Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091707 District No.1 Commissioner: Phil JOhDIOD District No.2 Commissioner: David W. SuWv... District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of September 17, 2007 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners David Sullivan and John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens. A citizen gave the Board a letter that he received from County Code Enforcement Officers regarding a complaint about his property; several people commented on the Washington State Supreme Court decision on a case in Skagit County that they think answers several questions about the Growth Management Act requirements regarding critical areas that can assist the Planning Commission in their review of the draft Critical Areas Ordinance; several people commented that the Clean Water District Plan doesn't address saltwater pollution from seals in Hood Canal and stormwaterrunofffrom waterfront homes and the City of Port Townsend; the Clean Water District fees would help pay for stream monitoring data; two people asked the Board to continue to support the Puget Sound Action Area boundaries in their talks with the Puget Sound Partnership; and a comment was made about action that the Board took after an executive session. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to delete Items #2 and #3 and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. HEARING NOTICE re: 2008 Jefferson County Budget; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, October 1, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 2. DELETE AGREEMENT re: Hood Canal Clean Water Project #G0800055; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 3. DELETE AGREEMENT re: Discovery Bay Clean Water Project #G0800056; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology (Approved Later in Minutes) 4. AGREEMENT, Amendment No.3 re: Supported Employment for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington Initiative for Supported Employment (WISE) 5. AGREEMENT re: Funding for Chemical Dependency Program; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Office of Financial Management 6. Recommendation to Award Contract For Moderate Risk Waste Transportation and Disposal Services; Solid Waste Project 40107550; Philip Services Corporation Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 17, 2007 7. Payment of Jefferson County VoucherslWarrants Dated September 10, 2007 Totaling $581,832.58 and Dated September 12, 2007 Totaling $2,628.41 8. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated September 5,2007 Totaling $749,686.22 and AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated September 6, 2007 Totaling $591,373.16 and September 11, 2007 Totaling $137,497.13 9. Advisory Board Resignation; Jefferson County Ferry Advisory Committee; Lewis P. Hanke APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the minutes of August 27,2007. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: Chairman Johnson reported on his trip to Washington DC to lobby for re-authorization of Secure Rural Schools Funding. Commissioner Sullivan reported on the meeting regarding the proposed Puget Sound Partnership boundaries. HEARING re: Proposed Clean Water District Ordinance: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing in the Superior Courtroom. Approximately 107 interested citizens were present. He noted that the room was over capacity by approximately 20 people and asked if some of them would wait outside the door to allow the hearing to continue. Deputy Director of Public Health Mike McNickle reported that the Board asked Staff to develop a comprehensive water quality plan and a draft ordinance for a proposed Clean Water District. Neil Harrington, Environmental Health Manager, explained that this plan was developed to remedy existing water quality problems and prevent future problems. The four point plan includes monitoring fresh and marine waters, pollution identification and correction, a septic system operation and maintenance program, and WSU water quality outreach and education. The overall budget is approximately $500,000:10% to outreach and education, 28% to the Conservation District for pollution identification and correction activities and monitoring, and 62% to Public Health. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the meeting. Dick Bergeron, Brinnon, stated that many constituents think that the overall process for the creation of the Clean Water District is flawed, the Port Townsend City Council has spoken out against City residents participation, and editorials in The Leader suggest that the County needs to slow down. The only crisis is the State's order to do something with 50 acres of polluted shellfish beds in Discovery Bay. He asked the Board to listen to the people. Septic systems are not failing. Hood Canal in Jefferson County is healthy. Most of the water in the County is clean and work should be done to document this fact. He asked the Board to slow down and work with constituents to formulate a process that is effective and affordable. John Boulton, Quilcene, agreed with the previous speaker. He said that the process is going too fast. The fee per parcel for funding the Clean Water District is out of line. A different system should be used to fund it. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 17, 2007 David Goldman, Port Townsend, stated that the method that the Commissioners have chosen to address the water quality issue is a bad idea. He said that the citizens of the County trust the Board to address this problem and come up with a better solution. The water pollution in Discovery Bay is a narrow problem. Proposing an $18 fee on all parcels in the County is the most regressive option the Board could have chosen. City residents are already paying sewage treatment fees. At the City Council meeting, the Commissioners said that this is a regional problem and City residents are included because everyone enjoys clean water which needs to be protected. Using banked tax capacity would be the least regressive option. He suggested that the County create and concentrate on a Discovery Bay Shellfish Protection District. The Commissioners have said that other areas throughout the County will be affected in the future and therefore a comprehensive plan is necessary. None of the problems that the Commissioners have dealt with in the past have found a permanent solution and these issues will continue as time goes by. A worldwide [mancial crisis is coming and when it hits Jefferson County, the Board will need to rely on their ability to solve problems creatively. RCW 90.72 states that if the County legislative authority creates a shellfish protection district by its own motion, any registered voter residing within the district's boundaries may file a referendum petition to repeal the ordinance that created the district. This would be a disaster and the citizens would lose confidence in the Commissioners. He asked the Board to choose the least regressive option available. Orville Fisk, Quilcene, suggested that the County check the water monitor that is located in rotted mud at Discovery Bay. Victoria dumps their sewage into the Strait and the tide brings it into Sequim and it could come all the way into Discovery Bay. He is opposed to the Clean Water District. Barbara Fisk, Quilcene, suggested that the Board look at other funding sources for the Clean Water District such as the Puget Sound Partnership. Jefferson County residents shouldn't have to fund it. New businesses that could bring in added revenue are discouraged in the County. Revenue goes out of the County because people don't shop locally, they go to Sequim and Kitsap County. The proposed parcel fee is an unfair tax on property owners. If this goes through, everyone in the County should refuse to pay their property taxes for three years. The County needs property tax revenue. There is a DNA test that would show the source of the pollution in Discovery Bay. If a septic system is failing, the homeowner knows it. She asked the Board not to push this ordinance through when most of the County residents don't want it. Bill Wheeler, Quilcene, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.) Chairman Johnson stated that the Courtroom was over capacity again. The. Fire Marshall announced that people would have to leave the room. A few people went into the hallway, but the majority of the audience indicated that they wanted to hear the testimony. The Fire Marshall announced that there were 17 people over capacity. The Chair stated that the public hearing would have to be rescheduled. . Commissioner Sullivan asked that the audience cooperate in order to allow the public hearing to continue. He noted that there is a deadline on getting the parcel fee on the tax statements for 2008. He asked Treasurer Judi Morris how much time the Board has to make a decision before the fee on the tax statement is no longer an option? Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 17, 2007 Treasurer Judi Morris stated that she has been involved in the Clean Water District process for the past six weeks. There are severe time constraints in order to have the fee on the 2008 tax bill. The fee has to fit within the parameters of the software system and it has to be a very simplistic plan. In her estimation, a more appropriate way to handle this would be to look at more applicable funding and not putthe burden on the taxpayers. The only time constraint that applies is to have the fee per parcel passed by October 1. She is not advocating that. She would prefer that the hearing be held over, and a more appropriate funding source be found for the Clean Water District. Commissioner Sullivan explained that using the banked capacity is raising property taxes. The bank capacity would be approximately $36 on an average house assessed at $275,000. The Board discussed rescheduling the public hearing and the proper notice. Commissioner Austin commented that one reason for forming a Clean Water District is that it would allow the County to get significant grant funding from the State. He explained that this returns tax dollars that have already been paid, back to the County. Commissioner Sullivan encouraged public cooperation in order to continue the public hearing. He suggested that people rotate through the room to give their testimony. The majority of the audience responded negatively. Commissioner Sullivan then moved to adjourn the public hearing and reconvene with proper notice to another date and a larger venue. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. County Administrator Briefing Session: The following items were discussed during the briefing. · Request from the Jefferson County Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault to display an exhibit on the front lawn of the Courthouse on October 12. · The USDA has requested a meeting with the Board to discuss rural development programs. · The Clallam County Commissioners/JeffersoIl County Commissioners meeting is scheduled for September 24 at the Clallam County Courthouse. · Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Update. · Staff is continuing to research the internet video for the Commissioners' Chambers. · There have been issues raised regarding conflicts of interest for Planning Commission members. · HEARING NOTICE re: Continuation of Clean Water District Hearing: A new venue has been reserved to continue the public hearing on the Clean Water District. Commissioner Sullivan moved to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Company A at the Commons at Fort Worden and have the Chair sign the hearing notice. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez noted that this will be a special meeting of the Board. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 17, 2007 · NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE re: Continuation of Clean Water District Hearing: (To be posted on the Superior Courtroom bulletin board) Commissioner Austin moved to authorize Chairman Johnson to sign a notice of continuance for the proposed Clean Water District Ordinance public hearing to Wednesday, September 26,2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Company A at the Commons at Fort Worden. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. · Alternative funding for the Clean Water Grants from Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). · Discovery Bay Clean Water Project #G0800056; Washington State Department of Ecology: (Item #3 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Discovery Bay Clean Water Project Grant from the DOE. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. · Letter of Support for City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County's Submittal of Growth Management (GMA) Planning Grant: Director of Community Development Al Scalf stated that the department is in support of this project. Commissioner Austin moved to have Chairman Johnson sign the letter to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) in support of the planning grant. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. · Alternate funding for match for Hood Canal Clean Water Project Grant. · Preliminary 2008 budget update. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:19 p.m. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ~~ .... JEFFERSON COUNTY BO~SSIONERS Phil JOhnS~ DaM~~ :J/ e> "1. .. ..., . ." ~- 'ffi ~7f~1 erne Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board .~ J hn ustm, Member Page 5 JEFFERSON CO-UNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: Pro osed Clean Water District DATE: Monda, September 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: Superior Courtroom NAt4E (Please Print) I:::- "\...J a. J""l c~ I ,.- ~ / b L-f1{tf~-M r; STREET ADDRESS ?-- 7/ r-t C 2 Iff ~~l ~. 1/20 C~...Pr OJ / ro Jl} Si 3 j IV thiV Lf :1 <) ~ r--V'J' ( L11D (){fJ:/GU 4- leD J ~ v;1le/~1U. f- CITY y, /. II f3:LL. PF'-wt: /-f'.A )3 3 FI}:/f/l1o Ll.. ~ ;1(1 ,'''') t /5R / )v lYe/V Ct.l, /((~,,~ prk;Q..) IJ:) [/.....' V Testimony? yes NO MAYBE ~DD r:&DD DDD DD~ D~D ~DD D 0D ErDD rrDD D~D D ta'D DDD DDD DDD D~D D~D JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Clean Water District DATE: Monda, September 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY 111 Cl t 2.t? \). I" \c ~ :::::> A// /-...,J.- C ''(""""I e IS .!S yIR. o ~~ A5 L- jc V l'"' ~J (? -I :lC. ~ ? / c.-lJ J<<-l AC-vtl\ ,0 /" ?::\ , Testimony? YES NO MAYBE D D G- DGD DDD DD~ DDD GDD DD[1j DDg DDD ErDD DDB' DD DDD DDD DDD DDD t ,,"<C, JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Pro osed Clean Water District DATE: Monda, September 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: Superior Courtroom ST~~'V ADJfRESS / J /:" ,//tIX 22(./ 270 !2I1OL~d.'#/~7YrJ :s 1 ~+a. f~",- ~C/...L~ Lt' CIT)) . , ' :, ' . / / t! '1 dO' ~ \ 1./ ,- L- r ?(tll)'~ j-- ,..... I I \, '3 i.fII) t) tI k -1503 old #Jt:r/k P.T pr 7 t rr Pr -'I ! . Of ~J LJD jJ T1LJ/f>!-7{( 77l #t.f ~ff/J 7/ ? - 2C;; r< yyr ?/L vr . . estimony? YES NO MAYBE ~D Do D~D D [&D D ~D I>> D Do ~ D Dc ~DD D ftJ D DMD D~D D~D D~D DDD I&-DD ~DD DDD ~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Pro osed Clean Water District DATE: Monda, September 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY f /-A/l/lY C ~RI!A~A- (JLES 91 ;I~~M5 j\./3/6 Ce... +< f'ull/x tie.; j?~ ~ L ""t..bCU CY3)G ~. / A 'i 1"\ ,1 r'J, f 0 Uk~ 6J1R:/l1 ItD 3e.:.?lTvt( '/0l/()d"SJr, 8rrh ~ 6 ~ fIr d--r- Vi 0 C-o f~e ('" -" ~) vf) \ V\ '\jb ), ( ( I ( ( I ~!5 t:7f2.. ~./~ ,. $.4 3-, )/VA./C .-v' Testimony? YES NO MAYBE DD~ DD~ DD~ IaD D~D ~DD DD~ D D cg.. ~DD DDD ~D ~D DDD RJD ~DD ~DD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Clean Water District DATE: Monday, September 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ad ~ D ~DD ~DD 'T DR] D r ~DD LA... \-cl \ \/'--~ ~ D 81J .1-, D 0"D 17, DDD DDD D$JD D 0D DDD _D[l DDD DDD DDD I .~~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearino re: Proposed Clean Water District DATE: Mondav, September 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ l?D~;;<.;2S ~ ..r \ -.............~--"o OE- o eo r ~ ~? <::.J/-.a.\ 0 II)M.lU ct.lf/~~~ 5/5 [)P{}2~{Lt'Z Y t;:'?t D O~ ~ q II { 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 0 00 nnn Puge 1 of] Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, August 31,2007 10:24 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Clean Water District From: John Fischbach Sent: Friday, August 31,200710:24:12 AM To: 'David Timmons'; 'David Timmons' Cc: John Fischbach; John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Mike McNickle; Neil Harrington; David Alvarez; Jean Baldwin; Julie Matthes; Leslie Locke; Erin Lundgren Subject: Clean Water District Auto forwarded by a Rule David, here are the answers from our staff to your questions: I 1) In total, we planned on hiring 3 FTE: two new EHSs (1 for Hood Canal and 1 for Disco Bay) and one Permit Tech (for the front counter and the O&M program). We would have done this even if the CWD was not created. 2) In asking City staff about the CWD, it was clear that the stormwater fees they receive are used for stormwater infrastructure, sewer work, upkeep, etc. and were not for any of the things we were planning to do. Since they do not have large number of on-site sewage systems to do O&M on, no stream/creeks to monitor, and few "open" shellfishing areas, it appeared to be a non-starter to ask the City to develop a similar program when they did not have the same issues that the County has to deal with at this time. Also, it was our understanding from the law, that they would be exempted from the fee if there were duplication in programs (i.e., outreach/education). As I stated in the joint City Council/County meeting, City staff informed me that there was NO duplication in what we planned in the CWD and what the City does with their stormwater fees. Finally, as part of the legal review, it was my understanding that it was "advised" in the RCW that the County inform and advise the City what was going on with a CWD --- but not to "request" that they provide similar programs. To ask if the City wanted to provide a program such as the CWD never crossed our minds. Of course, if the City wishes to create a CWD on their own, and provide the 4 Elements outlined in the Water Quality Improvement Plan, then the CWD would have duplicative services and the County could not charge a fee based on the RCW. Let me know if you have other questions. John From: David Timmons [mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:29 AM To: John Fischbach Cc: City Council; John Watts Subject: RE: Clean Water District John, 8/31/2007 ~" Page 2 of3 Two questions; The funding pages showed a majority of money covering staffing. How much is allocated between for existing and new staff? Also the law allows the city to be exempted if it agrees to provide an equivalent program. Why was this not offered to the city before this came forward? David From: John Fischbach [mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30,20075:14 PM To: David Timmons Subject: RE: Clean Water District We will be there. Thanks. John From: David Timmons [mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:37 PM To: John Fischbach Subject: RE: Clean Water District Our meeting starts a 6:30 so i suggest then and if we need to we can amend the agenda to address this upfront. From: John Fischbach [mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:30 AM To: David Timmons Subject: Clean Water District What time do you want us there? John Thanks, David. I'll let you know. John From: David Timmons [mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:55 AM To: John Fischbach Subject: RE: Clean Water District Yes, sorry about that! From: John Fischbach [mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:31 AM To: David Timmons Subject: RE: Clean Water District Do you mean Tuesday due to the holiday? 