rescheduled to 2 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom to accommodate the number of interested citizens who wanted to attend. Approximately 100 citizens were present. Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. At that time, he stated that a second public hearing on this issue will be scheduled and advertised in the newspaper. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 ~1 ~.~ J'ltllllO Director of Community Development Al Scalf gave the staff report. He reviewed the information in the handouts for the hearing. · The County web site information regarding No-Shooting Areas on the Community Development webpage · Ordinance No. 03-0227-95 adopted in February, 1995 setting up a process for the establishment of no-shooting areas in specifically described unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. · Jefferson County Code (JCC) 8.50 No Shooting Areas. The boundaries of the following No- Shooting Areas are included in this section of the code: Kala Point, Port Ludlow, Black Point (Brinnon), downtown Brinnon, Triton Cove (Brinnon), Olympic Canal Tracts (Brinnon), and South Coyle Peninsula. · The County Commissioners' agenda and minutes for Apri124, 2006 on the public hearing for a proposed Paradise Bay No-Shooting Zone. The Board requested more information before making a final decision on the no-shooting zone. They requested that DCD staff and the Planning Commission review the criteria for the No-Shooting Zone Ordinance under the direction of the County Administrator. · The Planning Commission minutes for May 17, 2006 discussing a recommendation to the Board on general criteria and a process for establishing a No-Shooting Area. Al Scalf noted that the Planning Commission addresses 1anduse issues and this is actually a health and safety issue. · A memo dated May 12, 2006 to the Planning Commission from the No-Shooting Zone Review Sub- Committee suggesting draft criteria to amend the current code. · A memo dated May 18, 2006 from the Planning Commission regarding review criteria. · The County Commissioners' minutes for June 5, 2006 regarding the Planning Commission's report. At that meeting, the Board asked that the County Administrator and DCD come back to the Board with a specific recommendation. · A final report from DCD staff dated October 9,2006. They researched the State statutes and the criteria for establishing No Shooting Zones in C1allam County, Kitsap County, Thurston County, Clark County, Cowlitz County, Grant County and Spokane County. · The County Commissioners' agenda and minutes for October 9,2006. At that meeting the Board requested some changes to the criteria and approved the hearing notice. · The agenda request for the public hearing and the final document without the line in/line out format. Chairman Johnson opened the hearing for public testimony. John Ebner, Port Townsend, explained that he has several concerns about the draft revisions to the No- Shooting Zone Ordinance. A crucial issue is the language in 8.50.080 Exemptions that states The designation of a no-shooting area shall not exclude.... This is a double negative and implies that the exemptions are included in the possible designation of a no-shooting area. He suggested three alternatives: 1) the no-shooting area shall exclude, 2) the no-shooting area shall not include, or 3) the no-shooting area shall not preclude. RCW 9.41.300 states that Local governments may enact legislation regarding the use of firearms in portions of their jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 .,0',3', .. ., 'f: -~s~, N~': ~ animals, or property will be jeopardized. He thinks that the draft ordinance goes far beyond the scope of the State statute. The language in the draft ordinance that the request must be based on a definable threat to public health, safety and the general welfare is too vague. In the sentence Such petitions may be petitioned by the residents in the area, may is too vague and the area is too vague. The draft ordinance only requires signatures on the petition from 25% ofthe registered voters in the proposed area and population density needs to be considered. The recommendation by the Planning Commission Sub-Committee is far better because it enhances due process. He thinks a no-shooting zone is a 1anduse restriction. The language needs to be more clearly defined in 8.50.040 Creation or Dissolution of a No-Shooting Zone, (1) (c )states A request filed by a County Department may be considered if: · (i) density in an area is significant enough to warrant consideration for a no-shooting area. Population density alone is not a sufficient reason to consider a no-shooting area because an area on private or public property can be constructed in such a way that it will pose no threat to human life, domestic animals, or personal property. · (ii) County facilities or property are at risk. An area of up to 500ft from County offices or facilities may be considered. The Sportsmans Club shooting range is within 500 ft. of a fire district facility near the County transfer station. This could be an issue. He has concerns about 8.50.040 (3) which states after petition signatures have been verified by the Jefferson County Auditor-Elections, or a request has been submitted by a County Commissioner, Sheriff, or Official. He doesn't think that a County Commissioner, Sheriff, or County Official should be able to initiate the no- shooting area process. The petition should be submitted by resident electors in the precinct as suggested in the Planning Commission's final report. In that final report, the Planning Commission also suggested that the Board set up a review committee to determine whether or not a petition is justified, to make recommendations, and to include a process for people in the proposed area to mitigate a potential problem. He asked why the concept of the review committee wasn't included in the draft ordinance? He thinks that the only criteria that should be involved in the creation of a no-shooting area is health and safety and whether there is a real and definable cause. Ralph Wilson, Port Townsend, stated that he is opposed to changing the ordinance because it infringes on his civi11iberties and limits public input. The citizens of Jefferson County would be better served by less regulations. Daniel Conner, Chimacum, stated that he is a bow-hunter and he is harassed frequently when he is hunting. Hunters aren't hurting anyone. He thinks that ifthis ordinance is passed, there will be more poachers. Joe D'Amico, Discovery Bay, stated that this issue has affected his life and his livelihood. He was raised in the County and has seen the growth. People are concerned about noise. They move here from the city and they need to leave their "city life" behind because this is a rural county. A lot of people move here to enjoy and discharge firearms. A notice should be added to building permits when people build in an area where shooting is allowed. He agrees with Sheriff Brasfield's email to the County Administrator that no-shooting areas should be considered where there is high density such as Port Hadlock. He likes the idea of having a Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 +.