The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM081009 ~1 CO~rn.. ~~ON~' SYiA."9 00: ~ &!if:; X, ~\ ...... ,,~ ......1 I ., I \ / / \~ :<::! .~IN~q./ District No. I Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Snllivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Anstin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of August 10, 2009 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Sullivan at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens in attendance at the meeting: A citizen expressed concern about the proposed $5.00 fee for the Clean Water District and stated that the majority of the problems in Hood Canal and Puget Sound are caused by stormwater runoff from high density areas and yet those areas are exempt from paying the fee; it was suggested that the County put together a proposal to get stimulus funding for upgrading the Courthouse and improving security; another man talked about the effects big government is having on the economy and he urged the Board to support the Plarming Commission's draft of the Shoreline Master Program and invited them to attend Sunshine Forums on the SMP and water issues; A citizen expressed concern that the public has limited time to review and comment on the various drafts of the Shoreline Master Program; rising costs for the County's insurance concern another citizen who feels the Board needs to take more responsibility in this current budget crisis; as a cost saving measure, a citizen suggested the County look at how to mitigate claims and lawsuits to prevent incurring unnecessary legal costs; a citizen described his past experience with the public review and comment process and stated he feels the process is a sham; the relationship between the Board, Planning Commission and Plarming Staff as outlined in th Planning Enabling Act was explained by a citizen who also stated that in his opinion the public should have an opportunity to review and comment on draft proposals submitted by Plarming Staff for consideration by the Board. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 45-09 re: Adopting the Cost Allocation Plan for the Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 2. AGREEMENT re: Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 20 Phase IV Implementation Plan; Jefferson County Public Health; Clallam County 3. AGREEMENT re: Functional Family Therapy Services; Jefferson County Public Health; Megan Smith 4. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated July 31, 2009 Totaling $756.00 5. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated August 5, 2009 Totaling $808,135.79 Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners and the County Administrator each reported as follows: Commissioner Austin: . He has been called for jury duty again this week . "Port Ludlow Days" begin tomorrow and the Jefferson County Fair begins on Friday . Wednesday he will attend a State Board of Health meeting in Olympia Commissioner Johnson: . He is preparing to leave for vacation for 2 Y, weeks, but, he will be present for the Shoreline Master Program hearing . There may be grant funding for the Center for Historic Preservation which is creating historic preservation and architecture classes at Fort Worden Philip Morley, County Administrator: . The County's insurance premiums to the Washington Counties Risk Pool are going up approximately $23,000 for the 2009/2010 policy year which is a 5.7% increase for Jefferson County. Statewide premiums will increase by rougWy 29%. . Representatives from the Risk Pool will be scheduling a briefing with the Board at a later date. Jefferson County 2009 and 2010 Budget Update: County Administrator Philip Morley gave a Powerpoint presentation on the 2010 budget. He stated that the Auditor Donna Eldridge has put out the call for preliminary 20 I 0 department budget proposals. At the time the 2009 budget was adopted he presented a five year forecast that showed the County needs to make budget reductions over the next five years because General Fund revenues do not typically keep pace with inflation mostly due to the I % growth limit on property taxes. He presented a graph showing a I % per annum increase in property tax since 2002. From 2003 to 2008 the Board elected to increase property taxes by 1 % per armum. The graph also showed the property taxes collected by the County for new construction since 2002. New construction is significantly changing the curve of the revenue growth. When adjusted for annual inflation over those years it changes the County's buying power. Even with new construction the buying power growth is very modest. Based on population growth from 2002 to 2008 another graph shows that the demand for County services is exceeding both the I % growth in property taxes and new construction during a period of phenomenal new construction growth in Jefferson County. This information tells us that even in the best of times the County's ability to fund existing services from property taxes is losing ground. The cost for government to continue existing services increases approximately 4% per year. With a 1 % per armum cap on property tax, exclusive of new construction, the buyer power of the property tax base shrinks 3% per year due to inflation. This is the County's structural funding problem which was imposed by Initiative 747 as reenacted by the State Legislature. Jefferson County's extraordinary economic growth has helped mask this problem, however, that is no longer the case due to the economic downturn. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 The economic downturn has reduced 2009 and 20 I 0 revenue from what was forecasted last December. Sales tax in 2010 is projected to be 10% lower than it was in 2006. Real Estate Excise tax does not flow directly into the General Fund, but, is used to pay back bonds issued by the County. Any shortfall of Real Estate Excise tax must be met by the General Fund. Real Estate Excise tax is also down and is projected to decrease even further in 2010. In addition, there is an ongoing extraordinary criminal case which could result in costs that may further impact the General Fund in the future. Departments funded from the General Fund have been asked to submit preliminary budgets for 2010 at current staffing levels with no increases in supplies, services or other charges. Counties provide both mandated and non. mandated services. Mandated services include: Superior and District Courts, Sheriff, Prosecutor, Public Defense, Assessor, Elections, Recording, Treasurer, Legislative and Executive functions, Plarming, Zoning, Building Code, etc. Non.mandated services include: Juvenile Probation, Youth Services, W.S.U. Extension, Solid Waste Transfer/Disposal, Parks and Recreation and Animal Control. Non.mandated services are being squeezed due to the lack of revenue. Significant budget reductions were necessary to keep the adopted 2009 budget in balance against revenues. Additional budget reductions are going to be necessary in future years. Budget reductions were identified for all departments in the General Fund. A plan was established to use excess fund reserves in 2009, 2010 and 20 II to cushion the impacts of the current recession. In 2009 permit fees to the Department of Community Development were down significantly. That department experienced staff layoffs, a 10% reduction in hours for remaining staff, and a 4.day work week beginning last December and continuing throughout this year. Because permit activity continues to slump, on August 1st three additional staff were laidoff. An additional $125,000 from the General Fund was directed to support the remaining staff. Many of the reductions in 2009 were temporary in nature, as we were trying to get through a difficult year and to allow the County to evaluate programs and services in the 2010 budget process. In April the continuing economic recession required the County to reduce revenue projections for 2010 by $1 million in the General Fund. The County will use a similar strategy in 2010, filling part of the revenue gap by drawing down excess fund balances in 20 10 and 2011. A five year plan will be implemented to bring General Fund revenues and expenditures into balance and to rebuild our fund balance over that term. An initial analysis suggests the County will need to make $550,000 of additional permanent program reductions in each year 2010,2011 and 2012. Smaller cuts will also be necessary in 2013 and 2014. To achieve permanent General Fund expenditure reductions of $550,000 in each of the next three years, the County must look for dedicated funding to sustain valuable services and move them out of the General Fund. The County must also pursue grants, fees and other revenues to services within the General Fund. Non.mandated services and programs and the level of service for mandated services need to be reviewed to determine which the County can no longer afford to provide. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 Non.mandated or discretionary programs such as Parks and Recreation will be severely impacted. The General Fund cash balance of$3.3 million at the beginning of2008 will be reduced to $1.8 million by the end of201O, $1.5 million of that amount is a required reserve. Jefferson County's Parks and Recreation division operates 19 parks in East Jefferson County and maintains grounds for the County and school districts. While not a mandated County service, parks are used by youth, adults and seniors, and are integral to our quality of life. A range of recreation programs are offered to the community which include: pre-school and after. school programs for children, summer day camp and outdoor adventure camp, baseball, softball, basketball and soccer, children's hiking, yoga, pilates and senior exercise classes. The original 2009 budget for Parks and Recreation is $539,546. Funding comes from four separate sources: rents $44,846; fees $46,000; $12,873 came from the Parks fund balance; and $435,827 (81 %) is transferred from the General Fund. Parks and Recreation services are valuable, but, they are not mandated and this level of subsidy from the General Fund is no longer sustainable. As part of mid.year 2009 budget adjustments plarmed in April, the County has had to reduce the General Fund transfer to Parks and Recreation by 17%. In order to find $550,000 in expenditure reductions in 2010, it will be difficult to match the 2009 reduced General Fund transfer amount to Parks and Recreation for next year. As a result, Public Works Director Frank Gifford and Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler have been asked to provide the 2009 reductions to Parks and Recreation program and maintenance costs. This may impact maintenance and operations of approximately half of the County's facilities in 2009 and may include closing some parks if necessary. Deeper reduction recommendations have also been requested for 2010 and beyond, potentially affecting the maintenance and operations ofa majority of the County's park facilities. The cutbacks to our Parks and Recreation programs are painful and necessary. These are just the first of many difficult decisions the County will need to make to address the State's structural funding gap for County services. He noted that if Initiative 1033 passes by the voters this fall, the budget process will become even more difficult due to restrictions on government revenues. This initiative would index County revenues to 2009 levels, a year when a historical economic recession has dramatically restricted revenues. Any revenue above that index would lower property tax