HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120406
District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodge...
County Administrator: John F. Fischbach
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
.MINUTES
Week of December 4, 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; Chris Llewellyn,
District No.3: Cancelled.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: Central Services Director Allen Sartin reported
that the County will be issuing a press release regarding Chimacum CreeklIrondale Beach Park. The State
Department of Ecology recently did an assessment of a complaint about the presence of fuel oil on the
beach. Metals and oil were found that date back to industrial activities at the site from 1881 to 1919. The
Park has been included in the Puget Sound Initiative, a program to accelerate protection and restoration of
Puget Sound and Hood Canal.
Appointments to the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee:
Commissioner Rodgers stated his opinion on the people who were interviewed that are interested in serving
on this committee. Michael Adams owns a shellfish business in Jefferson County, but lives in Kitsap
County. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he would prefer a Jefferson County resident to represent the
shellfish interest on the committee.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to advertise again for a representative from the shellfish
industry who lives in the County and a representative from District 3. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board agreed to keep Michael Adams application on file.
Commissioner Rodgers voiced his concerns regarding Jerry Gorsline's connection with the Washington
Environmental Council. The other Commissioners stated that they thought Jerry Gorsline's background
would be an asset to the committee.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
t.'''''':'~
+- ..
tf.rlfr",o"C"
Commissioner Sullivan moved to appoint Janet Kearsley to the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen
Oversight Committee as a representative for Commissioner District 1 and Jerry Gorsline as a representative
for Commissioner District 2. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson and
Commissioner Sullivan voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The
motion carried. Both applicant's terms will expire on December 4,2010.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of
November 6, 2006. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens. Several
people commented on the $3,000 Hearing Examiner fee in the proposed Department of Community
Development (DCD) fee schedule; several people commented on the high salary and good benefit package
that County employees receive compared to private sector jobs in the County; it was suggested that the
Board call a "tax summit" with the other taxing districts in the County; there are many vacant homes in Port
Townsend in the winter because retired "snowbirds" are buying second homes here; a suggestion was made
that the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County consolidate; over-regulation regarding environmental
concerns is putting companies like Port Townsend Paper Company and farmers in the County out of
business; DCD' s fees should have a sliding scale; a request was made that the Board vote .against the
proposed Off Road Vehicle park in Quilcene; a citizen thanked the Board and the County for the completion
of the Quilcene water system and the Quilcene County Park project; security at the Courthouse is inadequate
and there should be one entrance with a metal detector; the Board should request that the Attorney General's
Office update their advisory memorandum about avoiding unconstitutional takings of private property;
comments were made about the County Administrator's update on November 27 regarding the appointment
of outside counsel for the Security Services Northwest lawsuit, about the timeliness ofthe Commissioner's
minutes and about the procedures for calling the Special Meeting that the Commissioners held last week.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers
moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 82-06 re: Hearing Notice for Proposed Supplemental Budget
Appropriations/Extensions for Various County Funds; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December
18,2006 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers
2. RESOLUTION NO. 83-06 re: Organization and Declaration of Result of Election for the Formation
of Jefferson County Cemetery District No.3 (Gardiner Area)
3. AGREEMENT re: Transfer Site 06 Timber Salvage Sale; Jefferson County Public Works; Hood
Canal Fiber
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
.'0'",
~. ~ ~
t ~~
.rlfr",("
4. CANCELLATION NOTICE re: County Commissioner Regular Meeting; Scheduled for Tuesday,
December 26, 2006
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Increasing Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule:
Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler stated that they
have worked on the new fee schedule for the last six months and the result is a more flexible, more detailed
system. Their 2007 budget request is based on the fee changes. Public Works Director Frank Gifford
explained that the Department was told to reduce transfers from the Current Expense Fund to the Parks and
Recreation Fund. They think that this proposal meets the public's needs for recreation programs and the use
of facilities and generates the necessary revenue.
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Bob Henderson, Qui1cene, noted that in the past there was a fee at the Quilcene Park for residents and a
higher fee for non-residents. He asked why there is only one fee amount now? He asked how much revenue
the park generated last year? He complimented the County on the work that was done at the park.
Matt Tyler explained that the resident/non-resident fee became an enforcement issue and it is simpler to
charge one amount. The revenue from the park last year was approximately $1,400.
Jim Tracy, stated that this ordinance is well put together and is easy for the public to understand. He asked
if the budget that was passed last week pre-supposed the fee increases?