$/1 N(;"~ citizen review group look at the petition first. He thinks that at least 51 % of the voters who live in the proposed no-shooting area should sign the petition. If the County adopted RCW 9.41.300, it would solve a lot of problems because it addresses the issues about people, property and animals. He talked with the Planning Commission about including security as an exemption and they agreed. The military should also be an exemption. RCW 9.41.300 could be used as a guide on page 2 ofthe draft ordinance, 43, where it is stricken. Richard Broders, Gardiner, reviewed several suggested revisions to the language in 8.50.040. He thinks that his changes accomplish the same thing as the draft ordinance but tighten up the wording and omit and clarify some items. An option to change the boundaries of a no-shooting area needs to be added because he knows a property owner who has a house on 200 acres of timberland in the Coyle No-Shooting Zone who wasn't aware of the petition and process until it was too late to object. That doesn't comply with the RCW. A petition is different than a recommendation from DCD or the Sheriff. Both are appropriate but the Sheriff would make a request, not submit a petition. Residents and property owners in the area need to be notified when a request is made. If a large number or percentage of residents in the area have to sign the petition, everyone will know about it and that is really important. Both the original ordinance and the draft ordinance have language about public health, safety, and general welfare but it would be better ifthe language mirrored, word for word, the exemption in RCW 9.41.300. The preemption law, RCW 9.41.290, states that any law that is more stringent than that is hereby repealed and not in affect. If that language is included, people submitting a petition would know the criteria. When a no-shooting area is established, it should be posted by the Public Works Department. The Board needs the legislative authority to change the boundaries on a proposed no-shooting area. However, if they are enlarging the area a new process and a public hearing should be required in order for the residents in the expanded area to comment. He agrees that the language The designation of a no shooting area shall not exclude: in 8.50.080 Exemptions should read ....shall not include. In 8.50.080 (e) JCC 18.20.350 (8) is referenced as relating to indoor/underground ranges, but that section only pertains to outdoor ranges. He thinks the language should mirror the language in the State law for allowable exemptions to the preemption law. Sheriff Mike Brasfield, explained that he was approached by a group of people who live in Port Hadlock where the density would prohibit the use of fireanns. The current ordinance requires at least ten registered voters who live in the proposed no-shooting area to sign a petition and submit it to the County Commissioners. The proposed no-shooting area is advertised and a public hearing is held. He thinks that it is appropriate for a law enforcement official to request that the County Commissioners hold a hearing on a proposed no-shooting area and he asked the Board for another mechanism to trigger the process. The Sheriff should be able to recommend that the Board begin the process to establish a no-shooting area because of housing density. There are currently eight no-shooting zones in the County. Gene Seton, Port Townsend, stated that there has been a no-shooting zone ordinance in the County for several years and there hasn't been a problem. Ten people in an area will sign a petition, but it's difficult to get 25 signatures. Shooting isn't allowed at Woodland Hills and he doesn't know if that is on record with Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 ..,,,,-,-, ~ ',~ .jo:"It..c,'<'-.'.t the County. The proposed changes to the ordinance state that shooting isn't allowed within 500 feet ofa County facility. The rules should be the same for private property also. He has heard rumors about designating a no-shooting zone from Chimacum to SRI04 and there is no reason to designate a no-shooting zone on farmland. Bruce Seton, Port Townsend, stated that no-shooting zones work where there are lots of houses, but boundaries are really important. Olympic Resource Management land, DNR land, and any private timberland shouldn't be included in no-shooting areas because people hunt on this land. Erik Nelson, Port Townsend, stated that the laws that affect the people must be initiated by the people and be continually subjected to their approval or rejection. He thinks that the proposed amendments to the No- Shooting Area Ordinance undermine this fundamental freedom by allowing a County Official the same right as a petition from the people. A County Officer could recommend the designation or dissolution of a no- shooting area and the County Commissioners could enact it after a non-binding hearing without input from the people. This sets a dangerous precedent. The final draft of these amendments needs to define terms for clarification. High density can be defined as those developed urban areas zoned for lot sizes of one acre or less. Therefore, if you live in an area that is sub-acre, it is a no-shoot zone, but if you live in an area that is multi-acre, it is not. The proposed amendments require that the high density area must have definable boundaries and this suggestion would satisfy that stipulation. The residents of Jefferson County should always have controlling interest over the establishment and dissolution of no-shooting zones in