revenues the next year. With sales tax revenues lower in 2009 than in previous years, the County will not be able to catch up as the economy and sales taxes recover. This initiative does not allow citizens to preserve services by shifting them out ofthe General Fund with new dedicated revenues, without reducing the General Fund by an equal amount, thereby, penalizing the remaining services funded by the General Fund. A projection of revenues will be prepared based on Initiative 1033 passing. At the same time a contingency target for additional budget cuts that would also be necessary will be prepared. Once departments have submitted their budget requests to the Auditor and a preliminary budget is assembled, he will work with the Treasurer, Assessor and Consultant Anne Sears to update the County's 2010 revenue forecast and compare it with the preliminary budget to meet the General Fund reduction target of $550,000. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 He will hold meetings with Department Heads and Elected Officials in September and October to review potential balancing strategies and to begin a collaborative approach to meet the two reduction targets. He will recommend a balanced budget to the Board. The Board will hold a public hearing on the 2010 budget on Monday, December 7, 2009. HEARING re: Flood Plan for Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers: Community Development Director Al Scalf introduced Associate Plarmer Donna Frostholm explained that under a Washington State Department of Ecology Grant, Department of Community Development (DCD) staff and the County's consultant HDR prepared a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan for the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers. Last June the Board held a workshop in which DCD staff and the County's consultant presented information about the flood plan which has since been finalized. The plan identifies the goals and objectives for the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers and has an extensive section on the existing conditions within those two drainage basins, however, it only addresses in detail the portions located within Jefferson County and not the portions located on federal land. It also outlines some management approaches that can be used in dealing with flood issues in the two watersheds. DCD staff recommends the Board adopt the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan by resolution as presented. Commissioner Austin asked if the County has any plans to enlarge the culvert or change from a culvert to a bridge over Pierce Creek? Associate Planner Donna Frostholm answered that such a project would be administered by the Public Works Department and she is not aware of any project on Pierce Creek. Al Scalf added that he is not aware of such a project having been included in the Six. Year Transportation Plan. Chairman Sullivan opened the hearing for public testimony. Bud Schindler. Brinnon stated that he has talked with as many stakeholders as possible and many individuals are either working or on vacation. The feedback he is getting is mostly from individuals who live in Olympic Canal Tracts and mainly concern Pierce Creek. There are rumors going around that there is logging activity in the area. Many residents living in the Duckabush River flood plain near Pierce Creek are concerned that logging activity will create more sedimentation and plug the culvert again which could result in even more damage than what was experienced last year and the year before. People don't want to see another I Y, to 2 feet of water in their yards. Another concern is that there is some development activity taking place between the power lines and Olympic Canal Tracts. There are rumors that a large subdivision is being constructed in that location. In researching the matter, he was unable to find any record of an approved subdivision. He has asked some of the residents in Olympic Canal Tracts to investigate further. If development activity is occurring, it certainly could have an impact on the flood plain and they don't want to see anything going on that is illegal. He has reviewed the plan and complimented that the problems were well defined. It is rare to see a good problem statement issued by agencies. Dick Bergeron. BrinnOll said that with due respect to Bud, residents of the Olympic Canal Tracts in Brinnon did blame logging activity for some of the sedimentation during the last flood. But, if you trace it back up Pierce Creek the sedimentation resulted from a natural bank which collapsed. The sediment from the logging activity area never did make it down into that portion of Pierce Creek. He wants to clarifY that issue because he hates to blame logging when logging is not at fault. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 Tom Thiersch. Jefferson County: Although this looks like a very well prepared document and a thoroughly researched report, the one thing that is missing is a bunch of dollar signs. There are a number of alternatives. There are evaluations of some costs, slight costs, major costs, and relative cost comparisons, but, no dollar signs. We just heard a really discouraging budget update from the County Administrator showing that there is not going to be any money to do anything. So the consideration of adopting a plan such as this, with absolutely no concept of what the actual dollars involved are going to be, seems ill timed at best and of some questionable value. He appreciates the fact that there is a flooding problem, but, he would be hesitant ifhe were in a position to vote on the plan, without knowing what it is going to cost. Jim Hagen. 