Allen Sartin replied that the fee increases were taken into consideration.
Hearing no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Chairman Johnson asked how the park fees compare with park fees in other counties? Matt Tyler answered
that Jefferson County parks have less amenities than parks in other counties and therefore the fees are lower.
Commissioner Rodgers stated that the County has a policy of "fees for service." When the fees were
calculated, was a cost basis used for determining those fees? Matt Tyler explained that they use an activity-
based cost accounting system but sometimes that is difficult to apply. Commissioner Rodgers noted that
there are lower facility rental fees for non-profit organizations. Frank Gifford explained that this has been
an historic practice in the fee schedules. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he thinks rental fees for profit
organizations and a non-profit organizations should be the same. The Board asked for more information on
the rental revenue from for-profit and non-profit organizations and a recommendation from the Department.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
Commissioner Rodgers moved to table the deliberations on the Parks and Recreation fee schedule until
Monday, December 11. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Increasing the Department of Community
Development Fee Schedule: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Department of Community
Development Director Al Scalf explained that staff held a workshop with the Board on November 13 to
discuss the proposed fee increases. He explained that the fee schedule is divided into departmental sections
and reviewed the changes in each section.
Building Section
· Building Renewal (13) and Water System Review (16) are new fees.
· Applications that had been billed out for one hour in previous fee schedules are Wood Stoves (9) and
Change of Use or Occupancy (11). The proposed fee schedule shows the actual staff time to process
these applications.
· The fee for Replacement Address Plates (19) has increased because the cost of the materials has
increased.
Development Review Section
· A note was added that all fees are based on an hourly minimum. Some fees have the first hour
reflected at time of application, with a second billing for additional review or inspection time. This
includes the Consistency Use (31). Land-use fees 22-24, 26, 27, and 32-63 were analyzed to
determine how many hours it took to perform the task which resulted in requested increases.
· EIS Preparation or Review, Including Third Party Review (29) and Third Party Review of Special
Reports (30) are new fees.
Long Range Planning Section
· Request for Jefferson County Comprehensive PlanlUDC Amendment (66) is a new fee.
· Hearing Examiner (68) is new fee. Al Scalf clarified that DCD collects a fee for departmental work
in the Hearing Examiner process. The County's General Fund (Non-Departmental Fund) pays for
the Hearing Examiner and the new fee would be received at DCD and reimbursed to the Non-
Departmental Fund. If the Board doesn't want to consider a flat $3,000 fee, DCD could charge the
applicant $1,000 and any amount over would be billed. The Department would refund the difference
ifit was less than $1,000.
The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
Al Frank, Port Townsend, suggested that the Board review the recommendation to the County
Commissioners by the independent fee committee that reviewed DCD fees several years ago. He thinks that
the $3,000 Hearing Examiner fee fails the fair and equitable test. If the Hearing Examiner decides in favor
of the appellant, will the County refund their money? He thinks it will discourage people from appealing the
County's decisions. He would like to know who suggested this fee.
Georgette Semick, Cape George, stated that she is concerned about the set fee of$153 for a pre-application
hearing. The time spent on each type of application should be reviewed because a simple remodel that isn't
expanding the size of the house should have a lesser pre-application fee than a new house or a major
expansion. She thinks that the $153 fee for a new propane stove is excessive. She met with a Permit
Technician on a simple remodel and three weeks later received a letter that the file was lost and the
application was incomplete. An applicant shouldn't have to pay extra for the additional time spent on an
application because of a staff error. A property owner shouldn't have to pay $3,000 for the Hearing
Examiner if they want to appeal a decision by DCD staff. Water System Review would be more appropriate
for the Environmental Health Department.
Jim Tracy, Land Use Counsel for Fred Hill Materials, stated that the draft fee ordinance should have been
made widely available to the public. If it was not, the Board should postpone action and make every effort
for the general public to review it in order to get meaningful input. The nature of the increases do not appear
to be excessive. There is a problem when people are charged if staff makes a mistake; and it is important to
include a process in the ordinance that allows the Administrator to review the circumstances and refund a
portion of the fee. The Hearing Examiner fee is not clear and could be deleted from this ordinance and
reviewed in more detail at a future date. It has a limited chance of passing constitutional muster if it is
applied to the general citizen who wants to exercise their rights of appeal. He suggested that the Board
discuss the fee with the Prosecuting Attorney before they adopt it.
