HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112408
~"'t~~".'"
~/~~ON ~~,
~ ~ Oc,.\
~ $ ~,~
"'"""' '" ~ -
District No. I Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin
County Administrator: Philip Morley
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of November 24, 2008
Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order at thc appointed time in the presence of
Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner John Austin.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: a person
stated that he thinks that the number of State grants will be reduced next year due to the budget deficit; a
citizen said that in his opinion the replacement cycle for computers needs to be reviewed and the proposed
amount to be spent on them in the 2009 budget needs to be reduced; two people asked that the Board not cut
the budget for human service network programs; a resident reviewed a "Solid Waste Site Visit To Do List"
he received from Public Health and said that he feels that most of the items to be cleaned up are trivial and
pose no environmental threat; a citizen stated that he thinks the Sheriff would not have to pay overtime if the
three Courthouse Security Deputies were in patrol cars and a Security Service was hired for the Courthouse;
a property owner stated his concerns about the current discussion at the State level to change agricultural
lands used for horse boarding from an open space tax designation to a residential tax designation; a person
stated that he thinks the County should not make cuts in the 2009 budget to basic services that provide
revenue; and a person said that in his opinion the three minute public comment time limit does not allow
time for people to elaborate on their testimony.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan
moved to delete Item # 1 and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Austin seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. DELETED HEARING NOTICE re: 2009 Jefferson County Budget; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 8, 2008
at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers (Approved Later in Minutes)
2. HEARING NOTICE re: Ordinance No. 10-1103-08 Enacting a Moratorium Against the Issuance of
Permits or Approvals Pertaining to Adult Businesses; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 15,
2008 at 10:45 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chamber
3. RESOLUTION NO. 77-08 re: Naming a Private Road Wildcat Way
4. AGREEMENT NO. C14950, Amendment No. 12 re: 2007-2011 Consolidated Contract; Jefferson
County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health
5. AGREEMENT re: Collect Geographic Data for Use with 911 Mapping Systems; Jefferson County
Jeff Com; microDA T A GIS, Inc.
6. AGREEMENT re: Jury Management System Software Maintenance Agreement Renewel; Jefferson
County Superior Court Clerk; JSI, Jury Systems Incorporated
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
7. Advisory Board Reappointment; Jefferson County Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board;
Three (3) Year Term Expires November 21,2011; Kaheya Cunningham
8. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 17,2008 Totaling $313,508.92
9. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November
13,2008 Totaling $103,217.82
HEARING NOTICE re: 2009 Jefferson County Budget: (Item #1 on the Consent Agenda.)
Commissioner Sullivan directed that the language in the hearing notice be revised to read, "Any person may
appear and be heard...." rather than "Any taxpayer may appear and be heard...."
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the amended hearing notice setting a second 2009 Budget hearing
for Monday, December 8, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed.
Commissioner Sullivan reported:
· The State Department of Ecology (DOE) presented some ofthe background for the instream flow
rule at the WRlA 17 meeting. There is a public meeting on the subject at Fort Worden on December
2. He stressed that this is not a static rule or process and can be amended as new tools are developed
or more information becomes available. DOE has developed these proposals to keep water in
streams for fish, people, and agricultural land. However, there may be limits set on the number of
new wells that can be located in a closed basin.
· Despite the issues with the Governor's budget, he thinks that there will be money for the
implementation of the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Plan.
· The State is reconsidering the use of rain barrels for residential water catchment.
Commissioner Austin reported:
· In an effort to reduce costs, the State Board of Health will only be meeting six times in 2009.
· The discussion at the Lodging Tax Advisory meeting focused on the best options for using lodging
tax revenue to promote and advertise tourism in the County.
· He attended a State Department of Natural Resources(DNR)/Pope Resources meeting last week on a
proposed land exchange in Port Ludlow. It appeared that most of the residents who attended the
meeting were not in favor of the exchange and want to keep the DNR working forests near their
homes and farms. A public hearing is scheduled in January.
· The OlyCAP Thrift Store at Nesses Corner has been remodeled and is now open for business.
Chairman Johnson reported:
· Uptown Nutrition and the Green Eyeshade in Port Townsend reported their best business days ever
this past weekend.
County Administrator Philip Morley reported:
· There will be a public hearing on the proposed Chimacum Creek No Shooting Zone at 5 p.m. today
in the Superior Courtroom.
· The December 4 joint City of Port Townsend/Jefferson County meeting on the Climate Action Plan
will be rescheduled in January.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
~:::'!J,;-,;j'~,,\
4~""
'''.\'1(,~\5'-'
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the minutes of
November 3, 2008. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Proposed Resolution Setting 2009 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson
County for Levy in 2008 and Collection in 2009: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. County
Administrator Philip Morley reported that the Board will be reviewing resolutions for the General Fund, the
Road Fund, and the Conservation Futures Fund levies. A resolution has also been drafted if the Board
chooses to use banked capacity. He gave a brief overview ofthe proposed 2009 Budget and recommended
that banked capacity be used in the General Fund.
He explained that the public hearing on the preliminary budget in October reflected a status quo budget that
continued programs and services at existing levels. There were some net reductions in staffing levels and
non-staff costs were held at a 1 % increase. The County Commissioners have set a lO% fund balance
threshold. Any amount above that balance is considered excess and would have been used by the end of
2009. Since the hearing in October, the 2008 excess fund balance has decreased due to supplemental and
emergency appropriations.
The County must take significant action now. In order to reduce the 2008 use of excess fund balance, a
general hiring freeze was instituted by the Board and the departments are saving wherever possible. They
are also trying to get a clear picture of the revenues to be received before the end of the year. The November
17 budget update showed that major program and service cuts are necessary even if banked capacity is
taken. The County Administrator reviewed a spreadsheet showing the amount of expenditures that would
need to be cut each year, with and without banked capacity, through the year 2014. For the 2009 budget,
$850,000 in cuts will have to be made if banked capacity is not used.
Last week the County announced that, due to a decrease in revenue, six employees at the Department of
Community Development will be laid off and the remaining employees will be cut to 36 hours per week.
Several other departments will not be filling vacant positions and are making other expenditure reductions.
Approximately $412,000 in cuts have been identified.
In the past, the Commissioners have not taken the full amount of property tax allowed which has created a
reserve taxing authority which was banked. This saved taxpayers over $6 million in the past 10 years.
Under State law, the County has retained the ability to return to the legally entitled rate in future years. For
2009, the Assessor's estimate ofthe banked capacity in the General Fund is $473,000. This is equal to $25
per year for a home assessed at $275,000.
In 2004, the County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 18-1220-04 which established criteria for
considering the use of banked capacity. One ofthe provisions in the ordinance allows that the
Commissioners may vote to declare an emergency by adopting a resolution at a regular public meeting. The
resolution must state the specific nature ofthe emergency and the basis for determining the amount of
banked capacity. The County Administrator stated that the County is currently experiencing a financial
emergency demonstrated by unanticipated third and fourth quarter emergency General Fund appropriations
totaling $785,000. This has reduced the ending 2008 excess fund balance and the ability to absorb revenue
shortfalls. In addition, President Bush signed the Economic Emergency Stabilization Act a month ago
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
which recognized a nationwide financial emergency. County revenues are being reduced by current
developments that are slowing the economy. The County has already begun taking action to address the
situation. Philip Morley's recommendation is for the Board to adopt the resolution declaring a financial
emergency and the three resolutions for the ad valorem tax levies for levy in 2008 and collection in 2009 for
the General Fund, Road Fund, and Conservation Futures Fund.