the County. The residents need to be included in the law-making process. David Drewry, stated that he is a property owner and resident on Cape George Road and runs a business there. He is concerned about the 25% signature requirement in 8.50.040 because several other counties require 51 % to 60% of registered voters and property owners to initiate a no-shooting zone. Under (c )(i) it states that the density in an area is significant enough and he thinks this is arbitrary. He is a hunter and shooter and thinks the County needs to consider prohibited and restricted zones (8.50.020 Prohibited) such as a shotgun or muzzle loader areas because the ballistics from shotguns and center fire rifles is much different and needs to be addressed. The request by the Sheriff would be a conflict of interest because he would be initiating a law and enforcing it. It would be easier for the State Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Sheriffs Office to define established safety distances from inhabited structures and schools like they do in other counties, rather than having no-shooting areas everywhere. Rick Riddle, Port Townsend, read the definition of firearm in the ordinance. Firearm, as used in this chapter shall include, but not be limited to, pistols, revolvers, shotguns and rifles. Will shooting an airgun or a bbgun be breaking the law? All the definitions in the document need to be clarified. A petition with 51 % of the signatures is a good start because it is too easy for an outspoken few to change the rights of many. The man who was included in the Coyle No-Shooting Zone without his knowledge is the perfect example. He agrees with what John Ebner said at the beginning of the hearing. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6, 2006 ._'0'_", . :; ,'4< t:$ltn.(."i~~ Richard Watson, Port Ludlow, stated that his family has lived in Jefferson County for many generations. When his grandfather was alive, Port Ludlow had a much higher population density and shooting was allowed. A portion oftheir old homestead is now part of a no-shooting zone because of a few people. The County is suffering economically and hunters bring in revenue. He is a hunter and he doesn't hear any complaints. He thinks responsible gun owners who are qualified to own a fireann will be penalized by these regulations and criminals will ignore them. The NRA contacted him about this meeting. He has a problem with coyotes chasing his cows. His property is zoned residential agricultural and a no-shooting zone would take away his rights to protect his cows on his own property. Many of the people who were here for the hearing this morning didn't return this afternoon. This is dividing the community. There is no problem. Denver Shoop, Port Hadlock, stated that he is concerned that anti-gun people who don't live in an area will be able to petition for a no-shooting zone. If people petition for a no-shooting area they need to live within so many feet of it. People can put no shooting or no trespassing signs on their own property. Bruce Logan, Port Townsend, stated that previous speakers have mentioned the same points he wanted to address. Everyone is confused about the shall not exclude phrase in the exemption section of the ordinance. No one is clear ifthe items are included or excluded. The topic is exemptions and the items can be listed as exempted or not in a no-shoot zone. Greg Schirato, State Department ofFish and Wildlife, stated that they have several concerns about the no- shooting ordinance and many of them have been addressed in prior testimony. Three of the four public waterfowl hunting areas in Jefferson County have been in, or have been proposed as, no-shooting areas. There has to be a density safety issue that exists to be able to include an area and the boundary is an issue. The proposed Paradise Bay No-shooting Area includes 600 acres of State land and 1,000 acres of timberland. That type of land should not be included in a no-shooting area. There are so few public hunting areas, even in a rural county like Jefferson County. It is a problem for their agency. The issue of enforcabi1ity is also a major problem. The public expects Fish and Wildlife or the Sheriffs Office to be able to tell them where they can shoot. It isn't a practical ordinance. The public needs a clear idea about where they can shoot and it shouldn't include high volume land ownership where safety isn't an issue. David Tonkin, Port Townsend, stated that the majority of gun owners use good judgement in discharging their weapons, but there are always a few who are careless. There are popular hunting areas in the County adjacent to areas that are being built up where the population density is growing. These hunting areas are becoming dangerous to residents and workers. He hears shooting near Chimacum Creek during hunting season that is probably within 500-1,000 feet or a quarter mile of residences. There are areas in the County that definitely have to become no-shooting zones. The process needs to be simpler. The 25% of residents signing the petition may be too few because the number needs to be a representative group of residents in or near a proposed no-shooting zone. He agrees that the Sheriff and other officials should be able to make a request to the County Commissioners to designate an area as a no-shooting zone. Public hearings where people have a right to express their opinion need to be included in the process. So many good points have Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 .,'$.(I!