Wayne Bibbons, Port Townsend, endorsed the comments of the previous three speakers. He has lived and
worked in Oregon and has dealt with appeals there. In researching the Hearing Examiner fees in counties in
Oregon, he did not find such an excessive fee for a person to exercise their right to appeal a decision. He
thinks that Oregon and Washington share common themes in government. From his understanding, the
County Administrator proposed the Hearing Examiner fee. It is a recipe for disaster if Hearing Examiner
fees are charged up front, and the Hearing Examiner reverses part of the staff decision so that a portion of
the fees have to be refunded. The County Commissioners or a committee that works in a specific area in
DCD could make a decision on this, but not just one person. The $60,000 that went to the Hearing
Examiner last year could be found somewhere else in the budget. Maybe the County is paying too much for
the Hearing Examiner. In his experience, permit fee increases should be in line with the cost ofliving and
anything higher than a 5-10% increase is inappropriate. He agrees that the general public should have more
time to review the fee schedule. He thinks the Hearing Examiner fee is way out of line and if it is passed, it
will be challenged.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
Roger Short, Chimacum, stated that ifDCD fees were the only fees in the County that people had to deal
with it probably wouldn't be a problem. There are fees coming from a hundred different directions and it is
crippling the County. The County is going to have to start cutting back on government. It's time to let
citizens live instead of being controlled. Fees are for service and sometimes a person gets the incorrect
information or has to wait a week for the answer. The County wetlands map of his property was wrong and
he had to pay an expert $2,000 to have the wetlands delineated. Then the County came out and charged him
more for the changes. It comes down to excessive regulation. There are some fees that the government
should charge, but it should just be a handful. The fees help support the bureaucracy so that employees can
have pay increases.
Tom Thiersch, stated that he is confused about the numbers in the proposed DCD fee schedule. If cost of
living factors were used, the amount of increase from year to year doesn't seem to be consistent from one
category to another. Some of the items are new fees for services that were absorbed by overhead in the past.
Every activity should probably have an associated cost. The $3,000 Hearing Examiner fee is way beyond
what he considers as reasonable, especially when there doesn't appear to be an appeals process for reducing
it. There should be an administrative process for reviewing this fee that would be conducted by an
independent review board and not the County Administrator because he has a vested interest in collecting
the maximum fee rather than refunding it if staff makes an error. Why is the fee for a CD only $1.1 O? He
questioned the research that went into calculating the fees. In May, 2004 he paid $72 for a propane tank
inspection and the proposed fee is $153. He read a quote by Al Scalf in a newspaper article. "The demand
for services is up, we are a growing County and we are trying to cover the cost of business and not subsidize
land use through the General Fund." Demand for services is increasing because the population is increasing.
If existing staff is not 1 00% utilized they could be better utilized ifthe demand increases. Since the cost of
staff is fixed and their utilization is increasing, the cost per request should be decreasing. If the demand is
increasing, the cost should go down.
Mike Belenski, stated he hasn't seen the proposed fee schedule until today. The handout comparing the
current fee to the proposed fee should have been available to the public a while ago so that people could see
the difference. It should have been posted on the website. If a fee is increased 100%, he wants to know the
justification for the increase. The Hearing Examiner fee of$3,000 would be a financial hardship for people.
It is only $200 to $250 to file a case or an appeal in Superior Court or to file a case with the State Supreme
Court. The County is creating a hurdle for the average person's right to due process. Why even have a
Hearing Examiner? Why not go directly to Superior Court? A lot of people live in poverty in Jefferson
County. Only corporations will be able to pay $3,000 to appeal. It's not right for one person to be able to
make an erroneous decision that will cost people too much money. This is indirect discouragement.
Georgette Semick, suggested that DCD should present several scenarios to the Commissioners that show
how much money a person has to pay in fees to accomplish a project.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
..""....
f"'.. '10<:
~'.tltl..""...'"':
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed fee schedule, Chairman Johnson closed the public
hearing.
AI Scalf responded to some of the questions asked during the testimony.
· The fee committee met in 2001 to develop a fee schedule recommendation that was approved by the
County Commissioners. The current DCD fee schedule is based on that recommendation. The CPI
that is currently being used is 3.6. Fees have been adjusted according to the CPI on an annual basis.
· The fees were adjusted by reviewing stafftimesheets to determine a fee that reflects the actual staff
time needed to process a specific permit.