8/31/2007 Page 3 of3 John From: David Timmons [mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10: 13 AM To: John Fischbach Cc: City Council; John Watts; Pam Kolacy Subject: Clean Water District John, Is it possible to have County staff attend City Council's Monday meeting to answer any questions regarding this proposal? You and the Commissioners are also invited as well. The Council is planning to discuss this as soon as possible so Monday is the first opportunity for them. Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks, David Timmons City Manager City of Port Townsend 250 Madison Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-5043 Office 360-385-4290 Fax 360-531-0066 Cell Dttmmon~@"GilYofpl1J~ Email www.cityofpt.us Web Site 8/31/2007 Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Phil Johnson Wednesday, September 05,20071:19 PM Leslie Locke FW: West End Tax Parcels }~, . ~~ !1' ~"-f-~~ , .'-$\ ~ .~~~/;Y,~ ! Attachments: Clean Water Proposal Data-WestEnd Only.xls From: John Fischbach Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1: 19: 17 PM To: Mike McNickle; John Austin; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Jean Baldwin Subject: West End Tax Parcels Auto forwarded by a Rule FYI John John, Here is the West End data for the proposed clean water district that was requested. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Clean Water )osal Data-We Thank you, Pat Pat Perrryman P. 0. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9365 or (360) 385-9222 e-mail pperrvman@co.iefferson.wa.us 1 West End Data Parcel Count **** Parcels in Tax Districts of the West End 2143 **** Parcels That are Taxable (including special program people ie Senior Program and Timber Program) 1072 **** Parcels in the Timber Program 426 **** Parcels with ownership in Senior Program 7 ********* Total Parcels Taxable Not in Senior nor Tir 639 ***** All Parcels with Improvements - No Senior nor 195 r_ Page 1 of3 Miranda Schryver From: Norman Macleod [gaelwolf@waypt.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05,20079:28 AM To: Miranda Schryver; citycouncil@cityofpt.us Cc: Mike McNickle Subject: A funding option for CWO? ~~. r, rJ'", As I've noted in public comment, I feel that the rush to assess a per-parcel fee in order to have the CWO in place in time for the fee to be placed on the 2008 tax bills is unwise policy because it institutes a deeply regressive funding mechanism. I don't feel that enough time has been spent in "fleshing out" the plan, and that, if this is considered to be a more urgent need than the sheriffs request for additional deputies, the initial year's funding should come from the county's banked capacity, and that funding from 2009 onward should come from the near- certain annual 1 % property tax increase. This would allow for the development of a more cost- effective approach to water quality monitoring. I want to be perfectly clear in noting that I believe we need a more thorough baseline assessment of our surface water quality for any number of reasons. However, I do not believe that any monitoring program should be rushed into place without careful consideration of program quality and how to take a holistic approach that will accurately characterize any water quality challenges that exist in the county, including verification of the source(s) of water quality degradations. Cost containment is an important aspect for this type of program, particularly in a county that is as economically challenged as Jefferson County. We need to explore the expansion of volunteer monitoring programs, and should consider bolstering programs such as Water Watchers with the assistance of the Citizen Monitoring Program offered by the US EPA. Another potential source of funding came to my attention this morning. The Department of Ecology has money to spend on water quality issues, and I have no doubt that the CWO would be an easy qualifier for this particular grant. If our taxpayers have already paid this money into the state, then why shouldn't we try to get some of this applied to the needs of the CWO? Norm Macleod -----Original Message----- From: Campbell, Karen (ECY) [mailto:KCAM461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, September 05,20078:17 AM To: ECOlOGY-NEWS@L1STSERV.WA.GOV Subject: Ecology News Release: local governments can tap Ecology funds to help protect Puget Sound FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Sep. 5, 2007 07 -252 Local governments can tap Ecology funds to help protect Puget Sound OLYMPIA - A new state program offers $2.5 million to help local governments in the 12 Puget Sound counties conduct small business 9/5/2007 technical assistance to reduce and prevent water pollution. Nearly 70 percent of the state's the hazardous waste generators are in the Puget Sound region - thousands of small businesses. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) has invited local governments to submit funding proposals under a partnership established this year by the Legislature to aid Puget Sound. The program provides funding for local governments to hire "local source control specialists" in the Puget Sound region. Source control assistance will help businesses control, reduce or eliminate toxic pollution sources. Priorities include reducing pollutants that reach Puget Sound from toxic cleanup sites, storm water sources, or waste generation. Ecology expects to award eight to 12 "partnership agreements," ranging from $200,000 to $400,000 through June, 2009, depending on the response and available funds. Local governments help small businesses and citizens safely manage hazardous and solid wastes. Source control specialists will work in partnership with Ecology to visit small businesses and provide technical assistance services intended to control pollution at its source. Ecology will award contracts based on its evaluation of letters of interest and proposals from local governments. These materials are due by Oct. 29, 2007. Ecology expects to finalize partnership agreements in November. ### Media contacts: Patricia "Chipper" Hervieux, acting local source control coordinator, 360-407-6756 Larry Altose, public information officer, 425-649-7009 For more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/lsp/index.html Broadcast version The Department of Ecology is offering two-poi nt-five million dollars to local governments to help protect Puget Sound. The funds would pay for local source-control specialists to assist small businesses in the 12 Puget Sound counties curb water pollution. Counties or cities would hire the specialists to bolster existing local programs that help small businesses and citizens safely manage hazardous and solid wastes. Priorities include reducing pollutants that reach Puget Sound from toxic cleanup sites, storm water sources, or waste generation. 9/5/2007 Page 2 0[3 Page 3 of3 Office of Communication and Education Ecology's Home Page: bttJrllwww.ecy.wa.gov To unsubscribe to Econews, point your browser to I1ttP:lllist~erv.wa-"gQv/cgi-binlwa?SUJ3ED1 =eco~llews&A=J , or send a "SIGNOFF ECONEWS" command to L1STSERV@L1STSERV.WA.GOV 9/5/2007 Page I of 3 ... ~- ^- Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, August 31,200710:50 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Clean Water District t'\-.., t. ~ : f From: David Timmons[SMTP:DTIMMONS@CITYOFPT.US] Sent: Friday, August 31,2007 10:48:08 AM To: John Fischbach Cc: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Mike McNickle; Neil Harrington; David Alvarez; Jean Baldwin; Julie Matthes; Leslie Locke; Erin Lundgren Subject: RE: Clean Water District Auto forwarded by a Rule Thanks John, That's alii need for now. David From: John Fischbach [mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:24 AM To: David Timmons; David Timmons Cc: John Fischbach; John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Mike McNickle; Neil Harrington; David Alvarez; Jean Baldwin; Julie Matthes; Leslie Locke; Erin Lundgren Subject: Clean Water District David, here are the answers from our staff to your questions: 1) In total, we planned on hiring 3 FTE: two new EHSs (1 for Hood Canal and 1 for Disco Bay) and one Permit Tech (for the front counter and the O&M program). We would have done this even if the CWD was not created. 2) In asking City staff about the CWD, it was clear that the stormwater fees they receive are used for stormwater infrastructure, sewer work, upkeep, etc. and were not for any of the things we were planning to do. Since they do not have large number of on-site sewage systems to do O&M on, no stream/creeks to monitor, and few "open" shellfishing areas, it appeared to be a non-starter to ask the City to develop a similar program when they did not have the same issues that the County has to deal with at this time. Also, it was our understanding from the law, that they would be exempted from the fee if there were duplication in programs (i.e., outreach/education). As I stated in the joint City Council/County meeting, City staff informed me that there was NO duplication in what we planned in the CWD and what the City does with their stormwater fees. Finally, as part of the legal review, it was my understanding that it was "advised" in the RCW that the County inform and advise the City what was going on with a CWD --- but not to "request" that they provide similar programs. To ask if the City wanted to provide a program such as the CWD never crossed our minds. Of course, if the City wishes to create a CWD on their own, and provide the 4 Elements outlined in the Water Quality Improvement Plan, then the CWD would have duplicative services and the County could not charge a fee based on the RCW. 8/31/2007 Page 2 of3 Let me know if you have other questions. John From: David Timmons [mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:29 AM To: John Fischbach Cc: City Council; John Watts Subject: RE: Clean Water District John, Two questions; The funding pages showed a majority of money covering staffing. How much is allocated between for existing and new staff? Also the law allows the city to be exempted if it agrees to provide an equivalent program. Why was this not offered to the city before this came forward? David From: John Fischbach [mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:14 PM To: David Timmons Subject: RE: Clean Water District We will be there. Thanks. John From: David Timmons [mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:37 PM To: John Fischbach Subject: RE: Clean Water District Our meeting starts a 6:30 so i suggest then and if we need to we can amend the agenda to address this upfront. From: John Fischbach [mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:30 AM To: David Timmons Subject: Clean Water District What time do you want us there? John Thanks, David. I'll let you know. John 8/3112007 Page 3 of3 From: David Timmons (mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:55 AM To: John Fischbach Subject: RE: Clean Water District Yes, sorry about that! From: John Fischbach (mailto:jfischbach@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:31 AM To: David Timmons Subject: RE: Clean Water District Do you mean Tuesday due to the holiday? John From: David Timmons (mailto:dtimmons@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10: 13 AM To: John Fischbach Cc: City Council; John Watts; Pam Kolacy Subject: Clean Water District John, Is it possible to have County staff attend City Council's Monday meeting to answer any questions regarding this proposal? You and the Commissioners are also invited as well. The Council is planning to discuss this as soon as possible so Monday is the first opportunity for them. Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks, David Timmons City Manager City of Port Townsend 250 Madison Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-5043 Office 360-385-4290 Fax 360-531-0066 Cell Dtimmons@cityofpt.us Email www.cityofpt.us Web Site 8/31/2007 Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 05,20079:37 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: thank you >:>~~. J .''1# ~j.,~tc l ~ ! I , ' From: Ann Candioto[SMTP:ANNCANDI@CABLESPEED.COM] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:36:35 PM To: John Austin Cc: Commissioner David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Subject: thank you Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioner Austin, I am writing to thank you for your position on the City Council/County Commissioners vs the Navy issue. I am weary of the childish antics of some of our citizens and the posturing they do in relation to this local military facility. Nothing the Navy can ever say or do will be good enough for these folks with their air of superior morality and wisdom. Let the Navy get back to their mission and let our local governing bodies spend their valuable time on local issues! I commend your political courage in not pandering to this very loud and pushy minority - I only wish your fellow commissioners had the same guts. Second, I also appreciate your comment on the issue of free dumping of yard waste. I think there are several community goods served by it. First, I am struck by how often I hear people of varying ages, classes, working or retired, newcomers and old timers praise the concept. People actually smile and express all sorts of positive feelings about "our dump". I am hard pressed to think of any other local government service with the same good rep. Sadly, I also know that some of that material now going to the compost facility will wind up dumped on beaches, over cliffs, and down lonely roads. Surely we can afford to absorb the cost of this highly valued service and count the money well spent. Third and last, I am disturbed by the rush to create the proposed water district. I see it as another costly level of inefficient bureaucracy. We already have means of addressing these concerns - see the excellent letter in today's Leader by Georgette Semmick. You are also the only one of the Commissioners who has acknowledged my past email - I am not sure the others can even be troubled to read it. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Ann Candioto 9/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 -"'",- Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:56 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Clean Water District & Letter from City of PT Attachments: SKAGIT CWD CODE SEC 6-68.pdf; FinalMayorLetter.0911 07.doc From: David Alvarez Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:56:11 AM To: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Allen Sartin; Jack Westerman; Judi Morris Cc: Jean Baldwin; Mike McNickle; Neil Harrington; Lorna Delaney; Erin Lundgren; Julie Matthes; Pat Perryman; Sherrie Shold Subject: Clean Water District & Letter from City of PT Auto forwarded by a Rule NOT CONFIDENTIAL Commissioners and colleagues: On Wednesday the 12th (today) the BoCC received a letter from the City of Port Townsend asking that the City be excluded from the Clean Water District that the BoCC is going to consider on September 17th. The letter is attached. The City believes there are procedural deficiencies in what has been done so far and has a substantive problem, among them that City residents already are paying for other programs that create and promote clean water and that septic systems and non-point pollution sources are not problems the city faces. As a possible alternative to the per parcel fee of $18 the City (in its letter) points to the Skagit County model which relates the fee to impervious surface rather than parcels. A copy of that Skagit County CWD Code is also attached for your review. I have sent this e-mail to the Assessor and two of his staff members because it would be interesting to know if the Assessor can determine which parcels have impervious surfaces and which don't. Note that vacant parcels and land under the Assessor's "Open Space, Open Space" program are not charged a CWD fee in Skagit County. How the County Commissioners want to raise the money and who, if anyone, they exempt from paying a CWD fee is, in most cases, entirely a policy decision, although certain lands forest lands under RCW 84.33 and open space timber lands under RCW 84.34 must be exempt from CWD fees in order to comply with state law. David Alvarez. Ext. 219 9/12/2007 Sections: 6.68.010 6.68.020 6.68.030 6.68.040 6.68.050 6.68.060 6.68.070 6.68.080 6.68.090 6.68.100 6.68.11 0 6.68.120 6.68.130 6.68.140 6.68.150 6.68.160 Chapter 6.68 CLEAN WATER (SHELLFISH PROTECTION) DISTRICT Established. Activities to be conducted throughout County. Purpose. Definitions. Program creation and authority. CWP elements. Administration. Program coordination. Program budget and funding. CWP revenue deposits. Billing. Appeals pertaining to rates and service charges. Right of entry. Effective date. Liability. Severability. 6.68.010 Established. Pursuant to RCW 90.72.045 there is hereby established a shellfish protection district, which shall be called the Skagit County Clean Water District (District). The boundaries of said District shall include the unincorporated areas of Skagit County. (Ord. 020050014 (part): Ord. 15708 ~ 1, 1995) 6.68.020 Activities to be conducted throughout County. The District shall conduct its activities throughout unincorporated Skagit County due to the pervasive nature of non-point sources of pollution affecting the water quality within shellfish growing areas. (Ord. 020050014 (part): Ord. 15708 ~ 2, 1995) 6.68.030 Purpose. The purpose of the District is to accomplish the mandates of Chapter 90.72 RCW to protect and improve the water quality in shellfish growing areas. This will include, but not be limited to, establishing programs and projects to reduce non-point pollution threatening surface water quality in Skagit County. (Ord. 020050014 (part): Ord. 15708 ~ 3, 1995) 6.68.040 Definitions. This Chapter contains technical and common County terms that are used in chapters found throughout SCC Titles 6, 12 and 14, and unless otherwise noted their meaning shall be consistent with their meaning/definition as used elsewhere in this code. (1) "Average impervious surface square footage" calculations for single-family residences (three thousand six hundred ninety-two (3,692) square feet) and multifamily residences (four thousand five hundred fifty (4,550) square feet) were determined by a statistically significant random survey of existing single-family and multifamily residential properties. (2) "Director" shall mean the Director of the Department of Public Works or his or her designee. (3) "Impervious surfaces" shall mean hard-surfaced areas which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil mantle and/or cause water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than under natural conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, concrete or asphalt roads, sidewalks and paving, walkways, patio areas, driveways, parking lots or storage areas and gravel, hard-packed dirt, oiled or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of surface water or runoff patterns existent prior to development. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.050 Program creation and authority. Skagit County, pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW and this Chapter, hereby creates a clean water program (CWP) to implement a comprehensive, Countywide water quality plan. The CWP shall be administered by the Skagit County Department of Public Works, who shall have the authority, subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners, to exercise all lawful powers necessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals of Chapter 90.72 RCW, the watershed action plans, and to implement the program elements and goals of the CWP. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.060 CWP elements. (1) While the overall CWP shall be administered by the Public Works Department, the following program elements may be performed and managed by other entities as established by the enabling budget resolution: (a) Implement the water quality monitoring, habitat monitoring and adaptive management requirements in SCC 14.24.120, Ongoing agriculture; support the Skagit County Marine Resource Committee; support the Lake Management Districts; provide funding for habitat restoration projects including acquisition of property and/or conservation easements and development rights; provide support to assist the State Department of Ecology and/or the Skagit County Health Department gather and analyze data to address water quality concerns and develop and implement feasible solutions to those concerns; and construct and operate water pollution control facilities. Develop a comprehensive, coordinated stormwater, flood control, water quality program in partnership with local cities, towns, and special purpose districts. (b) Support the on-site sewage program and the on- site sewage operation and maintenance program found in Chapter 12.05 SCC and mandated by State regulations. Investigate alleged violations of the water quality standards of the Do No Harm provisions found in the critical areas ordinance (SCC 14.24.120). (c) Mapping support services for the CWP including updated aerial photography including LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), and other geographic information products. (d) Update regulations and perform compliance activities related to the critical areas ordinance (Chapter 14.24 SCC). (e) Provide technical support and possible financing assistance for property owners needing to implement best management practices (BMPs) as necessary to meet the critical areas ordinance (Chapter 14.24 SCe) and the CWP. (t) Support local and regional nonprofit organizations and other entities whose purpose is to educate the public, implement watershed action plan recommendations, and to protect and restore habitat in order to improve the functionality and health of the Skagit County watersheds. (2) All entities receiving support from the CWP shall submit an annual work plan and a progress report to the Director of the Department of Public Works by July 1 st of each year. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.070 Administration. The CWP shall be administered by the Department of Public Works. The Director shall have the authority to implement the program as defined in this Chapter. No provision of this Chapter shall prevent municipalities, County agencies, departments, or special districts from adopting, administering, or enforcing other ordinances and regulations to protect water quality. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.080 Program coordination. The Department of Public Works may coordinate the CWP and services by forming interlocal or operating agreements with other departments, governmental entities, or special districts in order to achieve a comprehensive approach to surface water management. The Department of Public Works shall endeavor to eliminate or reduce duplication and to achieve the maximum program benefit in the most efficient manner. The Director shall submit an operating plan, budget, and an annual report to the County Commissioners for review and approval as part of the annual County budget process. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.090 Program budget and funding. (1) The Board of County Commissioners shall establish by separate resolution a CWP budget and rates and charges for all real property within unincorporated Skagit County according to the land use classification and impervious surface area of each property described as follows in this Section: Class of Property/Basis of Charge. (a) Parcels containing a single-family residence (including an accessory dwelling unit) shall be charged based on average impervious surface square footage. (b) Parcels containing a duplex, a triplex, or a fourplex multifamily housing unit shall be charged based on average impervious surface square footage. (c) Parcels containing greater than four (4) multiple- family housing units (including apartments and hotels) shall be charged based on their actual impervious surface square footage. (d) Parcels containing commercial, industrial, and/or institutional uses shall be charged based on their actual impervious surface square footage. (e) County roads shall be charged based on their impervious surface square footage. (f) State highways shall be charged based on their impervious surface square footage. (2) Special Classifications. The following special categories of property, facilities and activities are exempt from CWP rates and charges: (a) Federal and Tribal lands owned within the County. (b) Waterways (including all parcels consisting entirely of tidelands, riparian rights-of-way, lakes, and/or streams). (c) Activities, facilities and lands not subject to fees, rates, or charges contained in State law (RCW 90.72.070) including lands classified as forest land under Chapter 84.33 RCW and/or classified as open space timber land under Chapter 84.34 RCW. (d) In keeping with the intent of State law, Chapter 84.34 RCW, to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food and fiber, and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well- being of the State and its citizens, bare or unimproved land shall not be subject to rates and charges by this CWP. (e) All parcels consisting of oyster tracts, marine moorage condos, and taxable parcel accounts with no assessed value. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.100 CWP revenue deposits. All fees and charges imposed herein shall be placed in a revenue fund for the purpose of paying all, or any part of, the expenses related to the administration and the implementation of the activities, programs, and projects identified in the CWP elements (SCC 6.68.060) and associated resolution establishing the CWP budget and program rates and charges. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.110 Billing. (I) All property subject to rates and service charges pursuant to this Chapter shall be assessed annually. Billing statements shall be included on the annual property tax statements and collected by the County Treasurer consistent with Chapter 84.56 RCW. (2) The Director, the Skagit County Assessor, and the Skagit County Treasurer are hereby authorized to establish all administrative procedures necessary to implement the provisions of this Section. (3) The Department of Public Works and any participating municipality, agency, department, or special districts may solicit additional funds through grants or other sources of funding, if available, to supplement program funding. (4) All service charges billed and fees collected shall be deposited in a revenue fund consistent with SCC 6.68.100. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.120 Appeals pertaining to rates and service charges. (I) Any person receiving a billing statement for the CWP and making a timely payment thereof may apply to the Director for a rate adjustment. (2) The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show that the rate adjustment sought should be granted. Decisions of the Director on requests for rate adjustments shall be in writing and shall be final unless appealed by the applicant to the Superior Court of Skagit County by writ of certiorari within thirty (30) days of the notice of decision. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.130 Right of entry. Whenever necessary to examine the property characteristics of a particular parcel for the purposes of implementing this Chapter, the Director may enter any property at reasonable times in compliance with the following procedures: (1) If such property is occupied, the Director shall present identification credentials, state the reason for entry, and request entry. (2) If such property is unoccupied, the Director shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the property and request entry. (3) Unless entry is consented to by the owner or person in control of any property, the Director, prior to entry, shall obtain a search warrant as authorized by the laws of the State of Washington. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.140 Effective date. The ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be effective upon proper passage by the Skagit County Board of Commissioners. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.150 Liability. Administration of this Chapter shall not be construed to create the basis for any liability on the part of the County, its appointed elected officials, and employees while working within the scope of their duties, for any action or inaction thereof authorized or done in connection with the implementation of this Chapter. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) 6.68.160 Severability. If any provision of this Chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remainder of this Chapter or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. (Ord. 020050014 (part)) ~ City of Port Townsend Office of the City Council 250 Madison Street, Suite 2, Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290 September 11, 2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Subject: September 17,2007 Public Hearing - Clean Water District Dear Commissioners: Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. We support the effort to protect the water quality of the region and the economic benefit and potential of the shellfish industry. However we believe the process leading up to this legislation has not been consistent with legal requirements in RCW 90.72, and that the method of financing the program as set forth in the ordinance is flawed. RCW 90.72.040 states the counties "shall coordinate and cooperate with cities, towns, and water- related special districts within their boundaries in establishing shellfish protection districts and carrying out shellfish protection programs" and specifically requires "where a portion of the proposed district lies within an incorporated area, the county shall develop procedures for the participation of the city or town in the determination of the boundaries of the district and the administration of the district, including funding of the district's programs." (Italics added.) The legislation imposes these requirements before a district that includes a city is created. The requirements have not been met in this instance. The financing approach is flawed because it imposes a one size fits all regressive fee, and doesn't take into account the millions of dollars city residents have paid and continue to pay toward protecting clean water. The one size fits all fee is regressive because the owner of a large tax parcel, say, a 100 acre parcel adjacent to a stream, pays the same $18 per year as a 5,000 SF city lot connected to sewers. The unfairness is compounded when a significant basis of the ordinance, as set forth in your proposed findings, is to address on-site wastewater treatment (i.e., septic systems) and 9/12/2007 Page 2 agricultural runoff as the major contributors to the decline of the water quality in the shellfish basins. There is at best only a cursory environmental nexus from the city that relates to these factors that downgrade shellfish habitats. We note that the mandate in the Clean Water District legislation for the county to respond to a DOH order is to address the reasons for the order, namely, "because of the water quality degradation due to ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution." The County response goes far beyond this when it proposes to create a district that includes the City. The financing approach also ignores the significant investment that residents of the City of Port Townsend have made to address clean water issues over the years. This includes millions of dollars invested to collect and treat wastewater, eliminating nearly all on site treatment within the city. The city has also established a storm water utility addressing the water quality of surface runoff through a variety of measures that include protection of critical wetland areas of the city. The city's water system operating agreement with the US Forest Service places several thousand acres of the Big Quilcene watershed into protection. The city is the first city in the state of Washington to receive approval of its shoreline management regulations protecting and regulating the near shore habitat; Port Townsend's Shoreline Master Program was not only the first in the state, but also has received awards and accolades for its quality. We believe the County must first demonstrate parity before the city should assume any assessment beyond that which is already being conducted by its utility operations and codes. The program you are considering offers no such opportunity. To provide fairness and parity, and to take into account the millions of dollars already spent and that will continue to be spent by city residents on clean water through its sewer and storm water utilities, and to recognize that the city contributes little if any toward the degradation of the threatened shellfish habitats, we recommend that the assessments begin on a watershed basis and exempt the city wastewater service area. We note that the watershed approach is (to our knowledge) the model adopted in every county that has created districts. The only exception appears to be Skagit County, whose district encompasses almost the entire county, but specifically excludes incorporated cities. And, unlike the regressive per parcel approach of Jefferson County, Skagit County fees are based on impervious square footage. Skagit County Code 6.68. See page 7 of "Key Provisions of Funding Guidelines, Local Government Stormwater Grants Program, FY 2008 (Draft)" at: http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/WQ/funding/2008/KeyProvisionsFundingGuidelines. pdf. We also note that, Clallam County's Ordinance No. 706 (2001), establishing the Sequim Bay - Dungeness Watershed Clean Water District, is a watershed based district. We believe the County should follow the recommendation of its consultant, Xenobiota Consulting, who state in their Report (Aug. 27, 2006) that city participation is "best implemented" through interlocal agreement and "all entities should work together to identify non-duplicative services." "Participation of incorporated areas is best implemented through Interlocal Agreements (as per RCW 39.34). Currently, the City of Port Townsend, Port Hadlock UGA, and Port 9/12/2007 Page 3 Ludlow Drainage District all have surface water utilities that address water infrastructure needs. As the basis for these Interlocal Agreements, all entities should work together to identify non-duplicative services best provided by Jefferson County Public Health (as the lead entity). It is important that Interlocal Agreements are part of the formative stages of this program. These Agreements ensure that roles and responsibilities of all jurisdictions are made clear, duplication of effort avoided, and all entities are supportive of common program goals." Page 29 (emphasis added) By working together, we can develop agreements that address supplemental programming to achieve equivalency. Please seriously consider the City's offer during your deliberations and exclude the City from any District while we work together toward mutual agreement. If we can't reach agreement, then as required by law we "coordinate and cooperate," and if necessary, you take the required steps to develop procedures with our participation for district formation, administration, and funding that includes the City. We understand the mandate that the County faces by a failure to act on the Discovery Bay shellfish order. We also understand the logic to proceed in anticipation and proactively on the other shellfish basins. But for the reasons stated above, we believe the approach is flawed procedurally and substantively. Thank you and please call with any questions. Sincerely, Mark We1ch Mayor I"C r ~o... . Dr {' W~i"'~ .~, ~. ~t ,~, il"., \,.1 ,,!": September 6, 2007 Jefferson County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Your Clean Water District To the Commissioners: Please explain-clearly and completely your rationale for including the West End of Jefferson County in your Clean Water District. In addition please explain how this tax will benefit the citizens of the West End. All the shellfish areas in the West End of Jefferson County are either in Olympic National Park or on Tribal land. When can we expect a public meeting on the West End about the Clean Water District? The favor of a timely reply is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, ~) fv]- '. DaVi~rie Dickson 9772 Oil City Road Forks, Washington 98331 ~a~';> a1>,,,,q ) ~--:h1" ~. t.> \1 r.,~~y; II '." i! )J. Ii ~ ~_~-~~ ~~ 'itC.O~~ lr J" ~ . -=-___.~_._____..Hd.~{nJ~.-eI.I .cj~2.J.Lalfr((fcrf1d1/ss / '6n t<I r S : "---'"'----~tf(!. ~yJ::I:~~- --. ,- ,-, , ~.~.P~d -r:;wn.'5~d d._JJ!A_CZ.E..3f7!~:'8'. Ii ~__~_.___.l~_..__._ . -- .. . · 11/7 rJ -,..........-~---.-.--_..-tt-..~a~-A.,....:;::s: " .. --..--- r-~----jl~--.::=:J;>e; " , ~#{'a-S<J II (;"."1 It5 e fee< '1 Lwl,-r d';ZnicLd,_ ~..______._..... ......111... ...._....._.d!.~~~_~...U2d1~.ff~.. 'r;~{~, ./va.f...- .~, d~~--~.c: ~ . -~.~ ftvJ~vc~~dn~~' Vu- .-i!""",d;'w-- ------.--~.--_.-..t~--~~.. ~cv~;://d..M.~..-~ ..<;klzd -t~.. _..~- -?7--(~ ;,,~-~-_.lR4~. ]jCJaV~ ~"U ~cvrn -----..-.~-.-. ....1f-.;tp..21:Y,//l....:................_-..... ~ ...'...c.....<.:..........'...........J..- -----Hnn-.:~_- n'~. "',' 4.;tq... h~. u ~ 4Z. }v. ~/z.hd:.. .zJ~ *;L~_nl~~~~~ A4t fOa4L.~ :CLd_n I; J /) / L ud .) / .. g VI. ~ ~ ~____.-._..-j1.~T--~-""'""-7.~-a-Zza:1 ..tf .: .~C~ _____n___+~~LK::.$ ~ k f~71/;jf?(?i-. ?,- _---- - nn -c-n-il~, J~^ M ~ ~ ~ Uu ~J.q "7-,--------jj~n~- ~~.,q!~; ~ ~,p cui; . ~---~--,---4_-.------------_._,--"--- -. .-.......... kt ~r ' ~~--~-l-n-- 1&'Mafi~ tlvvm <<C,,~ ~,---,._~,,..~._._.~~_...---"--.._--- . .._~-...,;t.t...'C..,._... -It ub+2C,~pA.l: ~ 4-~.M c.:.zL'YJz4 ~~_.---_.__. .._.'-.H-7/~'-.._.....,.. -, Ii It" //. L'/ f .;j J.C L...:.?~c (:::. fr ?(:; . c.'x ' /-: .4 1-&11 r;~:~j" -S .?t/c! It A- ? ~ 3~.f " ~''/J';~. l'il {;.e,- /1,200./. I - - . ., ,. ..... .... ~~ ~_ "'" ..~, ~, __'___ J{ _~_ '" .:. _ ~ _~_ =-=-__-::-~"'-._~""","\...