\i('?;:t_ ~ ,,_... ~+;'Slll N~~;' ~ been made. It is obvious that 8.50.080 Exemptions needs to be clarified. There are also terms that need clear definition, such as significant enough and high density area. The 500 feet from County facilities or offices needs to be considered but 500 feet from other residential areas should also be considered because of the safety issue. Realistically speaking, 500 feet is really not far enough considering how far a bullet goes from a high caliber handgun or a large caliber rifle. He isn't sure about the most logical distance. Specific density numbers need to be addressed in the ordinance so that citizens will know if their petition will be considered. The rights of the hunters and the safety of citizens need to be protected. This is a good ordinance that needs to be modified. and clarified. Lee Ann Hightower, Port Townsend, stated that people should be able to shoot coyotes if they are a problem. She asked if there are any reports about people who have been endangered by shooting? She can't recall any cases. Who decides that an area is safe? The density issue needs to be addressed. If it is going to be the whole County, it needs to go on the ballot. George Huntingford, Chimacum, stated that they have allowed duck hunters on their property for 45 years and they have never had a problem. Thirty years ago the Game Department released pheasants on the property, but they have stopped because of the coyotes. He had heard that all of Chimacum Valley may be designated as a no-shooting zone. He knows a lot of people that enjoy hunting on weekends. Jack Westerman, Port Townsend, stated that the ordinance gives any County Official or Department the authority to request a no-shooting area. As Assessor, he doesn't want that authority or the responsibility to respond to a citizen's request. The Superior Court Clerk and the Prosecuting Attorney don't want to have that authority either. Ifthe Board wants certain departments to have that authority, they should be named specifically in the ordinance. Richard Hild, Cape George, stated that when he was growing up he lived in Washington DC and everyone had guns. The Sheriff sponsored training to teach the proper use of guns and the classes were taught by NRA volunteers. Instead of a no-shooting ordinance, it would be better to promote gun safety through education programs. He doesn't think that more rules are necessary. He thinks the County would get a much better response from voluntary efforts of people. Are people being shot on their front porch? Is there really an issue? Do we need more restrictions? He doesn't think that this ordinance is necessary. Irene Brown, Oak Bay Road, stated that she has been a hunter since she was 16 and she is 86 now. She raised five children and they have all been hunters. They were taught to respect other people's property and be careful where they hunted. They were allowed to hunt on farms in the area because they were respected. People should not be limited, they should be taught. If someone is breaking the law, they should be prosecuted. Don't penalize responsible gun owners. David Tonkin. stated that a neighbor gave him a statement to read. My name is Edward L. Parker. I live about ~ block from Cascade Drive, adjacent to the Chimacum Creek area. I do not fear guns, but I do not Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 ..,'.'.... $~ ,~~ ~ IfIN"~"~ own them either. The following happened to me. About 6 months ago, I was walking my dog in my backyard when I heard a gunshot from the direction of Chimacum Creek. It was one of many gunshots that I had heard in the past. The bullet whizzed past my head at a distance of about 10 feet. I knew it was from the gunshot I had heard because the bullet went through the branches of a nearby tree and ruffled the leaves. About 10 minutes later a second gunshot was heard. This bullet went through taller trees but was still detectable. I quickly went into the house. I am greatly in favor of a no-shooting zone for the Chimacum Creek area. People have said that there haven't been any problems. Is the County going to wait until someone is killed by careless gun handlers? There are definitely areas near residences, commercial facilities, and County buildings that are too close to allow shooting. Other places can be open for hunting and target shooting. This issue needs to be addressed. James W. Davis, Port Townsend, stated that he has been in three wars overseas and respects the Constitution ofthe United States. He doesn't want anyone to infringe on his rights and he doesn't want to infringe on other people's rights. There has been a recent influx of people from out of state and there have been some problems raised relating to firearms. He doesn't think that a Commissioner or the Sheriff should instigate a no-shooting area. It should come from the citizens and the petition should be signed by a sufficient number of residents in the area to be designated. Gun safety classes are taught at the Sportsman Club. He hasn't seen irresponsible firearms usage. If individuals aren't shooting responsibly, they can be arrested and prosecuted. State hunting regulations address buffers for roads and buildings. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is the bedrock of our democracy. It is difficult to know where all the boundaries of all the no-shooting zones are in the County. A person could be hunting and not be aware that they are in a no- shooting zone. If they were arrested and cited for a misdemeanor with a firearm, it would basically be the same as a felony, and their firearm could be taken away from them for the rest of their life. Bill Perk!!, Cape George Road, stated that he moved here in 1976 because he had the freedom to do what he wanted on his property. He owns 22 acres and has a shooting range. When he first moved here, he asked about gun range regulations and was told to talk to his neighbors. He is a Realtor and sells raw land all over the County. There are covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R) on certain developments in the County where shooting isn't allowed. When people buy there, they know that shooting isn't allowed, and they make that choice. He understands dense population and State law. It isn't wise to shoot in an area where health and safety may be affected. He is concerned about the person who owns 200 acres and was inadvertently included in a no-shooting zone. All residents and property owners in a proposed no-shooting zone should receive proper written notification. It shouldn't just be noticed in the newspaper. Any time the government takes rights away from people it can cause a lot of resentment. He has concerns about the draft language, but people have addressed them in their comments. He liked the suggestion about mirroring the language in the State law. Eric Nelson, Port Townsend, compared the operation of a motor vehicle and the operation of a firearm. There have been three deaths in Jefferson County in 2006 from automobile accidents. In an article in the newspaper on April 12, 2006, the Sheriff noted that no deaths or property damage from gunshots had been Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 .'."'