Assessor Jack Westerman noted that banked capacity would not be taken for the Road levy or the
Conservation Futures levy which would only increase by 1%. If the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Act had
not been reauthorized, the Road Fund would have needed banked capacity also. For several years, road
funds have been diverted to the Sheriff's fund and until the SRS Act passed, there was a fear that this would
have to be curtailed. Twice in the past, the County Commissioners have taken banked capacity. The
Assessor's hope is that as the economic situation improves the Commissioners will recreate the banked
capacity. The County Administrator has done a great job getting the Elected Officials and Department
Heads to work together on expenditure cuts. However, there will need to be systemic cuts to programs in
the next few years that will take time to analyze.
The Assessor read a statement from TreasurerJudi Morris who could not attend the hearing. (See permanent
record.) The County's bond rating recently went from "A" to "AA minus" because the County has excess of
1 0% reserves. The Treasurer has projected that the improved bond rating will amount to a savings of
$450,000 in interest on a $50 million sewer bond. Commissioner Sullivan asked for clarification on the
improved bond rating. Jack Westerman replied that the people who set the rating prefer excess reserves to
excess capacity.
The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony.
Delmer Sayer, President of the Jefferson County Veterans Service Officers Association (SOA), Port
Hadlock, stated that the SOA wants the levy for the Veteran's Assistance Fund to be reinstated this year to
.01125 which is the minimum amount to be levied for the fund per the RCW. Last year, the Commissioners
choose not to levy for the fund. He said that there are many Veterans returning from war who need help.
The fund also helps homeless veterans who are a growing population.
John Braasch, Member ofthe Jefferson County Veterans Service Officers Association and the President of
V oices for Veterans, stated that he lives in Quilcene. He said that as times become more economically
difficult, it will affect more Veterans. Last year the fund did not receive funding from the County. The
Veterans coming home from the war are expecting some help. The fund helps them so they don't get their
electricity or water shut off. The community is responsible for helping Veterans.
Ruth Gordon. County Clerk, Port Townsend, stated that she is present as an Elected Official to encourage
and support the Board ifthey choose to take banked capacity. It takes quite a while to train new employees
and the best way to learn the skills and protocols is on the job. The current employees are a good
investment. If banked capacity isn't taken, there will have to be more staff cuts. She was present at State
hearings in November where several activists and Legislators discussed taking away the ability to use
banked capacity. She thinks there may be an urgency to take it.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
!J',.,.,s"','",,,",">.,.,"
i? ,',: ,', -'S
,~\,,\:~\.'7
Roger Short, ChimaclUll, stated that he is against any tax increase. Now the landowners in agricultural open
space are in danger oflosing that tax break and that would be a real hardship on the rural residents of the
County. The Commissioners could have saved money in the past on the processes for GMA issues, critical
areas, septic systems, clean water, and no shooting zones. The County can cut back on those things instead
of essential services.
Norm McLeod, stated that no one really knows the nature of the current recession. The SRS Act was
included in the Federal Bailout Package that was passed a few weeks ago. The County needs to look at the
long-term horizon and make some plans for what happens if PIL T isn't fully funded or the SRS funding is
taken away. Is using banked capacity right now really necessary? What unfunded mandates will the State
put on the counties? Valuations on property are dropping. Higher education is facing some severe cuts this
year. Will the Port Townsend Paper Company be able to stay open? The County needs to plan carefully and
not take banked capacity in future years.
Donna Eldridge. Auditor, stated that she is present as an Elected Official and as a citizen. She understands
that the Board has a difficult decision to make and that decision will impact her personally and
professionally. The Washington Association of County Officials Board is hearing from Legislators that they
may take away banked capacity. The Board needs to be financially frugal. Her office has cut a total of
6.93%. If she has to cut again next year, she will have to layoff staff. Citizens won't receive the same level
of service that they have received in the past. She thinks that the other Elected Officials agree that it is
important to take the banked capacity this year.
Katherine Baril. WSU/Extension Agent, Port Townsend, stated that the County Administrator has done a
great job getting all the Elected Officials and Department Heads to come together to solve the budget
shortfall. She knows that he plans to begin working on the 2010 Budget in January. Cooperative Extension
is taking a 22% voluntary budget cut and there is only $12,000 to operate the entire program next year.
They are operating below 2006 levels. They cut a vacancy in Food and Fannjust when the emphasis needs
to be on agriculture and locally grown food. They are cutting a position in technology at a time when people
will have to be retrained for the new economy and new jobs. The 4-H Aftershool Program is in danger of
shutting down and she appreciates that the Board has extended the program by using reserves. This program
affects 30-50 families and their kids. The total funding for the 4-H program has come from Secure Rural
Schools funding in the past. A proposal will be submitted to the RAC in March for Title II funding in an
effort to keep the program going. The entire Water and Natural Resource Program is funded by the Puget
Sound Water Quality Action Team which is expecting severe budget cuts. She doesn't know how higher
education will survive in the next budget. She said that Elected Officials and Department Heads need to
stay creative and collaborative. A review needs to be done on how much of the budget actually supports the
WSU/Extension facility. Currently, her budget pays the rent for the facility which benefits the entire
County. She thinks that it is critical that the County have that space, but it may have to become a full
General Fund expenditure.
Veronica Shaw, Jefferson County Public Health, stated that she knows this is a tough decision. Public
Health services are vital to this community. They provide services that no other agencies provide. Public
Health has signed up a lot of families in the WIC program recently because ofthe failing economy. Cutting
family support services right now would be difficult.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
Joe D' Amico, Jefferson County, stated that he is against taking banked capacity. He has been at a lot of
meetings and has seen a lot of wasteful spending. The County has been trying to shut his business down for
three years and has tried to hold him to 2.5 employees. It is actions like these that have put the County in
this financial position. The County has adopted onerous critical area buffer zones and so much regulation
that people can't do anything. Businesses aren't allowed to increase or improve their services because the
County Code doesn't allow it. It doesn't make scnse. The Board could meet today and encourage legal non-
conforming businesses to expand and hire more employees. The County Administrator said that banked
capacity will only cost $25 for a person with a house appraised at $275,000. Most houses in the County are
appraised much higher. What kind of increase does that mean for businesses that have big parcels of
property? The Commissioners should look at cutting costs and appointing advisory committees to work on
streamlining processes and promoting jobs. He is against using banked capacity.
Bill Miller, Port Townsend, stated that after hearing the presentation, he thinks the County needs to use this
opportunity to take banked capacity in order t6 keep going for the short term. Using the banked capacity
now is the proper thing to do.
Torn Thiersch, Jefferson County, stated that several people in his neighborhood are challenging the recent
increase on their property assessments. As property values continue to decline, this will happen more often.
Port Townsend will be reassessed next year and there probably will be a lot more appeals on the new
assessments. The County may be too optimistic right now in projecting property tax revenue for the next
several years. The County will still be "losing ground" on a Road Fund that is only increasing 1 %. This
may be short-sighted also. The new administration in Washington, DC is going to put a big emphasis on
building infrastructure, but it doesn't appear that the County cares about maintaining the current
infrastructure. He doesn't like higher taxes, but he doesn't think that selling short the road infrastructure is a
good idea because it is essential for commerce.
Jim Tracy, Land Use Counsel for Fred Hill Materials, stated that hc has been a participant in two major
counties when a budget was developed in tough economic times. Most citizens think that the term "banked
capacity" means that there is a bank account with money that the County can draw on. They don't realize
that it is raising revenue using tax increases to pay for County services. It has been suggested to the Board
many times that they need to set priorities on how the County's money will be spent. What he sees right
now is Elected Officials and Department Heads being asked to make cuts in their budgets. He endorses the
comments made by Mr. Thiersch and Mr. McLeod. The Board could defer the decision on the banked
capacity to the first quarter of next year. This situation will get worse before it gets better. He strongly
recommends, on behalf of a major taxpayer, that the Board develop a list of priorities that reHect the
consensus ofthe community. Until that is done, the Board is only doing "accounting maneuvers".