~-~ <:e ~ ~Jqlnlo"7 ' City of Port Townsend Office of the City Council 250 Madison Street, Suite 2, Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290 I-iFA ~It '(:; R"..;'; -.0.... .. II, , ~ ;l;r-~,:, '" ~"'. " ~ ~; '\~ ~i:., ~.. tt;; Rt) September 11, 2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Subject: September 17,2007 Public Hearing - Clean Water District Dear Commissioners: Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. We support the effort to protect the water quality of the region and the economic benefit and potential of the shellfish industry. However we believe the process leading up to this legislation has not been consistent with legal requirements in RCW 90.72, and that the method of financing the program as set forth in the ordinance is flawed. RCW 90.72.040 states the counties "shall coordinate and cooperate with cities, towns, and water- related special districts within their boundaries in establishing shellfish protection districts and carrying out shellfish protection programs" and specifically requires "where a portion ofthe proposed district lies within an incorporated area, the county shall develop procedures for the participation of the city or town in the determination of the boundaries of the district and the administration of the district, including funding of the district's programs." (Italics added.) The legislation imposes these requirements before a district that includes a city is created. The requirements have not been met in this instance. The financing approach is flawed because it imposes a one size fits all regressive fee, and doesn't take into account the millions of dollars city residents have paid and continue to pay toward protecting clean water. The one size fits all fee is regressive because the owner of a large tax parcel, say, a 100 acre parcel adjacent to a stream, pays the same $18 per year as a 5,000 SF city lot connected to sewers. The unfairness is compounded when a significant basis of the ordinance, as set forth in your proposed findings, is to address on-site wastewater treatment (i.e., septic systems) and A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT J 9/11/2007 Page 2 agricultural runoff as the major contributors to the decline of the water quality in the shellfish basins. There is at best only a cursory environmental nexus from the city that relates to these factors that downgrade shellfish habitats. We note that the mandate in the Clean Water District legislation for the county to respond to a DOH order is to address the reasons for the order namely, "because of the water quality degradation due to ongoing nonpoint sources of ' pollution." The County response goes far beyond this when it proposes to create a district that includes the City, The financing approach also ignores the significant investment that residents of the City of Port Townsend have made to address clean water issues over the years. This includes millions of dollars invested to collect and treat wastewater, eliminating nearly all on site treatment within the city. The city has also established a storm water utility addressing the water quality of surface runoff through a variety of measures that include protection of critical wetland areas of the city. The city's water system operating agreement with the US Forest Service places several thousand acres of the Big Quilcene watershed into protection. The city is the first city in the state of Washington to receive approval of its shoreline management regulations protecting and regulating the near shore habitat; Port Townsend's Shoreline Master Program was not only the first in the state, but also has received awards and accolades for its quality. We believe the County must first demonstrate parity before the city should assume any assessment beyond that which is already being conducted by its utility operations and codes. The program you are considering offers no such opportunity. To provide fairness and parity, and to take into account the millions of dollars already spent and that will continue to be spent by city residents on clean water through its sewer and stormwater utilities, and to recognize that the city contributes little if any toward the degradation of the threatened shellfish habitats, we recommend that the assessments begin on a watershed basis and exempt the city wastewater service area. We note that the watershed approach is (to our knowledge) the model adopted in every county that has created districts. The only exception appears to be Skagit County, whose district encompasses almost the entire county, but specifically excludes incorporated cities. And, unlike the regressive per parcel approach of Jefferson County, Skagit County fees are based on impervious square footage. Skagit County Code 6.68. See page 7 of "Key Provisions of Funding Guidelines, Local Government Stormwater Grants Program, FY 2008 (Draft)" at: http://www.ecy . wa. gov /programs/WQ/funding/2008/KeyProvisionsFundingGuidelines. pdf. We also note that, Clallam County's Ordinance No. 706 (2001), establishing the Sequim Bay- Dungeness Watershed Clean Water District, is a watershed based district. We believe the County should follow the recommendation of its consultant, Xenobiota Consulting, who state in their Report (Aug. 27, 2006) that city participation is "best implemented" through interlocal agreement and "all entities should work together to identify non-duplicative services." "Participation of incorporated areas is best implemented through Interlocal Agreements (as per RCW 39.34). Currently, the City of Port Townsend, Port Hadlock UGA, and Port 9/11/2007 Page 3 Ludlow Drainage District all have surface water utilities that address water infrastructure needs. As the basis for these Interlocal Agreements, all entities should work together to identify non-duplicative services best provided by Jefferson County Public Health (as the lead entity). It is important that Interlocal Agreements are part of the formative stages of this program. These Agreements ensure that roles and responsibilities of all jurisdictions are made clear, duplication of effort avoided, and all entities are supportive of common program goals." Page 29 (emphasis added) By working together, we can develop agreements that address supplemental programming to achieve equivalency. Please seriously consider the City's offer during your deliberations and exclude the City from any District while we work together toward mutual agreement. If we can't reach agreement, then as required by law we "coordinate and cooperate," and if necessary, you take the required steps to develop procedures with our participation for district formation, administration, and funding that includes the City. We understand the mandate that the County faces by a failure to act on the Discovery Bay shellfish order. We also understand the logic to proceed in anticipation and proactively on the other shellfish basins. But for the reasons stated above, we believe the approach is flawed procedurally and substantively. Thank you and please call with any questions, Sincerely, Mark Welch Mayor 5u~.itcd ~-\- f1eM'j '1/11/01 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1120 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ,i-rl/r ~ ,,If ,~~"'l~4 #.."J l" "~ ~m -",~"'j K ...!i "'Ii. r f f' l~ " "N:/ r lJ,~I... /....1'. ....t, .;V--% ""'1 'Q ~~.~. j ~ < '!\,n September 17, 2007 RE: Proposed Clean Water District Commissioners: I am writing to oppose the creation of a Clean Water District in east Jefferson County. A few of the reasons are listed below. 1) The fee is regressive, attaching to parcels in a manner that requires landowners with multiple parcels to pay more. In many cases these landowners are not on acreage that could be connected to streams. 2) There are additional costs of some magnitude to property owners for the ongoing inspection of their OSS systems that are well beyond what is currently required. The additional monitoring requirement comes from an assumption that sewage from septic systems is a primary contributor to the degradation of water quality. The OSS Management Plan draft from JCPH dated 7/19 indicates that there is no data to the relative contribution of OSS to degraded water quality in sensitive areas. 3) Only a small portion of the funds will be allocated for actual water quality monitoring. If the problem is water quality in specific areas, we should know where, and how that degradation occurs, and apply a plan that will fix the problem. We should also know where we are doing a good job as stewards of our land. " ..,eM 1,- 7}L-? ~u4J ",_"",,'~'>'/." Teren Macleod 241 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 ,- ~\A.~ tred o..-\- HeWi:j '1117/01 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1120 Port Townsend, WA 98368 /'" I q J.'.c. ;i(L~(7Ql.) ..1)~' :tr~ '~ ,e:: September 17, 2007 Proposed Clean Water District I am writing this in support of an expanded and comprehensive water quality monitoring program for Jefferson County. However, I am also writing this in opposition to the current proposal for a Clean Water District (CWO) that covers the eastern portion of Jefferson County. I believe that the present fast track that we citizens are being presented is resulting in a less than adequate solution in search of a problem. In short, public policy made in haste is nearly always poor policy. The problem you are charged with solving in this instance results from fecal coliform contamination of a single commercial shellfish bed at the southern end of Discovery Bay. I note that there are other commercial shellfish harvesting areas that are of concern, and that you are seeking to be proactive in upland and near-shore monitoring in the hope of preventing future problems. While that is commendable, the present rush to beat a deadline for incorporating a fee associated with parcel ownership in eastern Jefferson County is misplaced, as there are other funding alternatives that are not being adequately considered. This rush to a self-imposed deadline is also preventing adequate evaluation of viable alternatives for designing a comprehensive monitoring program that brings high quality results for our programs cost-effectively. For instance, Jefferson County enjoys outstanding water quality programs developed and operated by the Jefferson Conservation District, which is widely recognized as being at the forefront of water quality work in the American West. This is the organization that has a proven track record of continuously improving water quality in the geographical areas where it is working. The CWO, as currently envisioned, fails to maximize the potential of the Conservation District for monitoring and working to improve water quality county-wide. The tight timeline you have imposed on yourselves for considering adoption of the ordinance instituting the CWO has resulted in a lack of consideration for how citizen participation in the monitoring process can significantly reduce the county's costs of operating the programs that you plan to place under the CWO's area of responsibilities. These are opportunities that should be placed into consideration and discussed in a stakeholder working group