· The hourly fee is from the fee table in the Uniform Building Code. It was $47 when the current fee
schedule was approved. Now it is $51 per hour. Snohomish County charges $80 per hour, Skagit
County charges $50 per hour, Pierce County charges $130 an hour, Grays Harbor County charges
$76 an hour, and Cowlitz County charges $72 an hour.
· The Water System Review is a new fee. The Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) requires that
water purveyors in the County (Port Townsend, the PUD, Bridgehaven, Port Ludlow, State Parks,
etc.) update their plans. In the past DCD has reviewed these plans as an indirect cost. This is a fee
for the initial Department review which then goes to the Water Utility Coordinating Council
(WUCC) for public review. It isn't a water system review for a building permit.
· Several people mentioned that the fee schedule needed more public review. If the Board wants to
review each item, the Department can schedule another workshop.
· The Jefferson County Code requires public notice, a public hearing, and a Hearing Examiner
decision for Type III permits. These are quasi-judicial and there are approximately 20 cases per year.
The new Hearing Examiner charges $130 an hour.
· There are 2 or 3 appeal cases per year that come before the Hearing Examiner. He understands the
reasoning that if an applicant appeals an administrative decision and it is overturned by the Hearing
Examiner, the applicant would receive a refund.
· The Hearing Examiner is the County's independent review board.
· The $153 fee for the propane tank installation is based on the number of inspections when new
appliances are being added, etc. If it is just a swap out of the size of the tank, the cost would be $51.
This fee can be more detailed on the fee schedule.
· The proposed fee schedule was prepared by DCD staff. The County Administrator asked the
Department to suggest a way to recover the $60,000 cost of the Hearing Examiner.
· DCD is always trying to be more efficient. Some of these proposed changes came from the Latimore
Study for streamlining the permit process to increase productivity and performance.
· He understands why people think that $3,000 for the Hearing Examiner is creating a hurdle.
· The new Hearing Examiner's invoices for the first three months have been $5,000 per month.
· DCD also coordinates collection of fees for Public Works and Environmental Health septic and
water review.
· Their budget is currently $1.8 million. The majority of that increase in the past two years has been
the pass through of State grant funding for the Shoreline Management Program.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
E'..""
:: ... ~
..~. ..~~~-<
.$11",(.\
.
Fees for services includes intake, review, inspection, check, and field verify of building, zoning,
environmental permits, subdivisions, shorelines, road approaches, open space and appeals.
Indirect services include operations and overhead, updated technology, planner of the day services,
septic research, public inquiries, education and outreach, compliance, public records requests,
training, certification, and professional development.
Long Range Planning is the only division that is funded by the General Fund. It is not subsidized
through fees. The Shoreline Management Program update cost $365,000. Jefferson County's
Critical Areas update has been included legislatively with King, Snohomish, Thurston and Pierce
Counties. The requirements under Growth Management have increased to that level. The County
only has one attorney and three long range planners.
DCD also supplies staffing to the Planning Commission, the Fire Code Advisory Committee, Water
Utility Coordinating Council, Fire Code Services, and economic development and housing.
.
.
.
Al Scalf encouraged the Board to deliberate on the fee schedule while the public is present. He said that
staff is present to answer the Board's questions regarding the fees. There is no urgency for the fee schedule
to be approved immediately although the 2007 budget anticipates the revenue.
Commissioner Rodgers stated that he appreciates the suggested alternative for the $3,000 Hearing Examiner
fee but would like to delete it from the fee schedule and deal with it at future date. He is concerned that the
applicant pays even if the final decision is not in their favor. If the County makes permit approval too
difficult for people, they won't apply and will do the work anyway. Whatever the fee, it has to be seen as
fair by the community. These fees were made public at least a month ago.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that when he was on the Fee Review Advisory Board in 2001, it was very
difficult to be precise about permit fees because there are so many variables. The County has lost before,
and we need to be mindful of that. This hearing was advertised in the newspaper and there were press
releases. He was surprised that the proposed fee schedule wasn't on the website. He suggested that the fee
schedule be more detailed because it would help answer several people's questions. He agreed that the
Hearing Examiner fee could wait.