The Board needs to provide strong legislative direction.
Hearing no further comments for or against setting the 2009 ad valorem tax levies, the Chair closed the
public hearing.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
~'~",.,",<"'~"c,'","",,," '
1" ' '\
~",\;ijj :'~.~-:""
Commissioner Sullivan noted that a comment was made about waiting until next quarter to take the banked
capacity. He said that it is his understanding that any action on the banked capacity would have to be taken
today. The Assessor agreed. Chairman Johnson stated that the reason banked capacity isn't being
recommended for the Road Fund is because Secure Rural Schools Funding was reauthorized which gives the
County Road Fund $1.3 million a year.
There was a discussion on levying for the Veteran's Assistance Fund, which the Board did not do last year
because there was a high fund balance. The Assessor explained the process to determine whether the fund
needs to be included in the General Fund levy. He said that there has always been an understanding in the
past, that if the fund is depleted, the Commissioners would do a budget extension and use reserves.
Commissioner Austin stated that he appreciated the presentation by the County Administrator which showed
what is available to the County after the cost of living index has been factored in. This means the Road
Fund and the Conservation Futures Fund are facing a net loss and there would be a net gain of 5% to the
General Fund if banked capacity is used. It is important for citizens to realize that by being limited to a 1 %
increase, the County has had a net loss every year for many years.
Commissioner Austin moved to declare a financial emergency in the General Fund. Chairman Johnson
seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he has a problem with the term "emergency" in an
ordinance that requires the Board to take the use of banked capacity to a vote of the people unless an
emergency is declared. An emergency is undefined. The problem is that a lot of people can't afford any
increase in their property taxes. It is more than $25 for a lot of people and it gets passed on to renters and
from businesses to consumers. He knows there have been unexpected expenses. He thinks that anything cut
this year is a savings for the next year also.
Commissioner Austin replied that more employees will have to be cut if banked capacity isn't taken. If the
County wants to provide services, employees need to be trained and know what they are doing. He is afraid
that ifthe Board doesn't take the banked capacity, the families in the County who need services won't be
able to get them. Then they would have to be taken care of by the courts and mental health services and the
County is required to pay for that in any case. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Board sets budget
priorities every year. He doesn't see cutting the WIC program or 4-H, instead the most expendable things
would be cut. If property taxes are increased, the Board needs to say that the money will be spent on the
people who are most impacted. Ifthat means a loss of level of service in other departments in the County,
that is how it will have to be. There needs to be a hierarchy of needs and this means that there may have to
be other cuts throughout the Courthouse. Commissioner Austin reiterated that the Board doesn't have
control over some of those needs such as judicial issues. When the County looks at the services that are
mandated by law and the services that aren't, the choices are limited. Chairman Johnson noted that one of
the services not mandated by law is recreation. Commissioner Austin added that the average citizen is
aware that these are difficult financial times and he doesn't think they want to see the government
dismantled. He thinks that if the Board doesn't pass banked capacity, the government will be dismantled in
ways that would be irresponsible. Chairman Johnson said that he agrees that "emergency" is difficult to
define in this situation, but it looks to him like there is an emergency throughout the country and everyone is
feeling it.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
The Chair called for a vote on the motion to approve RESOLUTION NO. 78-08 declaring a financial
emergency in the Jefferson County General Fund and authorizing the use of banked capacity. Chairman
Johnson and Commissioner Austin voted for the motion. Commissioner Sullivan voted against the motion.
The motion carried.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to set a hearing at some future date to rescind Ordinance No. 18-1220-04
which requires a vote of the people or declaration of an emergency in order to use banked capacity.
Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Austin moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 79-08 to increase the Jefferson County
General Fund levy for 2009 taxes which employs the 1 % increase and the use of banked capacity.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Austin voted for the
motion. Commissioner Sullivan voted against the motion. The motion carried.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 80-08 to increase the Jefferson County
Road levy for 2009 taxes by 1 %. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 81-08 to increase the County Conservation
Futures levy for 2009 taxes by 1 %. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Update re: Ferry Advisory Committee: Tim Caldwell, Chairman ofthe Ferry Advisory
Committee reported on the following issues.
· One bid for the Island Home ferries for the Port Townsend/Keystone run was received from Todd
Shipyard. The two vessel bid carne in at about $40 million over budget. There is a 90 day response
period for the bid, but they hope to have a recommendation from State Ferries within a month. A
condition of the bid was that the boat be built in eighteen months and this probably added to the cost.
· State Ferries has developed a long range plan with three options to keep the ferry system running. It
will be presented to all ferry communities after the first of the year and eventually be presented to the
State Legislature.
· The Port Townsend/Keystone auto ferry currently in service was scheduled to go out of service for
inspection and maintenance on December 31, but it has been postponed through the last holiday
weekend. The ferry will remain in service until January 5. When it is taken out of service for a
minimum of two weeks, it will be replaced with passenger only ferry service between Port Townsend
and Keystone.
· The lease on the current Port Townsend/Keystone ferry expires in 2009 and it is not clear ifit can be
extended. If it is not available, passenger ferry service could be utilized in connection with the local
transit authorities on the Olympic Peninsula.
· State Ferries has made it clear that they aren't in the passenger ferry business and any endeavor in
this direction would involve regional or local public/private partnership involving transit. Tom
Thiersch, member of the Ferry Advisory Committee, added that he agrees that a passenger only ferry,
especially on the weekends, would help the local economy.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
~,,""",,',.',',-.',',,'.'
i'.;'" '\
"i'.\:~"~
· A proposed mitigation of an evening Port Townsend/Edmonds ferry run for commercial vehicles
when the Hood Canal Bridge is closed for repairs in May and June, 2009 has not been approved yet.
· Tim Caldwell recommended that it is very important to get the other counties on the Olympic
Peninsula organized to lobby the State Legislature on all the ferry issues.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed.
W A State Ferries: There was a discussion about the ferry update earlier in the day and the current status of
efforts to replace two ferries on the Port Townsend/Keystone route. They discussed the benefits of
developing a coordinated operations and funding position with the City of Port Townsend, the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Program Organization (PRTPO) and the Port Townsend/Keystone Ferry
Partnership, in order to be most effective with the W A Department of Transportation Ferries Division and
the State Legislature. Commissioner Sullivan agreed to coordinate with Port Townsend City Council
Member George Randalls.
2009 Budget Process: The Board discussed comments received regarding the Veterans' Assistance Fund
levy during the public hearing earlier in the day.
Border Patrol: A recent newspaper article on this issue was discussed. The County Administrator will look
into legal issues that were raised in the article.
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO): The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
recently issued an order on a challenge to the Critical Areas Ordinance upholding the County on 22 issues.
Two issues were remanded back to the County for further legislative action. The County Administrator will
ask for clarification from the Department of Community Development (DCD) on the buffcr and mapping
issues that were the subject of the WWGMHB order.
Miscellaneous Items Discussed: a) DCD staffing and schedule changes and the need to match workload to
staffing levels and answer the Board's questions about packet items prior to Monday meetings; b) flexibility
for considering ways to organize the Board's agenda format in 2009; c) the need to track developments in
the proposed State DNR/Pope Resources land exchange under a newly elected Commissioner of Public
Lands prior to the DNR public hearing in January. The County Administrator will coordinate with staff; d)
Request for David Rymph and other Housing Authority members to briefthe Board on the Authority's
current status and future options; e) the potential selection process for Conflict Attorney indigent defense
services; and t) timing of consideration of potential changes to the management of the Brinnon Motel and
Community Center.
The Board recessed at 3:39 p.m. and rcconvened their meeting at 5:00 p.m. in the Superior
Courtroom.