tasked with reviewing and making recommendations for the CWO plan. The CWO proposal currently under consideration assumes that challenges to water quality are primarily due to failing onsite septic systems and domestic animals. Repeated attempts to bring focus onto the likely majority input from wildlife and other natural sources has not been adequately evaluated or responded to. Research in Maryland on wildlife inputs to water quality degradation in the Chesapeake Bay system found that a substantial portion of the fecal coliform found in streams was from wildlife sources. The difference in the human/wildlife proportions found in Maryland and those found in Jefferson County indicate a need to focus on this crucial aspect of the issue prior to instituting a regulatory regime for our landscapes and waters. Shoreline surveys conducted along the Jefferson County portion of the Hood Canal in recent years have failed to reveal substantial fecal coliform problems originating with failing septic systems. The two sites that one state survey found with high fecal coliform levels were both determined to be the result of wildlife activities. When coliform levels spike, it's going to be imperative to determine the actual source before prescribing a solution requireing individual landowners to spend significant amounts of money to solve a problem they might not have caused. In placing the onsite septic system inspection process in the CWO ordinance draft, the county has comingled programs in a manner that fails to enumerate the total cost estimates to the public. Although the per-parcel fee for the CWO is currently proposed to be $18.00 per year, the cost of inspecting an onsite septic system generally costs more than $200.00 per inspection. If work is required, costs can be substantially above the basic inspection fee. As presented, the CWO allocates only a small portion of its funding for actual monitoring of water quality in Jefferson County. The majority is used for a wide range of other purposes. If the CWO is to be perceived as being primarily about clean water, then a substantial portion of its budget needs to be dedicated to that purpose, and not consumed by other program areas and overhead. This need for a positive public perception argues well for placing significantly greater emphasis on working through the Conservation Oistrict rather than through other agencies. The $18.00 fee under consideration is deeply regressive in nature, and is not the only potential funding mechanism available to the county. There are at least two other options that are preferable and allow for additional time to more adequately consider the scope and particulars of the operation of a clean water district. One of those options is the use of the county's banked capacity. The $488,000 available comes close to covering the anticipated cost of the CWO. While I realize that the county intends this banked capacity to be used in support of the Tri-Area sewer and emergencies that may come along, the haste with which the CWD is being put together indicates that someone in county government considers the need for the CWD to be an emergency. Why else would the proposed CWD be pushed to adoption so quickly that three new positions are being posted and laboratory contractors being asked to apply to for contracts prior to the vote being taken? Another option would be to take the first year's funding for the CWD from the county's reserves. Again, if this is such an urgent need that the Board of County Commissioners is rushing to vote on the ordinance on or before September 24, would it not be acceptable to make use of this "rainy day" option? Surely, a need as urgent as the CWD is apparently deemed to be is an appropriate use of reserves. Use of the banked capacity would result in a final decision date in December, allowing more time for better scoping and planning, most appropriately with the assistance of a stakeholder workgroup. I am not aware of any similar time constraint relating to the use of a portion of the county's reserve. Given that the draft ordinance describes the CWD as would ". . . promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County," future years' spending for the programs of the district as an essential service would most appropriately from the general fund. By using either the banked capacity or reserves for the initial year's funding requirement, time would be gained for determining how to place the follow-on funding into the budget for a more permanent solution. Alternatively, according to conversations I've had with people working with the Puget Sound Partnership, funding for projects relating to improving water quality might be available through the Partnership's resources. This is an option that the county has yet to fully explore, and is an avenue that should be considered, since Jefferson County's citizens are paying tax moneys into the state, which has forecast spending of between $6 and 9 billion between now and 2020 in working to improve the Puget Sound's natural resources. According to the City of Port Townsend's letter of September 11,2007, Jefferson County has not yet fulfilled its obligations under the statutory provisions of RCW 90.72 in regard to establishing the CWD. Again, this is a product of haste in an effort to meet a deadline in establishing a funding mechanism that many find unsatisfactory, inappropriate, and deeply regressive. The county's contention that this "stable" form of financing ". . . makes for County being a better partner" rings hollow in the wake of the city's many objections to the CWD as proposed. At this point I would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not move forward with a vote on the CWD in the next two weeks. Instead, I recommend stepping back and spending some time to consider whether the Year One funding should come out of banked capacity or reserves, and move forward with one of those -. two options. This will allow for a more considerate approach to the development of a comprehensive and more cost-effective water quality monitoring program in consultation with a stakeholder working group composed of government officials and citizens with interests in affected industries and residential use of our landscapes. It will also allow time for exploration of future funding alternatives and for the selection of the most appropriate funding mechanism for the CWD's future. ~7~/ Norman Macleod 241 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 .sv..k;-\\t.d ",J lteo.r; ~ ~ lJ7h1 R LEA T R E E -- FA R M Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Po. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 September 17,2007 4 . J:;'j.."l! , l""'t,,,,,., ... -'J "'." 'fi<Pt] , ~''''-j,''/} I )',~ ,1;./\ ,I' .;1.. 0'. ~ t; ~ ~'_ ~'. .,' "~ It, /' "d a"" -~~ ~ ".1 ~.. ,,~. t d['e/ The following comments are submitted as part of the public hearing being conducted as part of the consideration of a proposal to establish a Jefferson County Clean Water District. I attended three of the workshops conducted by the Jefferson County Public Health Department, and have studied all of the documents provided by both the department and the project consultant concerning this proposal. As a result of this involvement I believe that the proposal is ill conceived and poorly planned. This probably reflects that urgency that the proponents felt was necessary, however it has resulted in a proposal that has serious technical as well as policy flaws. Section 5 of the proposed ordinance directs that Jefferson County Public Health"... ..implement the Water Quality Improvement Plan attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated by reference". This plan is poorly conceived, technically flawed and in need of a major review by qualified scientists who are familiar with the subject matter before it is adopted and implemented. Even a cursory reading of the plan indicates that this was not done. One pointed example of Some of the problems with the plan, as written, is that the use of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) precipitation data as a component of the water quality monitoring program. From the plan it appears that this will be the only source of precipitation data used in a program. Detailed precipitation data is critical to developing an understanding of the real meaning of data collected from rivers and stream. Unfortunately there are only two NRCS precipitation sites that can provide any data appropriate to the rivers and streams in the county. One is located on the west side of Mount Townsend and the other is on the south slope of Mount Crag. Both are at an elevation of approximately 4000' on the windward side of high mountain ridges. NRCS has not developed detailed models to indicate precipitation patterns in the watersheds situated in the rain shadow of these ridgelines. It is common knowledge that precipitation patterns in Jefferson County are complex with vastly different rainfall in the different watersheds. Using remotely located stations, which are not intended to provide data at watershed level of detail, as a critical component to the water quality analysis at the stream level, is inexcusable. The fact that such a basic mistake was made brings the entire Water Quality Improvement Plan in question. Respectfully submitted, I urge you to develop a Water Quality Improvement Plan that reflects not only an intention to collect water quality data, but an ability to interpret that data in a useful, and scientifically defensible way before you commit the county to a Water Quality District. If you do not, you will not only be jeopardizing the potential good that could come from such a program but you are inviting a situation where additional funds will be needed simply to correct the mistakes made by poor planning. /{J~ C;:)~ William A. Wheeler 222 BIG LEAF LANE, QUILCENE, WA . 98376 PHONE (360)774-1861' E-MAIL FAIRLEAFARMS@HOTMAIL COM