Chairman Johnson asked ifthere are other instances in the fee schedule that are similar to the fee range of
$51 to $153 for a propane tank installation? Fred Slota, Building Official, stated that if a propane tank is
being swapped out or changing suppliers, the fee would be $51. On average, people that are having propane
tanks installed are usually having appliances replaced. This means that the appliance has to be set up
according the manufacturer's specifications and the gas lines need to be inspected. It usually takes a
minimum of two inspections. This is the average amount. Chairman Johnson concurred with the other
Commissioners that the $3,000 Hearing Examiner fee is excessive.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 4,2006
Commissioner Rodgers questioned the basis for an "average" amount oftime to deal with each permit. He
stated that he doesn't agree with this premiss because an average is not the minimum. It is not clear to the
public exactly how much they will pay when they read the fee schedule. Commissioner Sullivan suggested
that if the fee is $51 an hour, that is how it needs to be approved. Commissioner Rodgers stated that
variables, such as the propane tank installation, should be reflected in detail on the fee schedule.
Commissioner Rodgers moved to delete the $3,000 Hearing Examiner fee (68) from the proposed fee
schedule until further study can be done. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
The Board directed that staffbreak the proposed fee schedule into more detailed categories that better reflect
the work that is involved. Al Scalf stated that they will schedule a workshop with the Board to review the
revised fee schedule on December 11.
Reappointments to the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee:
Commissioner Sullivan moved to reappoint Barbara McColgan Pastore, City of Port Townsend (term
expires September 8,2010), Sarah Spaeth, Land Trust (term expires October 14,2010), and Lige Christian,
Commissioner District 3 (term expires October 14,2010) to the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen
Oversight Committee. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rodgers moved to adjourn the meeting at
12:00 p.m. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The next
meeting is s~heduled for Monday, December 11, 2006 at 8 a.m.
..~.~T. y C,,;y;
I,r.
.. .. '
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BO OF COMMISSIONERS
... ~
'" .
11 Jon, Chair
1/.4~
David ~~ Memoer
'..
.., j '\ :-.- /
-.
r~C/flC
Julie Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Not in Office at Time of Approval
Patrick M. Rodgers, Member
Page 9
.
--~l ..--,
,,:'(': t.JC \j
j .--0.) "-f I tll
Page 1 of 3
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:05 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Propane Tank Permitting
From: Levi Ross[SMTP:MADRONAHOUSE@OLYMPUS.NET]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:05:04 PM
To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Pat Rodgers
Cc: levU@sunshinepropane.com
Subject: Propane Tank Permitting
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Gentlemen,
I read the Leader report of proposed fee increases for services at our DCD. Included appears to be a proposal to
increase permit application fees for installing propane tanks and some select propane appliances from $51 to
$153. The justification is that the review process takes up to three hours to evaluate and process each
application. This time is to be charged at a rate of $51/hr.
I don't have an argument with the DCD charging developers and builders to evaluate developments and
construction projects to assure compliance with zoning and building code requirements and charging for the time
taken, as long as the time is well spent and is necessary. However, I feel there is significant inconsistency in the
attermpt to categorize the installation of propane tanks and some select appliances as projects requiring
significant staff time to evaluate and process.
As you know, propane is a home heating fuel and competes in a market of heating fuel choices for consumers.
Oil tanks, wood piles and electric transformers are not subject to the same permitting application, review and
approval process. There are no fees for application to install oil tanks or electrical transformers. This produces
an unfair competitive advantage for oil and electric heat vs. propane heat, even when the total economic price of
the fuels is equivalent. I believe there is an argument here against 'restraint of trade' due to the differences in the
way the fuel choice tanks and distribution equipment is treated by the DCD.
Some may argue that propane should be more tightly regulated because of its danger as a flammable gas and
the potential for propane tanks to blow up. In fact, propane has a recorded history of safety in consumer
installations that is nearly twice as good compared to fuel oil and several times as safe as electricity as a home
heating fuel. There are also misconceptions held by undereducated consumers and decision makers evaluating
propane tanks as a source of explosive potential. The physics of propane as a fuel source are that it must be
mixed with air in a range of approximately 2% to 10% volume of propane in air to burn. Below this limit the
mixture is too lean to burn and above this limit it is too rich to burn. Since the propane in a tank is at a
concentration of 100%, with no air, it is impossible for it to burn or ignite. It must get out of the tank or the gas
piping system to become part of a flammable mixture. Once it is out of the tank, very specific mixture and
containment conditions must occur for the fuel to provide a combustible hazard. The clearance requirements and
location requirements specified in the code controlling propane tanks were developed to assure protection of
propane tanks from burning buildings or other materials and to allow adequate fire department access in the
event of a structure fire in proximity to a propane tank. They are not, in most cases, designed to protect a
structure from a burning propane tank. Propane tanks don't burn or explode.