HEARING re: Proposed Chimacum Creek No Shooting Area: Chairman Johnson opened
the public hearing. He stated that a petition with 121 voter signatures asking to establish a Chimacum Creek
No Shooting Zone was submitted to the County Commissioners' Office in April, 2007. A recommendation
from the No Shooting Zone Review Committee is before the Board for this hearing.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
,,!"S'''~.'.'''\
.,'~'-
"1\' ":"''l.C"
"Ifp.,\'
Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner, reported that the core members of the No Shooting Zone Review
Committee are John Ebner, Ray Hunter, Henry Werch, Undersheriff Anthony Hernandez, and DCD Director
Al Scalf or his designee. She is the DCD designee and staff for the Committee. In addition, Howard
Learned and David Tonkin were the two stakeholders who live in the proposed area to be designated and
worked with the core members of the Review Committee. They began review of the petition in June, 2008
and did a site visit of the Chimacum Creek No Shooting Zone boundaries in August. Karen Barrows
reported that two public comment letters were received. One letter was from a constituent in favor of
designating the no-shooting zone and one was from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife
recommending that the area at the mouth of Chimacum Creek remain open for hunting. However, they
would agree with whatever the Board decided. In September, the Review Committee voted to recommend
the boundary that was outlined in the petition.
During the summer while the Chimacum Creek No Shooting Zone review was moving forward, the County
Commissioners were approached by residents of an area adjacent to the Chimacum Creek No Shooting Zone
who wanted to be included. That area became known as the ChimacumlHadlock No Shooting Zone. Henry
Werch, Chair of the Review Committee explained that the Committee voted to consider the two no shooting
zones separately because of the difference in the population density, the geographical area, and other factors.
The No Shooting Zone for Chimacum Creek was petition driven with a substantial number of signatures.
The Commissioners originally voted to direct staff to review both no shooting zones, but on September 22,
they took action to direct staff to schedule a hearing on the proposed Chimacum Creek No Shooting Zone as
soon as possible and a second hearing for the proposed ChimacumlHadlock No Shooting Zone.
The Chair opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing.
John Ebner, Port Townsend, stated that he is a member ofthe core Review Committee. As a concerned
citizen and Committee member, he stated that additional uses can coexist and are allowed in no shooting
zones. He suggested that there could be an exemption for the mouth of Chimacum Creek during hunting
season where legal hunting is permitted by the State. He thinks this should be considered in the record.
Most of the comments during the Review Committee meetings were about land use and additional uses.
The County ordinance recognizes that the request to limit shooting in some rural areas may best be resolved
by solutions agreed to within the community that is affected without the need for the establishment of a
formal no shooting zone. He thinks County Officials should endeavor to facilitate such solutions and an
ordinance may not be required or the proposed ordinance could be revised.
Raymond Hunter, Discovery Bay, stated that he is also a member of the core Review Committee. He said
that David Tonkin submitted a thorough petition for this no shooting zone that reflects what the citizens of
the community want. The population density is about the same as Kala Point which is already a no shooting
zone. He thinks that this boundary should be accepted. There have been four meetings with very few
comments in opposition. Due to the population density, the location, the lay of the land, and the proximity
to the Kala Point No Shooting Zone, he thinks that this should be approved.
David Tonkin, recommended that the Board approve the boundaries of the Chimacum Creek No Shooting
Zone as proposed. He stated that there has been very little opposition. The boundaries are clear and easy to
enforce by the Sheriffs Office. The area at the mouth of Chimacum Creek is very heavily used by hikers
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
and people enjoying the beach and there are residences just above the creek on the cliff overlooking the
estuary. It would be very dangerous if hunting was allowed therc. He asked the Board to approve the
petition.
Al Learned, lrondale, stated that his residence is on the bluff adjacent to the mouth of Chimacum Creek. He
has an opportunity to observe the use of the beach. He strongly urged the Board to approve the no shooting
zone as proposed, especially at the mouth of Chimacum Creek. He thinks it is a safety concern because the
character of the area has changed dramatically in the last few years. For many years there wasn't much use
of the beach because there was a sawmill and chipping plant there. Since the chipping plant moved out two
years ago the beach was renovated and there is a lot more use. People walk on the beach everyday.
Shooting is incompatible there. He urged the Board to approve the proposed boundaries and not allow
shooting at the mouth of the creek.
Howard Learned, stated that he lives approximately 500 yards south of the mouth of Chimacum Creek just
above the newly renovated beach. He can observe the activity on the beach and he couldn't agree more with
what has been said. He strongly supports the petition. People walk their dogs on the beach. Shooting there
is just not compatible. Many people don't know when hunting season begins and ends.
Edward Parker, stated that he lives in Port Townsend between Kala Point and Chimacum Creek along a
dense line of trees that borders the creek. His home is located about 200 feet from the trees and one day he
was standing in his backyard and he heard the crack of a firearm near the vicinity of the creek. The bullet
passed through the leaves of the tree approximately 4 feet above his head. He took cover in his house. This
is not an area where shooting should be permitted.
Mary Armstrong, stated that she has lived a few blocks up from the park at Chimacum Creek for two years.
She urged the Board to support the petition. She said she is against hunting at the mouth of the creek. The
Irondale area is changing and people want it to change. More and more working people are living in the
area. She loves the park there. She asked the Board to make the area a safe place for people to live and
raise a family. She isn't against guns. There are places away from houses where hunters can hunt. She
wants Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, Irondale, and Chimacum to be safe.
Larry Hovee, Quilcene, stated that he agrees that people shouldn't shoot in residential areas. Kala Point
already is a no shooting zone. His concern is that the scope of this ordinance takes in a lot of area that is not
heavily developed and probably won't be for another 15 or 20 years, especially the area out toward
Chimacum and the whole Chimacum Ridge to Oak Bay.
Chairman Johnson clarified that the Chimacum Ridge and Oak Bay areas are not included in the proposed
Chimacum Creek No Shooting Zone. Henry Werch added that there will be another public hearing at a
future date on the Hadlock/Chimacum No Shooting Zone proposal which includes Hadlock a portion of
Chimacum Ridge, and Oak Bay.
Joe D'Amico, Jefferson COlUlty, said that he agrees with John Ebner's comments that shooting should be
allowed during hunting season at the mouth of Chima cum Creek. The Department ofFish and Wildlife has
suggested that the area be left open for shooting waterfowl during hunting season and it is an historical
Page 11
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2008
~",,-"",',,""""'"
f~'" ,~s
"".'l'~; 'Z'~:~'-~~
hunting area by the Tribes and by pioneers who settled here. This isn't about who gets the most signatures.
It's about following the law. When people talk about bullets they may mean shot which comes from
shotguns. He would think most hunters who hunt at the mouth of Chimacum Creek use shotguns. He added
that he found the contour line interesting, because the banks that separate the residences from the beach are
50-100 feet high.
Hearing no further testimony for or against the proposed no shooting zone, Chairman Johnson closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that this was part of the area that he envisioned being a no shooting zone a
few years ago in the urban growth area (UGA.) While he agrees that in some areas, shotguns would be a
reasonable exception, he doesn't see that for this area.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance establishing a Chimacum Creek No
Shooting Zone as proposed. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion. Commissioner Austin noted that
he heard from several citizens that the mouth of Chimacum Creek should be left open to hunting but the
mouth'ofChimacum Creek is only 200 feet from some residences. The citizens who live there may not
know if the sound is from a rifle or a shotgun and their peace of mind is important. Director of Community
Development Al Scalf recommended that at the bottom of the legal description in the ordinance the
following language be added. "Thence northerly and westerly upland of 0.0 low tide mark." He explained
that this would describe the shoreline boundary northerly and southerly down to the waterline. This would
be very clear to enforcement persOlUlel that they are enforcing the provision at 0.0 tidemark and upland is
the boundary. Waterward would be a legal area to shoot and upland would not. Commissioner Sullivan
amended his motion to include the new language in the no shooting zone legal description. Commissioner
Austin seconded the amended motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a
unanimous vote.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at
5 :36 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
carried by a unanimous vote.