.". ~<.; .0 ,l",~ ~.fJ'H lO(,,,:O!: reported to his office. There was one unsubstantiated report of a near miss. When it comes to cars, it is presumed that people know how to drive competently, when it comes to firearms, it should be presumed that people are responsible gun owners. David Hollingsworth, Old Olympic Highway, stated that the majority of the people at this hearing think the same way about this issue. The idea of a broad spectrum no-shooting zone is ludicrous. There hasn't been a problem from the use of firearms. Lee Ann Hightower, Port Townsend, stated that she thinks the issue is the noise from gun fire. People who have moved here need to realize that this is a rural county. Richard Toe.pper, Port Ludlow, stated that he didn't know that there was a No-Shooting Area Ordinance. No one ever contacted him when Port Ludlow put a half-mile of no-shooting zone along his property line. He would not want his farm arbitrarily put into a no-shooting zone. He has a shooting range and has hunted on the 180 acre farm his entire life. His family will continue to shoot on their property. Ruth Short, suggested that people put plugs in their ears if they don't want to hear gun fire. Guns are necessary. It is important that people know how to handle and shoot guns responsibly. Mike Be1enski, Port Ludlow, stated that the Commissioners need to listen to what people are saying in this hearing about the No-Shooting Zone Ordinance and take action accordingly. The current ordinance doesn't need to be changed to allow the Sheriff to recommend a no-shooting area to the Commissioners. A commissioner shouldn't be allowed to suggest a no-shooting area and then vote on it because that would be a special privilege and it is circumventing public process. He doesn't agree that any County official or department should be able to suggest a no-shooting zone. The ordinance needs to be clear. Fifty-one percent of the people who live in an area need to sign the petition. John Ebner, Port Townsend, stated that he thinks the No-Shoot Zone Review Committee of the Planning Commission has recommended the best approach to the ordinance. The County should adhere to the process as defined in their memo, with a few alterations to the language and their draft of the legislation. Erik Nelson, Port Townsend, stated that a person can build a fence to muffle traffic noise from a road. They can also build a fence to decrease gun fire noise from hunters. Chairman Johnson explained that this process began because the boundaries ofthe proposed Paradise Bay No-Shooting Area took in a large amount of acreage in unpopulated areas and on DNR and ORM property. It also included the residential area of Paradise Bay. Sheriff Brasfield also requested that the Board consider a No-Shooting Zone in populated areas of Port Hadlock. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6, 2006 -iN, .~< Gene Seton, stated that he thinks the wording in 8.50.080 the lawful use offorce by citizens is very vague. In that same section it says the lawful use of a firearm by a law enforcement officer and they already have the right to use firearms. The section about farm animals implies that the no-shooting zone is going to include the whole County. Bob Pontius, Beaver Valley, stated that he has 100 acres and he is concerned about people signing a petition for a No-Shooting Area that includes his acreage without his knowledge. Bruce Seton, asked about the proposed Paradise Bay No Shooting Area. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the Board hasn't made a decision on that proposal yet. That petition was one of the factors that triggered the review of the No-Shooting Area Ordinance, along with Sheriff Brasfield's request about Port Hadlock. The Board asked the Planning Commission to review the ordinance and make a recommendation. The reason for this hearing is to take public testimony in order to refine the ordinance. People have offered many good suggestions. Among other things, the exemptions will be protected, but the language will be clarified. Bill Perk~ stated that this is a rural county. When people move here from urban areas they can't expect people to stop hunting on the 100 acre forestland next door where they have traditionally hunted. Richard Watson, stated that ifI-933 passes, people will have to be compensated for the losses from restrictions placed on their property and the no-shooting zones could fall under that category. Mike Be1enski, asked why the Sheriff couldn't send the Commissioners a letter recommending a no- shooting area? Commissioner Sullivan replied that the Sheriff could send them a letter or emai1, but the current ordinance would prohibit the Board from acting on the recommendation. Paul Thompson, requested that the next public hearing on this issue be scheduled in the evening. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Johnson advised everyone that the hearing would be continued to a date and time to be determined. The Board left the Superior Courtroom and went to the Commissioners Chambers to adjourn their meeting for the week of November 6, 2006. Commissioner Sullivan and Chairman Johnson were present. Commissioner Rodgers was absent. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 6,2006 ~..'''' 1 ... ."wo<; . ,~ 'S~r"'('~ NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m. In the absence of Commissioner Rodgers, Chairman Johnson seconded the motion which carried. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 13, 2006 at 8 a.m. MEETINGAD.Lrwr6'"1\:mn::':~....... ,"' IoOU~"-l ~-f," II ",.,....' ,I I,w-~"I "s,' I' . . .-" r' . -' SEAL: /"': '!,v \1" .~. <4J ~f:,#\" , ,. -J"" ' \ . t'* l L~: ' ~ I ~ ~, \ . : I .7 e. ATTEST: .~:':'.. * t- ~- ~~.; / v",- ,,'It \J2;" . 'w ~ ~ \~" ol " ~ J ~~emL Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 13 , -j J O(\~ ~C:~ ~ loG~ I~ cC', 'S he r~ -\-\-j f< TO: Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader LEGAL NOTICE Please publish one (1) time: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 in 7-pointfont BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend W A 98368 Attn: Rachel McHugh Tel: 360-379-4450 Account# 02105510 DATE: Monday, October 23, 2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON NO SHOOTING AREA CRITERIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for Jefferson County will hold a public hearing on possible changes to Jefferson County Code 8.50 'No Shooting Areas' Monday, November 6,2006 at 10:05 AM in the BOCC Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, l82l Jefferson St., Port Townsend. Availability of Information: Planning Commission reports, DCD recommendations and meeting minutes are available at DCD, 62l Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368 and on the DCD web pages: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/default.htrn. Contact Rachel McHugh for more information: (360) 379-4482 or rmcugh@co.iefferson.wa.us. Approved this 23"' day OfOCIOg" ---rAv~d Sv-..