Since propane tanks cannot be defined as structures and are equivalent in systemic terms to oil tanks, wood piles
and electrical transformers I don't believe DCD staff time should be used to attempt to evaluate the installation of
propane tanks beyond the compliance requirements in the codes controlling propane tank and appliance
12/4/2006
Page 2 of3
installations. These codes were adopted by Washington state as of July 2004. They are the NFPA 58 and NFPA
54. Compliance with these codes can easily be assessed by the inspector during a site visit. All of the
compliance details can be viewed and assessed in as little as 15 minutes, including an observed pressure test of
anyon-site gas piping.
Compliance with the NFPA 58 code covering propane tanks requires only that; they be set on masonry or nonw
combustible footings, be separated from property lines and important buildings according to tank size, other
nearby tanks and, that they be separated from sources of ignition or locations where escaping gas may be drawn
into structures. In flood plains, tanks must be anchored to prevent flotation during flooding. If DCD personnel are
consuming up to three hours making these determinations from a set of application and site drawing information,
someone is sandbagging the payroll department.
Code compliance in the state adopted documents don't even require separate permitting of propane tank
installations. I do feel that inspection of all propane installations is good for our industry and good for our
customers and does help assure a level of consumer safety. That is why we subscribe to the industry sponsored
program orf GAS system safety checks and send all our installers and project planners to GAS check training.
Customer safety is our number one product! Standardized documentation of company installations such as
produced in the GAS check program could provide as good or better evidence of code compliance than the
present DCD attempts at installation evaluation by planners and inspectors that are more adept at spotting
structural defects or zoning problems than they are at seeing the compliance details for propane tanks and
appliance installations.
I am suggesting that the simplest protocol for application to record evidence of propane tank installations be
allowed with a follow-up field inspection to document compliance details be followed. GAS Check documentation,
signed by the installing technician and customer could provide certification of installation details well beyond those
included in current DCD inspection protocol. Use of this legal document could allow the DCD process including
field inspection to be completed in one staff hour, or less, and only need to be charged for at the minimum rate of
$51.
A typical annual lease for a propane tank is $35 to $65. A permit application fee of $153 at 2 1/2 to 4 times the
customer cost for a tank lease seems wildly out of reason. Given my knowledge of tank inspection and
compliance assement needs, it is. Perhaps a survey of permit charges for installing propane tanks in all of the
counties similarly sized to Jefferson Co. be undertaken in the way personnel pay levels were researched. You
will find that this proposed fee is unprecedented.
I have certification as a trainer in both NFPA 58 and NFPA 54, the National Fire Protection Administration codes
and standards adopted by Washington State as the compliance documents covering propane tank and appliance
installations. I keep up with the current requirements and provide training and compliance support for our
installation crew. I offer to provide discussion and/or training for your DCD staff in propane basics, installation
details and inspecting for compliance to help improve the understanding of propane tank and appliance
installations. This may help further reduce the time needed by your staff for administrative review and field
inspections.
My goal is to have the DCD develop a more reasonable protocol for handling propane tank installations and
documentation requirements and spend less time, therefore fewer dollars in the process.
Call or respond to this e-mail for a further discussion of this issue.
Thank you and Warm regards,
Levi Ross
SUNSHINE PROPANE
10853 Rhody Drive
Port Hadlock, W A 98339
levi r@sunshinepropane.com
360-385-5797
12/4/2006
Page 3 of3
12/4/2006
LC.. : \)c'-b i~J ) LI/e, (.
4 Dee 2006
To the Board of Commissioners of
Jefferson County
State of Washington
For the record:
I write in opposition to DCD's request for raises in their fees. If what I read is true. It is
my opinion that the fees are illegal and should be discontinued at once!
Case in point: Washington State law (RCW 82.02.020) clearly states ""No county, city,
town or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee or charge, either direct or
indirect on development."
Furthermore in 2002, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Isla
Verde vs city ofCamas, (146 WN 2d 740), ""that this law should be interpreted according
to its plain meaning and that it should be strictly applied."
Therefore, I reiterate, strongly, --Your fees are illegal"! The question of fee raises should
be moot.
The question should be the dissolution of this welfare empire called ""Department of
Community Development". $51.00 an hour is almost criminal. How many tax payers in
this county make $51.00 an hour ?? Enough said!
Jack Guiher
536 50th Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Ph: 360-385-0867