_ ....,."~_~.'~',+...'....,lt '"
,~~;,. 'V t Q 4l" """
..}:J '~~Trin.~
M~ ~ ~~~~~ 'l~ ~~f?
". '.,(\'4 ~"-,
~ '~I \r'<;;)"~ ''',
': \!.~/I ,.,
-'." ,~" l'
AfrEs~i ~~<,.
~ .. ~ .,
~ /~( {}f/JUfl": C(lJ(
~e Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
S!!~ emir -
~j/ I
'/~/"/"
DaVi~ . ., 1iv;;":~'
Joh Austm~
w
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST ft~ \
TITLE: Hearing re: Proposed Chimacum Creek No Shooting Area
DATE: Monday, November 24,2008 at 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Piease Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
J YES NO MAYBE
() 7/~ Ar/Vl >lltl~~ ;; 7(/ C- !ll(j S;r ffi H-?lclhac U61Jo
/ 0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
nnn
~
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
;\. "
TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Chimacum Creek No Shootin Area
DATE: Monda, November 24, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
f::7j
PT
/fOu dc~ k
'I
{O -z)2 J4ve
g~'1 av.e.
1i!f?.~f/L
lL
~ /cW'~~
/1/ .sJ;:~,rJc~
Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
~DD
ADD
~DD
D Dg]
f)aDD
D D~
Dg]D
DDrn
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
"
I:...;;";;",;'
".~
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
TITLE: Hearing re: Proposed Chimacum Creek No Shootina Area
DATE: Monday, November 24,2008 a15:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
..... .I /l
J.I?J I) E' ^J \. ~ C18 w'c1JV ,'):.) S' .J" (') () //I.. (]c''' 1),,- /: i. 0 DO
0 DO
D DO
D 00
0 00
0 DO
, 0 00
D 00
0 00
0 00
0 DO
0 DO
0 DO
0 00
0 DO
0 DO
nnn
I o<\j1XU II rs)c%
,
A::::_.6iiAiii/iiiA
O>c-",._ _.=fI-"~-
..... :-=t _. __ _._" _ _
V...Ss = S;o.;;=....
~,
/
SECURITY
NORTHWEST, INC.
P.O. Box 660
Port Townsend W A 98368
1-800-859-3463
November 24, 2008
Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
I 2 4 2008
Re: Chimacum Creek
No Shoot Area Border
Dear BOCC,
Please exclude the mouth of Chima cum Creek and areas along Chimacum Creek, which have medium
to high bank (see map). These area's have been historically used for the hunting of waterfowl and
should be allowed to continue.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
~/ /"/ ~
Joseph N. D'Amico, President
Security Services NW Inc.
1-800-859-3463
"The ('nit:; {~( fjforr" 1m
1
"'"
lb-.'
., .-(
, " )",
. ...
,1I~Jj' '. :~ .,
~, ,.," .,,,,, ;'k;~,"7'~',~' ~<' ,r- ' "l",
' .',' ; ," " ,
, "i" '
, ~, ... . J, .,: ·
r i':~ \c.
,~
.
4,'"
.cr ~%-? llllol~
jeffbocc J
Page I of5
From: Forest Gems Iforestgems@sinclair.net]HtARI
Sent: Sunday, November 09,20081:46 PM l.. , ~JG RECORD
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Windle no shooting statement~
Attachments: Dear Chimacum High PTA and Administration.doc; proposed map.jpg
Dear Commissioners-
The no shooting zone process in the Chimacum Hadlock area made Alan Rawson and myself
as stakeholder committee members the targets of an angry reaction by some people. I have
explained in writing extensively the dynamics that make the area I live in an extremely dangerous
place. At the Oct 9th meeting myself and Alan Rawson were unaware that there was an organized
effort to object to the Southern boundary of the Chimacum Hadlock no shooting zone. It appears that
Karen Barrows had spoken with some individuals who opposed the zone earlier in the week. Alan
and I were not aware of the situation. The meeting in which the boundary was established was
noticed to the public, there was no objection to the boundary. I have emails to Karen Barrows in
which I volunteered to contact owners of land on the Southern boundary a week or so after the
meeting to make sure no one felt left out. That offer was declined by Karen's department. Both Alan
and I walked into the meeting thinking it was a formality regarding the boundary description and were
ambushed. The email in red pasted below sent to selected individuals and obtained by me has
helped me understand more about the organization of this group.
The main speaker against the Southem boundary accused me of having an agenda. It was obvious
the crowd had the same feelings. This person did not reply to a previous letter I wrote asking for land
owners in the area to cooperate in managing the dangerous mixed shooting and off road use of a
large area, including Sholds gravel pit. This impacts several parcels I own, and reduces their value. I
gave all commissioners a copy of this and another letter on May 19th when I spoke at a Monday
morning public comment meeting. At the Oct 9th meeting this person asked why there was no effort
to have land owners work together as per the ordinance, even though he and others including Duke
Shold had not responded to my written effort to do so.
I had also gone to Mr. Shold to talk about the danger and need for the no shooting zone before I
staFteomy petition effort. I did thatoot of respect; and to se-a what I was up againsCDuke sa1Clne .
would not oppose the zone, yet at the Oct 9th meeting was one of the more vocal opponents. Mr
Shold built on the assertion that the entire zone was due to a "neighborhood squabble". I was so
surprised at his comments that I did not challel'lge his management of his gravel pit at that time, or
mention his previous promise to me. His comments, what I saw as agreement by Undersheriff
Hernarn:lez about the use of the pitby deputles;-andthetone of the crowd later in the meeting played
a big part in my leaving the meeting, and later resigning. I was also reprimanded by Mr. Hernandez,
who questioned my motivation in front of everyone. One person said later he was playing to the
crowdTor political reasons. Mr. Hernandez d~-nQt attend1rnportant previous meetings to give hl~-~
~- in-pUtasrequired by the ordinance. The proposedt6ne was also his responsibility, I became the----
scape goat. I am glad that Sheriff Brasfield has clarified the situation as to the use of Shold's pit and
neutrality of the Jefferson County Sheriff. I p'({>pbsed the zone I did due to the danger to many ,- ~
# people in a wide area including my wife and r'a'rld our tenants. Property damage due to loss of value
and marketability of many of our parcels is also a big factor for me, and would be to most individuals.
One of our most aggressive and careless neighbors has asked to replace me as a
stakeholder. Harassment shooting 200' from our home in retaliation to my "complaints" to the DCD
11/10/2008
Page 2 of5
were bragged about by her husband. That and shooting across our easement road started my no
shooting zone effort, due to both the danger to ourselves and other people. Previous calls to the
sheriff have had no effect, shooters can stop or move by the time a call is responded to. Reacting will
also have the desired effect and create more shooting. False statements to the sheriff were made
when the shooting across the easement road occurred. The false statements were not followed up on
despite photographs showing the shooting. We are still subjected to shooting close by from the same
neighbors as late as this week. We do not go into our yard when this occurs out of fear. On many
occasions when I am heard in the yard, shooting starts, so I don't go into my own yard much any
more. A variety of weapons are used including high powered rifles. Our neighbors have a history of
carelessness and breaking the law with no repercussions, documented in previous letters. I hope my
replacement stakeholder is a responsible community member with the ability to see the big picture.
I will continue to provide input at meetings and have quite a bit of documentation to provide. I will not
"win" anything in the process, and will continue to have problems with aggressive neighbors until we
can leave the area. My goal is simply to be able to sell our property to the average buyer. I did submit
a new proposed map which I believe is enforceable and reduces most of the danger in the area,
(attached). My sense is that the format of the meetings may rush discussion and limit understanding.