\ \~\lcty) m-ern~r J PQ-\-f~C \( \0 ~_rs) /Y1etn~ , r> a Article I. Establishment Procedures 8,50,010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process for the establishment of "no shooting areas" in unincorporated Jefferson County and to provide regulation of the discharge of firearms in such areas as provided in this chapter lOrd. 3-959 1]. 8,50.020 Prohibited It is unlawful for any person to discharge firearms in a no shooting area established by Jefferson County. This chapter shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, Section 24 of the State Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others. lOrd. 3-9591(1)] 8.50,030 Firearms defined "Firearm," as used in this chapter, shall include, but not be limited to, pistols, revolvers, shotguns and rifles. lOrd. 3-95 9 2] 8,50.040 Creation or dissolution of a no shooting area (1) Petitions requestinq the Jefferson County board of commissioners create a no shootinq area or dissolve an existinq no shooting area shall be filed with the clerk of the board of commissioners. The request must be based on a definable threat to the public health, safety and qeneral welfare. Such petitions mayt:!6t be: (a) A petition filed by residents. The petition shall contain the siqnatures of 25% of reqistered voters in the area under consideration. (b) A request filed by the county sheriff or a request filed by a county commissioner. (c) A request filed by county departments may be considered if: (i) Density in an area is siqnificant enouqh to warrant consideration for a no shootinq area. The hiqh density area must have definable boundaries. Oi) County facilities or property are at risk. An area of UP to 500ft from county offices or facilities may be considered. (2) The petition, or request, must include a leoal description of the proposed boundaries with: a - _. ~. map showino the proposed area, a written statement explaininq the reasons for the petition, and a statement. where applicable, of reported incidence involvinq firearms in the petition area. 8 request based on density in an area does not require a written statement so lono as the proposed no shootino area boundaries are defined concurrent with a densely populated area. (1) Petitions requesting the Jefferson County boord of commissioners to creote :3 no shooting area or dissolve ::10 existing no shooting areo shall be filed with the clerk of the board of commissioners. Petitions shall contain the signatures of :3t le:3st 10 elector residents of e:3ch i"".. voting precinct in the :::lre;] under consider:::ltion. ,11, map and leg:::ll description of the area shall be included with these petitions. G2~) After petition signatures have been verified by the Jefferson County auditor-elections. or a request has been submitted bv a county commissioner. sheriff or official, the Jefferson County board of commissioners shall set a date of hearing. Legal notice of the hearing shall be published one time in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the hearing. (1J) If the county commissioners find the formation or dissolution of the petitioned area to be beneficial to the public health, safety and general welfare, the area shall be established or dissolved as a no shooting area by ordinance. The board of commissioners shall consider, but is not limited to considerations of the location, terrain and surrounding land use of the petitioned area. lOrd. 3-9593] The board of commissioners shall determine the final boundaries for the creation of a no shootinq area. (5) Public Works may post siqns alonq public roads indicatinq a no shootinq area boundary where deemed necessary. The Department of Community Development shall inform development and permit applicants if a parcel is within a no shootinq area. 8.50,050 Violations-Misdemeanors-Penalty-Arrest (1) Any person discharging a firearm in a no shooting area is guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall not be a violation of this chapter when a person discharges a firearm in accordance with the provisions of RCW 9A.16.020. (2) Any law enforcement officer having information to support a reasonable belief that a person has committed a violation of this chapter has the authority to arrest the person. (3) The first offense for violation of this chapter constitutes a civil penalty not to exceed $100.00. Consecutive offenses are punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not to exceed $250.00 or by confinement in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days. lOrd. 3-95 9 4] 8,50,060 Enforcement Officers and Procedures Enforcement of this chapter may be by any state or county law enforcement officer, state game officer, or state fish and wildlife officer. All such enforcement officers are empowered to issue citations to and/or arrest without warrant persons violating this provisions of this chapter. Said enforcement officers may serve and execute all warrants, citations and other process - - .. issued by the courts. In addition, mailing by registered mail of such warrant, citation or other process to the last known place of residence of the offender shall be deemed as personal service upon the person charged. Said enforcement officers may seize and hold as evidence the weapon and ammunition of any person violating the provisions of this chapter. lOrd. 3-95 9 5] 8.50.070 Interpretation In the event any other county ordinance, whether or not codified, is in conflict with any of the terms of this chapter, the more stringent shall be construed as applicable. lOrd. 3-95 9 7J 2 .1-". ....~ -, .^. 