If you appoint someone from the organized group opposed to any zone outside the UGA, they will
effectively cancel the other stake holder who I believe understands the danger. This will leave the
decision regarding the final proposed boundaries to the 3 Commissioners appointees, Karen Barrows
for the DCD, Tony Hernandez and ultimately the Commissioners.
Like my neighbors, the commissioners have also not replied to my concerns relating to land use
issues and the lack of enforcement and oversight at the DCD, which started the gun harassment we
endure. I followed up on July 7th and Aug 13th with letters, attended another meeting, and spoke to
all of you. I spoke to David Sullivan later and was told AI Scalf would contact me. No response. I
voted the Democratic ticket including County Commissioners hoping for a change. I believe Barack
Obama would say that oversight of County departments and responsive government are not bad
things. Attached is a new proposed map and letter to the Chimacum High PTA and administrators,
which you may have already seen.
We are attempting to sell our home and another parcel next to this activity as a first step in leaving
the ongoing situations. My experience is that selling will be next to impossible due to the shooting and
other situations. A key question is, what is property damage as mentioned in the no shooting zone
ordinance?
---selow is an emaTl sent out by Joe D'Amico to selededindiViduals.Thank you for your time once
again.
Harvey Winttle
_Dear fam.ily.frielKls, citizens and business-associates:
What's gCiif'lg on in Jefferson County?
'~..,
Markyo.YrcalendarsforNovember,24.2008,HOOhra{5PM1.Jeffers_On
CountyCoul1houselSuperiorCoudJ).>
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners will be considering a No Shoot Area
11/10/2008
Page 3 of5
3A) in Chimacum!Port Hadlock on November 24th.
Establish and or document your "GrandfatberCQmmerciallRe~idenUaLShQQting
RangesNQw". Listen to Committee members explain how... Jeffco101
Jefferson County Now has Tactical Checkpoints to check your immigration status.
What's next, Tactical Checkpoints to see if your carrying a gun? Jeffco101
Alert your friends and neighbors have them attend and speak at the November 24th
hearing!
New videos uploaded:
. October 27, 2008 - Jefferson County Appropriation Hearing - 3rd Quarter 2008
Supplemental
. November 3, 2008, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Public
Comment
. November 3, 2008, U.S. Border Patrol Forum
Over 4,261 JeffcQ1Q1 channel views from concerned citizens!
Listen to citizens speak about the real issues in Jefferson County. Watch for yourself and see what
actually happens with your own eyes and ears. Forward this email to your family and friends.
October 27.2008. Jefferson County Appropriation Hearing - 3rd Quarter 2008
Supplemental
Mr. Philip Morley, Administrator, Jefferson County .!effcQ1Q1
November 3.2008 - Jefferson County Board()f(:ountyGommissioners Public.
Comment
>- Mr. Bill Miller
>- Ms. Barbar.a-Blewers
>- Mr. Tom Thiersch
>- Mr.-Jim FritZ
.~.-
>- Mr. Denver ~op
>- Mr. Jim Tracy
>- Mr. Mike Belenski
.'"",
11/10/2008
.~
Page 4 of5
>- Mr. Joe D'Amico
November 3. 2008 - U.S. Border Patrol Forum - Chimacum, WA
Preface, Border Patrol Forum
Mr. Scott Wilson, Jefferson-County Leader Jeffco101
Chief John Bates and Agent Bermudez, US Border Patrol
Agent Bermudez, US Border Patrol
Sheriff Mike Brasfield, Jefferson County
Chief Conner Daily, City of Port Townsend Police Department
Ms. Ann Benson, Washington Defenders Association Immigration Project
Mr. Shankar Narayan, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
Mr. Scott Wilson and Mayor Sandoval questions to U.S. Border Patrol
Mr. Tom Thiersch question to U.S. Border Patrol
Click on link below:
http://www.youtube.com/Jeffc0101
Markyol.JrcalendaJsjorN,oYembeL24~2Q08,..J7QQ,(5PM1Jefferson
County Coul1hoJ.!$,e/S,..u::)erior Court!
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners will be considering No Shoot Area's
(I\ISA) in Chimacum/Port Hadlock.NSA Jefferson County link' -~---
Don't allow your 2nd Amendment rights to be infringed...owning a firearm is one
thing...training with one is just as important.
Traditional hunting and shooting areas could be eliminated.
Respectfu lIy,
11/10/2008
Page 5 of5
Joe D'Amico, President
Security Services NW Inc.
HQ 1-800-859-3463 (24 Dispatch)
t~~'
11/10/2008
'- >
Dear Chimacum High PT A, Administration, and neighbors
Oct 20 2008
A Chimacum Hadlock no shooting zone is currently in the process of being established.
As a committee member I was part of an effort to include high ground on Totem Ridge to
the East of Chimacum High school and another area in the no shooting zone. There is
danger to residents of the ridge, near by ball fields, parks, roads, homes, and the high
school. Presently shooting is allowed and occurs on th6ridge and hillside with shotguns,
pistols, and high powered rifles, which have a range of over 3 miles. Chimicum High is
7/10 to 8/10 of a mile from where unobstructed shooting occurs. Arness park is slightly
closer. The little league fields on Chimacum Road are less than \4 mile from allowed
shooting. Newer residents of the ridge are very adamant about their right to shoot guns on
the high ground of the ridge, some of which has been clear cut with little or no
obstruction to the valley below. These people are speaking for you and your kids, saying
that this is a safe situation, perhaps without your knowledge. Hunting with high powered
rifles, a questionable shooting range which faces the valley and documented reckless use
of firearms by residents, guests, and trespassers should concern every responsible adult.
A vehicle was recently hit by a bullet on Rhody Drive, near the High School. This should
convince any objective person. There is a limited window of opportunity to act.
Another area off Elkins Way draws kids and adults, and has combined shooting and off
road use at a poorly controlled gravel pit. Parents should be aware of this area as well. A
few residents ofthe area send their kids there to ride, and will testify that the situation is
safe. Besides the dangerous mixed use of this area, it is a gateway for trespassers to
access the ridge across our property, which is posted but ignored by many. Roads there
lead to many areas facing the school, and other places where people are at risk from
errant bullets. People including ourselves, walking and riding on trails in this area both
with and without permission, are also at risk. As a land owner of 80 acres facing the
school I am concerned due to many specific dangerous situations I know of first hand.
Weare attempting to sell and move from the area's danger and purposeful harassment
using guns. The majority of responsible potential buyers will not buy homes in or near
these dangerous places. Those who eventually purchase our land will likely also use the
hill to shoot and hunt. Potentially deadly situations will become more numerous, even as
the number of human targets in the valley and elsewhere grows.
. An early proposed map which included these areas-hm; opposition by a core of
individuals who are organized and unable or unwilling to understand the danger posed to
kids and adults alike. I have resigned from the no shooting committee due to the angry
reactions directed at me some of these people; At-the last meeting where I resigned from
the committee, I stood alone with only one other person. I am now attempting to gather
suppoifOff the-comniittee to show that these peoPle and their assertioiHliat most people
think as they do is false. A few parents at your school are directly and indirectly playing
with your kid's and other people's safety and lives. Please become involved with the
public:.processthatcan make the review committee and theCillii1ty Commissioners
comfortable with approving a fair and safe Chimacum Hadlock no shooting zone. Right
now th~numbers are not in favor of that occurring. For info~ion on how to organize
beforejlIe next meeting contact me at ieffcitizens@vahoo.co~Ephone 732 0348
Harvey Windle Totem Ridge
. CC'-!~}II;>ID~
Leslie Locke
Page 1 of?
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:31 AM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Windle no shooting statement
U~Ai"'lIM~ REr,1"j
n r~ i \t{ l}~,j .,'" '\.~;>' \,/
From: jeffbocc
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 20089:30:36 AM
To: Karen Barrows; Phil Johnson; John Austin; David Sullivan; Philip Morley
Subject: FW: Windle no shooting statement
Auto forwarded by a Rule
From: Forest Gems [mailto:forestgems@sinclair.net]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:01 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Fw: Windle no shooting statement
Dear Commissioners-
This is to clarify my letter sent Nov 9th and to respond to Karen Barrows, who does a fine job.
----- Original Message -----
From: FQ[est Gems
To: Karen Barrows
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Windle no shooting statement
From Karen Barrows Sept 12th-
After thinking about your idea of contacting the parcel owners, my suggestion is that you simply compile a list of
owners of the parcels, but not actually contact them at this point. That's probably a task that I or Henry should
tackle (if necessary). I will run it by AI and Stacie, and see what they think about doing so. (Thanks for offering,
however. )
Had I contacted land owners the perception that the Southern Boundary was further along and that I or the
committee was attempting to do anything without public process would have been lessened. There would still have
been the opposition, but some discussion between interested parties might have taken place informally so that the
meeting might have been less confrontational. Both Alan and I could have been more prepared. I have always
attempted to talk to people, and usually put things in writing to avoid distortion. I am not making this your
sole responsibility, but many factors made this meeting more adversarial than it needed to be. This is and was
bound to be a difficult zone.
My reference to published notice was regarding the Tues Sept 9th meeting which the Southern Boundary was
originally proposed and had very little participation. I am sorry if that was unclear in my letter to the
Commissioners. It now seems that someone organized the people who attended the Oct 9th meeting, told them I
was the person responsible for the zone based on Dick Broder's comments, and gave the impression that the
process was near the end rather than the beginning. I have on several occasions thanked you for your professional
attitude Karen. You have a difficult job.1 will forward this to the Commissioners to clarify my earlier letter. Thank
you.
11/12/2008
Page 2 of7
Harvey Windle
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Barrows
To: Forest Gems
Cc: Alan and Sandy Rawson; henryw[g)cablespeed.com ; Ray Hunter; John C. or Judith M. Ebnlll ; Anthony
Hernangez ; AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Julie Matthes
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject; RE: Windle no shooting statement
Hi Harvey,
Thanks for copying me on your letter.
I'll respond briefly to the issues you raise; this is also, by the way, what I will say to a Board member or to one of ..
my supervisors if I am asked about the contents of your letter.
The stated and published reason for the No Shooting Area Review Committee meeting on September 9th was for
the Review Committee possibly to formulate its recommendations on boundaries for both the Chimacum Creek
petition and the proposed Chimacum-Hadlock No Shooting Areas. The stated and published reason for the
Review Committee meeting of October 9th was to clarify the proposed boundary for the Chimacum-Hadlock No
Shooting Area.
It is therefore inaccurate to claim that the public had prior knowledge of any official boundaries obtained from
published notices (except arguably the Chimacum Creek proposal, for which a proposed boundary already
existed in an official petition). The public could not have known exact boundary dimensions recommended by
the Review Committee for the Chimacum-Hadlock proposal, because the proposed boundary was not (and is not
yet) determined.
I speak with members of the public regularly concerning issues of concern, from all sides, about all sides of any
issue. I recall making it very clear to you and to the members of the Review Committee prior to the October 9th
meeting that there would likely be objections to inclusion of some of the properties in the proposed Totem Ridge
boundary. In this letter the implication is that my not having discussed with you conversations I had with other
members of the public led to an ambush of sorts at the meeting of October 9th As you have stated repeatedly,
"angry reactions" toward you from your neighbors considerably pre-date the meeting of October 9th
I had no prior knowledge of exactly what would happen at the meeting of October 9th The nature of the public
process is that it is fluid, dynamic, and unpredictable.
Finally, it is not up to County staff to grant or to refuse permission for a Review Committee member to contact his
neighbors. The implication seems to be that, had I granted permission for you to contact those neighbors, that
somehow the objections to the boundary could have been reversed prior to the October 9th meeting.
Based on your numerous statements to the contrary over the past year, I think that scenario unlikely.
Sincerely,
Karen Barrows
Assistant Planner, Long-Range Pianning
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4482
From: Forest Gems [mailto:forestgems@sinclair.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:47 PM
11/12/2008
Page 3 of7
To: Karen Barrows
Subject: Fw: Windle no shooting statement
_om Original Message _____
From: ForesLGems
To: je!!!;!occ@coje!ferson.wa,us
Sent: Sunday, November 09,20081:45 PM
Subject: Windle no shooting statement
Dear Commissioners-
The no shooting zone process in the Chimacum Hadlock area made Alan Rawson and myself
as stakeholder committee members the targets of an angry reaction by some people. I have
explained in writing extensively the dynamics that make the area I live in an extremely
dangerous place. At the Oct 9th meeting myself and Alan Rawson were unaware that there
was an organized effort to object to the Southern boundary of the Chimacum Hadlock no
shooting zone. It appears that Karen Barrows had spoken with some individuals who opposed
the zone earlier in the week. Alan and I were not aware of the situation. The meeting in which
the boundary was established was noticed to the public, there was no objection to the
boundary. I have emails to Karen Barrows in which I volunteered to contact owners of land on
the Southern boundary a week or so after the meeting to make sure no one felt left out. That
offer was declined by Karen's department. Both Alan and I walked into the meeting thinking it
was a formality regarding the boundary description and were ambushed. The email in red
pasted below sent to selected individuals and obtained by me has helped me understand
more about the organization of this group.
The main speaker against the Southern boundary accused me of having an agenda. It was
obvious the crowd had the same feelings. This person did not reply to a previous letter I
wrote asking for land owners in the area to cooperate in managing the dangerous mixed
shooting and off road use of a large area, including Sholds gravel pit. This impacts several
parcels I own, and reduces their value. I gave all commissioners a copy of this and another
letter on May 19th when I spoke at a Monday morning public comment meeting. At the Oct
9th meeting this person asked why there was no effort to have land owners work together as
per the ordinance, even though he and others including Duke Shold had not responded to
my written effort to do so.
I had also gone to Mr. Shold to talk about the danger and need for the no shooting zone
before I started my petition effort. I did that out of respect, and to see what I was up
against. Duke said he would not oppose the zone, yet at the Oct 9th meeting was one of the
more vocal opponents. Mr Shold built on the assertion that the entire zone was due to a
"neighborhood squabble". I was so surprised at his comments that I did not challenge his
management of his gravel pit at that time, or mention his previous promise to me. His
comments, what I saw as agreement by Undersheriff Hernandez about the use of the pit by
deputies, and the tone of the crowd later in the meeting played a big part in my leaving the
meeting, and later resigning. I was also reprimanded by Mr. Hernandez, who questioned my
motivation in front of everyone. One person said later he was playing to the crowd for political
reasons. Mr. Hernandez did not attend important previous meetings to give his input as
required by the ordinance. The proposed zone was also his responsibility, I became the scape
goat. I am glad that Sheriff Brasfield has clarified the situation as to the use of Shold's pit and
neutrality of the Jefferson County Sheriff. I proposed the zone I did due to the danger to
many people in a wide area including my wife and I and our tenants. Property damage due to
11/12/2008
Page 4 on
loss of value and marketability of many of our parcels is also a big factor for me, and would be
to most individuals.