8.50.080 Exemptions The desiqnation of a no shootinq area shall not exclude: (a) The use of firearms by citizens pursuant to RCW 16.08.020 reqardinq doqs. or other animals, endanqerinq livestock. (b) The lawful use of a firearm by a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties. (c) The use of firearms to lawfully slauqhter farm animals. (d) The lawful use of force by citizens. (e) The continued operation of leqally established private or public qun club facilities or commercial shootinq ranqes which were established and operatinq prior to the enactment of the No Shootinq Area or the development of indoor/underqround ranqes constructed in compliance with JCC 18.20.350 (8). 3 . . JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Amendments to No Shootin Zone Ordinance DATE: Monda, November 6,2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE <i-'V 5 )); ?to ~~ c;t,!Ji::.- 6.t:.~..('~t<tJ. 2~ ~ 5uAseff;1 vd fT ~/D D DDD r3DD ~DD DDD ~DD ~DD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD /2 go c.M? &Z.OKbE ~ J DJl~- ctJlt7:.C..ll'r'-- Pff IItlGG'4JCl)- ~~- ?~4"~~ . . I" /1- L,f' ( JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Amendments to No Shootin Zone Ordinance DATE: Monda, November 6,2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE '5l J.8/P > /7/-:/ (/( .5 , ~~'0J\9J~ t~0-ll 3~O/ oUG~ ~. l rd roder~ 4t03 old btvJlfl -e- W lL'-1 Ak E. -KllS 3.:0\ D..v C~G l?it; I if IJ $!i JJ(yS () 2 I, 1110,0/1 5 f- ~DD ~ DD ,fYlCiCLtrl1 ~D D ~DD ~\.lvtX.\~ D ~D /4' ~s-CO'#nA'0 D D fJ, 7 ~ D D h-'~l D r&- DDD DDD DDD ODD DDD DDD DDD DDD .~.. . . JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Amendments to No Shootin Zone Ordinance DATE: Monda, November 6,2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY .-:/ -PI Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ DD mDD DD~ DI2?JD D~D ~DD D~D ~ DD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD . . -e- JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Proposed Amendments to No ShootinQ Zone Ordinance DATE: Monday, November 6,2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE \',,- ..-r' \\^ ,\ o-o-m .....:TT J v '"11- -J \J.-J "-.J YTC7 f~~0k~ /720 e Ut {e.-- fJh,~u~ ~OO ......- V_ i/" \c--.:' /0/ tv /'? /l t/~/3'" /;/-4 L->L.-O C/I' ~ 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Proposed Amendments to No ShootinQ Zone Ordinance DATE: Monday, November 6,2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NA~E(Please Print) J STRE~AD~SS ,q cye, ~I Testimony? Jln. (}CJ.." .L.OG19 // ZJ'T tP-r-::o/Y /<(5 R ES NO MAYBE DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD ... .- DDD DDD DDD nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Amendments to No Shootin Zone Ordinance DATE: Monda, November 6,2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers fXIDD BDD D D~ DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD ODD ODD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Proposed Amendments to No ShootinQ Zone Ordinance DATE: Monday, November 6, 2006 at 10:05 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 0Ac.L (A ~ ~-S rn ~ /.htJ /Lf52- Iw'JL.dL~ ~ y.T: 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 12t ~ I-I,,-,~ 0 00 ( ~r:~w# - 0 00 J 1t"1if5 W blfVts - ...--., 0 00 .;{, u... ?c"7et:/J. - - 0 00 J) kifJ tl #t>u.-, J()4-S iii 0 t::::rJ.J. -- - 0 00 ~t6~:b --TP t:7>I>c.-1t -- 0 00 ZlL:rJl - 0 00 , k (1cC 1)cSL< ,C}!!il:.t ~--- 0 00 '3d'lJ '7 ()I() nLJ:5 ~ ~. -- - 0 00 '-r:~ ~I'.$o;( 0 00 0 00 nnn v ~ hh A' ~ '" CJ(::/.. 'JJ;lrA,) C. e=- A-M/l~f~i4;~~~ ~-~ ~~. 11i ILIff" I>> CFrc-ef - tlJO p~lv'(l/f -z-avt3 ). , . 6 tH*I,4f It.N'TY CJt;' T ~A b( SE ?J1Is'f- ~.,~,- r=rrc/l4Yk. &-~;- \C = = N " \C ;... QJ ~ e QJ > Q Z QJ QJ ~..Q ~= =.:: . :a ~ =.-- ."'C 0 ~ QJ 0 ; e = ~ QJ ....... 0 ....... = . . ~ 8~~g~ bj) bj) c. U 0 ==~.u .C ;:: 0 .S QJ = 0 ....... . ~ QJ 0 "'C QJ ....... = ~ QJ ~~ ~ ~ = 0 ... 0 "'C ~ . :CZQJQJo = ~ ~ 0 QJ ~ ..... ~ ~~~=~ QJ ..... QJ · - "'C ~o."'C~ ~"""'=QS'-' rIj QJ .... = QJ .... O..Q .~ rIj .- ~ ~~ .. ~ .,- , k1;f~ssage 7 : Leslie Locke j I pape). of 2 n~3 (') r\ III t.v oto jt'c' .~Aa ;!~ r\D ~:\',: ~ ,'It~: " . '~f!j ~ "'~), ~,~,. From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:49 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: NEW no shooting date From: Mike Brasfield Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:49:09 PM To: Rachel McHugh Cc: Pat Rodgers; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Fischbach Subject: RE: NEW no shooting date Auto forwarded by a Rule Rachel - The current ordinance was specific as to raw numbers, not percentages. As I indicated, it is my recollection that the first few rough drafts that DCD provided did raise the raw number from 10 to 25, without any discussion of percentages. The change that you provided certainly clarifies that the voters (whether raw number or percentage) should reside within the proposed boundaries, and that is as it should be. However, are you quite sure that Commissioner Rodgers directed that the new draft was intended to change "25 registered voters within the proposed boundaries" to "25% of registered voters within the proposed boundaries"? The current ordinance reads: (1) Petitions requesting the Jefferson County board of commissioners to create a no shooting area or dissolve an existing no shooting area shall be filed with the clerk of the board of commissioners. Petitions shall contain the signatures of at least 10 elector-residents of each voting precinct in the area under consideration. A map and legal description of the area shall be included with these petitions. Thanks, Mike Brasfield -----Original Message----- From: Rachel McHugh sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:35 PM To: Mike Brasfield Subject: RE: NEW no shooting date Commissioner Rodger requested a change from: "The petition shall contain the signatures of registered voters of which 25% reside in the area under consideration." To: "The petition shall contain the signatures of 25% of registered voters in the area under consideration." 'Raclie ( Jefferson CA), DeD.. Lone Rane" Pbnninl~ rrnch ueh@co.jeHerson.wa.us 360-379-4482 10/19/2006 .t. ~ .' Mir"Ssage Page 2 of2 From: Mike Brasfield Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:01 PM To: Rachel McHugh Subject: RE: NEW no shooting date Rachel - In reviewing the latest draft, I am confused. In earlier drafts the language indicated that the number of signatures would go up from 10 to 25 (actual signatures). This latest draft has changed to read 25 percent rather than 25 voters. Is this a typo, or were you given direction for this change? Mike Brasfield -----Original Message----- From: Rachel McHugh Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:06 PM To: Mike Brasfield Subject: NEW no shooting date I wanted to let ljou know the public hearing for No Shootina has been rescheduled for November 6. Attached is the new draft with the BoCC chanaes. cJl.g.cI&e/ JeHerson Co. OCD-Long Range Planning 6'21 Sheridan, Port Townsend, W A 98368 rmchugh@co.jeHerson.wa.us 360-379-4482 10/19/2006 ~ ,~. cc >:Dc~ cr7 lo/d-to /0& ~((\tt ) Page 1 of2 f"~~. Of) 117(4o(p J. 'J. l:,;!~ \. ;.'L.ln ~ "" .~W ~ ~,-~':t;; Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Cc: Dave Drewry [treefrog@olypen.com] Wednesday, October 25,20063:16 PM David Sullivan Pat Rodgers; Julie Matthes; elungren@co.jefferson.wa.us; Leslie Locke; jfishbach@co.jefferson.wa.us; Lorna Delaney Subject: Jefferson County No Shooting Zones Good morning Commisioners, ~ My name is David Drewry and together with my wife Tiffany we run a hunting! fishing guide and outfitting service based from our home and property on Cape George Road, Port Townsend-- Peninsula Sportsman Guide and Outfitting. We are Chamber of Commerce members and have been an established business in Jefferson County for the past seven years. Our business has hosted hunters and fisherman from every state in the country and many foreign guests. During their stays here our clients spend a considerable amount of money within Port Townsend and Jefferson County on gear, accomodations and meals. Much ofthis busin~ss occurs during those "offseason" months of October thru February. Many local restaurants, stores aIid motels have come to appreciate the business that these hunters and fishermen provide. Our guiding business has been featured with episodes on national cable and satellite programs and various print articles in national magazines. Among our specialties is waterfowl hunting, much of that offshore as our hunting areas include a greater part of the Olympic Peninsula, Hood Canal and Northern Puget Sound. Waterfowl are a great resource within our county waters and lands. Due to the diversity of waterfowl in the area and our solid reputation as a premier guide service, our business has come to be recognized as one of the best waterfowl hunting outfitters in the country. ~ Recently, my wife and I have been involved with the WDFW, NRAI ILA and various local and national sportsman groups in meetings on proposed "no-shoot zones" with Island county government, residents and hunters. After initial public forums on Whidbey and Camano Island in 2005, the WDFW organized subsequent public" roundtable" meetings in Coupeville between interested residents and hunters. This group collectively came up with a plan that was submitted to the Island County commisioners in Spring 2006. Much of the Island county residents concern was from the noise involved with hunting rather than the issue of safety. Whidbeyand Camano Islands have been firearm restricted areas per WDFW and Island County rules, therefore discharge of centerfire rifles and pistols has not been allowed for some time. There wasn't a legitimate safety concern as there wasn't any records of firearm damage to homes or property-- merely a handful of residents that did not want the sound of gunfire in their area and / or feared for their safety. Many ofthese residents didn't understand basic firearm ballistics and this was the cause of their concern. In one of the more interesting Coupeville meetings a ballistic expert was brought in to provide a detailed assesment of all types of firearm discharge and their effective ranges. He explained to the residents that the ballistics of shotguns is much different than centerfire rifles and pistols and when discharged shotgun pellets travel shorter distances and with significantly less velocity than other guns. The group unilaterally agreed to establish an adequate safety zone from any occupied structure to ensure the safety of residents since there were currently no such rules in place. The Island County commisioners have read and considered the proposals from our meetings but thus far their position has been to hold off on any decisions concerning new shooting zones. ~ Much of what we faced in Island County now appears to have manifested itself here in Jefferson 10/26/2006 .. Page 2 of2 --:.. . .. County. We have been following the new Jefferson County no-shooting zone proposals very closely over the past year as these proposed zones would certainly affect our business by closing some of the local areas where we guide our hunters. Both of the proposed Jefferson County shooting zones-- Paradise road and the Tri- Areas zone include significantly more area than an urban core. Some of this land is controlled by WDFW, DNR, private timber land and larger blocks of private property. Many of these lands have been actively hunted for waterfowl and big game for some time, and safety has never been a documented issue. There are Washington State laws in place, in particular RCW 77.15.2101 RCW 77.15.212 -- These laws were written to protect hunting and hunting lands from broadstroke legislation such as these no-shooting zones suggest. If these proposed zones were approved as is-- the county could open itself to litigation. - There are still many hunters and shooters within Eastern Jefferson County, though new or established places to hunt and shoot are becoming increasingly scarce. This lack of suitable hunting and shooting areas is due in part to the demographic change in some of our new county residents and the current surge of development around the county. Those local areas that still remain where legitimate, safe hunting and shooting now occur must be protected not prohibited. We would suggest that the County look at practical alternatives rather than the tedious task of initiating various no-shoot zones scattered throughout the county. Certainly a no-shooting zone within urban centers make sense, but in outlying areas a possible firearm restriction ( shotgun only) similar to rules already in place on Indian and Marrowstone Islands and lor establishing legitimate shooting distances from occupied structures would be far more appropriate and effective. Thank you for your time, Capt. David Drewry, Tiffany Drewry ownersl operators Peninsula Sportsman Guide and Outfitting Service; Port Townsend, W A Cabins at Treefrog Woods www.PeninsulaSportsman.com 10/26/2006