One of our most aggressive and careless neighbors has asked to replace me as a
stakeholder. Harassment shooting 200' from our home in retaliation to my "complaints" to the
DCD were bragged about by her husband. That and shooting across our easement
road started my no shooting zone effort, due to both the danger to ourselves and
other people. Previous calls to the sheriff have had no effect, shooters can stop or move by
the time a call is responded to. Reacting will also have the desired effect and create more
shooting. False statements to the sheriff were made when the shooting across the easement
road occurred. The false statements were not followed up on despite photographs showing the
shooting. We are still subjected to shooting close by from the same neighbors as late as this
week. We do not go into our yard when this occurs out of fear. On many occasions when I am
heard in the yard, shooting starts, so I don't go into my own yard much any more. A variety
of weapons are used including high powered rifles. Our neighbors have a history of
carelessness and breaking the law with no repercussions, documented in previous letters. I
hope my replacement stakeholder is a responsible community member with the ability to
see the big picture.
I will continue to provide input at meetings and have quite a bit of documentation to provide. I
will not "win" anything in the process, and will continue to have problems with aggressive
neighbors until we can leave the area. My goal is simply to be able to sell our property to the
average buyer. I did submit a new proposed map which I believe is enforceable and reduces
most of the danger in the area, (attached). My sense is that the format of the meetings may
rush discussion and limit understanding. If you appoint someone from the organized group
opposed to any zone outside the UGA, they will effectively cancel the other stake holder who I
believe understands the danger. This will leave the decision regarding the final proposed
boundaries to the 3 Commissioners appointees, Karen Barrows for the DCD, Tony Hernandez
and ultimately the Commissioners.
Like my neighbors, the commissioners have also not replied to my concerns relating to land
use issues and the lack of enforcement and oversight at the DCD, which started the gun
harassment we endure. I followed up on July 7th and Aug 13th with letters, attended another
meeting, and spoke to all of you. I spoke to David Sullivan later and was told AI Scalf would
contact me. No response. I voted the Democratic ticket including County Commissioners
hoping for a change. I believe Barack Obama would say that oversight of County departments
and responsive government are not bad things. Attached is a new proposed map and letter to
the Chimacum High PTA and administrators, which you may have already seen.
We are attempting to sell our home and another parcel next to this activity as a first step in
leaving the ongoing situations. My experience is that selling will be next to impossible due to
the shooting and other situations. A key question is, what is property damage as mentioned in
the no shooting zone ordinance?
Below is an email sent out by Joe D'Amico to selected individuals. Thank you for your time
once again.
Harvey Windle
11/12/2008
Page 5 of7
Dear family, friends, citizens and business associates:
What's going on in Jefferson County?
Mark vourcalendars for November 24,2008,1700 hrs Ui~MJ Jefferson
County Courthouse/Superi()r C()lJrU~
efferson County Board of County Commissioners will be considering a No Shoot
Area (NSA) in Chimacum/Port Hadlock on November 24th.
Establish and or document your "GrandfatherCQmrmm:iaI/Residential
ShQQting8al)g~s NQw". Listen to Committee members explain how... JeffcolfJ1
Jefferson County NQw has Tactical Checkpoints to check your immigration
status. What's next, Tactical Checkpoints to see if your carrying a gun? 1<fft;J!1!l1
Alert your friends and neighbors have them attend and speak at the November
24th hearing!
New videos uploaded:
. October 27,2008 - Jefferson County Appropriation Hearing - 3rd Quarter
2008 Supplemental
. November 3, 2008, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Public Comment
. November 3, 2008, U.S. Border Patrol Forum
Over 4,261 JeffcoJQ1 channel views from concerned citizens!
Listen to citizens speak about the real issues in Jefferson County. Watch for yourself and see
what actually happens with your own eyes and ears. Forward this email to your family and
friends.
October 27.2008 - Jefferson County Appropriation Hearing - 3rd Quarter
2008 Supplemental
Mr. Philip Morley, Administrator, Jefferson County Jeffco101
November 3. 2008 - Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Public Comment
~ Mr. Bill Miller
~ Ms. Barbara Blowers
~ Mr. Tom Thiersch
~ Mr. Jim Fritz
~ Mr. Denver Shoop
~ Mr. Jim Tracy
11/12/2008
Page 60f7
)> Mr. Mike Belenski
)> Mr. Joe D'Amico
November 3. 2008 - U.S. Border Patrol Forum - Chimacum. WA
Preface, Border Patrol Forum
Mr. Scott Wilson, Jefferson County Leader Jeffco101
Chief John Bates and Agent Bermudez, US Border Patrol
Agent Bermudez, US Border Patrol
Sheriff Mike Brasfield, Jefferson County
Chief Conner Daily, City of Port Townsend Police Department
Ms. Ann Benson, Washington Defenders Association Immigration Project
Mr. Shankar Narayan, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
Mr. Scott Wilson and Mayor Sandoval questions to U.S. Border Patrol
Mr. Tom Thiersch question to U.S. Border Patrol
Click on link below:
http://www.youtube.com/Jeffc0101
MClrkVQur calem:JaI~JQLNovember 24, :z008, 1700 (SPM) Jeff~I~Qn C:Qllntv
CourthQus~LSuperior Court!
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners will be considering No Shoot
Area's (NSA) in Chimacum/Port Hadlock. N!fjAJefff1B;g"c;QI,l"tY./i"i<
Don't allow your 2nd Amendment rights to be infringed...owning a firearm is one
thing... training with one is just as important.
Traditional hunting and shooting areas could be eliminated.
Respectfully,
Joe D'Amico, President
Security Services NW Inc.
HQ 1-800-859-3463 (24 Dispatch)
11/12/2008
.. . ' ,
Page 7 of7
11/12/2008
cc '.iXU I \ I (d.-\0'8'
Page 1 of 1
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, November 11,200812:13 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: no-shooting zone
HEARING RECORD
From: Slscholz[SMTP:SLSCHOLZ@OLYPEN.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:09:15 PM
To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin
Subject: no-shooling zone
Auto forwarded by a Rule
In regards to the proposed no-shooting zone in the Chimacum area:
_ We do not wish to have our property included in the zone. In the 35 years that we have lived in
this location we have never had any problems with shooters or felt threatened by them.
-It looks to us as if an arbitrary line was draw with no looking at just which properties were included and
the size of said properties.
-This is a very low density area. Of our 45+ acres there are only 2 homes, about 20 acres of pasture and
the balance in forest. We have never allowed hunting on our property however, my husband, son and
grandson are all hunters. They do sight in their guns and do some target shooting.
Please pass this on to Karen Barrows and any members of the no-shooting zone committee.
We would be very willing to discuss this with anyone ifthey should want more information.
Thank you,
Sally and Al Scholz 732-4613
Dan Shaw 732-7018
11/12/2008
cc: ~ '5 ilpif/O'O
jeffbocc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Larry Crosby [Kindred59@cfl.rr,com]
Saturday, November 22,200812:44 PM
jeffbocc
hunting lands
H. i,~. jj i"d~lh
;!~At.,JI' \j."!i
tj.' ~ ;:~J "'~ \., ~ 'Ii w#
r\l
~'If .~.
". '" ~
.! l,?,:;,
Dear Folks,
In the interest of freedom , and to show support for the second amendment of our
beloved constitution, would you please consider to allow for responsible citizens to
continue to use your Chimacum Creek NSA. This is a proposed No Shooting Area in the Port
Hadlock-Irondale area between the Jefferson County Airport to the northwest and Port
Townsend Bay on the east. The area in question includes land that has been, and continues
to be, used for hunting.
Hunting is the responsible discharge of a firearm at a predisposed and approved game
animal in the proper season .Seasonal use implies a restriction in itself. You could also
allow for the responsible use of archery and or primitive blackpowder hunting as an
alternative.
Please use your position to help support freedom. Invariably the first amendment will be
trampled soon after the disposition of the second amendment. Your part in this can stand
for what is honorable and true.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Larry Crosby
I