150 Manle Drive. Cane George supports aspects of the testimony given by the three previous speakers and will elaborate on some of them during the next hearing on the proposed amendment to the Clean Water District Ordinance. Joe D'Amico. Fort Discoverv agrees with Tom Thiersch. After listening to the budget presentation he doesn't even know why we are here talking about this. The County is talking about closing down parks and employees are possibly going to be laid off in the future. We ought to stop any and all future projects no matter what they are and no matter what side ofthe aisle you're on. We need to circle the wagons and get in here and find out how we're going to make the County work. We need to figure out how we're going to drive revenues and how people are going to be able to save their jobs. We have to fix what is broken. We carmot keep piling stuff on the truck. All this stuff sounds great, but, we have to work on saving Jefferson County. He encourages everyone to get together to see what can be done to fix it. Mike Belenski. Jefferson County noted that on page 50 of the plan there is a reference to the Lazy C where it states: "The Lazy C is a residential development of approximately 140 lots ..." In the next paragraph it states: "... Jefferson County has purchased two properties within this development for salmon habitat recovery, including providing options for fish. friendly bank stabilization efforts." As the Board is well aware, he has brought up the fact that the County paid approximately $210,000 for the purchase of another property because the County thought it could sell the mobile home situated on the property for $45,000 in order to recovery some of the money that was spent to purchase the property. A couple of months after the purchase, the Treasurer informed the Board that the mobile home suffered from massive mold and water damage and the County would only get $13,000 from its sale. The public later learned that the County did not bother to get the mobile home inspected prior to the purchase. Because of the Board member's negligence to faithfully perform their duties as Public Officials and protect the public's interest by getting the property inspected, the County ended up spending $30,000 more for the property than was actually needed. He has listened about how tough these economic times are, and yet the County seems to throw money at people and doesn't bother to look into the facts. He suggests the County take due diligence on any future property purchases and determine exactly whether or not the people of Jefferson County are getting some value for the money being spent. He agrees with Tom Thiersch that the plan does not reference any costs. There is nothing in the plan about how the money is going to be spent or where it will come from. It is just another whimsical item on the wish lists of Commissioner's Johnson, Sullivan and Austin that provides no benefit to the people of Jefferson County. Hearing no further comments for or against the Flood Plan for the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10, 2009 Commissioner Johnson asked what exactly is an artificial barrier as noted on page 12, section 2.2.1 ? Associate Planner Donna Frostholm explained that an artificial barrier is a dam or a steep slope with a road that has an overhanging culvert. It is generally associated with something man.made that prevents fish from going up stream. Community Development Director Al Scalf noted that Pierce Creek is referenced on pages 47 and 48. The fiscal impact analysis is located on page 75, section 6. The funding sources for the fiscal impacts are widely distributed depending upon the project proponent which could be the State Department of Transportation, Jefferson County Public Works, or a community project for flooding; salmon enhancement; or flood damage prevention, which is the point the fiscal impacts will be analyzed. The plan puts the County in a position to apply for grant funding for various projects because most funding agencies require a plan be in place prior to approval of funding. Associate Plarmer Donna Frostholm added that the plan is a springboard to future funding which is why there are no dollar amounts in the plan. The plan does recognize current economic conditions and that some of the projects may not happen in a timely marmer. Commissioner Austin moved to adopt the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Planning Commission Appointment; District Three: Community Development Director Al Scalf and Associate Plarmer Michelle McConnell were present and reported that the following four individuals were interviewed by Community Development staff for possible appointment to the Planning Commission representing District No.3: Richard Hull (Coyle), Barbara Moore-Lewis (Brinnon), Margo Devries (Coyle) and Mike McFadden (Lake Leland). Based on the interviews, staff recommends that the Board appoint Richard Hull to serve as a representative of Commissioner District No.3 on the Plarming Commission. Richard Hull was present to answer questions by the Board. Commissioner Johnson moved to appoint Richard Hull to serve on the Plarming Commission representing District No.3 for a full four year term expiring March 17,2013. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Amendmentto Clean Water District Ordinance No. 08-1017-07: County Administrator Philip Morley stated that the Clean Water District was established in 2007 without a fee. This hearing is to consider a $5.00 per parcel fee to fund continuing services to the citizens within the Clean Water District. He introduced Public Health Director Jean Baldwin and Water Quality Program Manager Neil Harrington who were present to discuss the proposed amendment to the Clean Water District ordinance. Neil Harrington explained that in 2007 the Board approved an ordinance establishing a Clean Water District, but, the fee portion was removed at that time. He clarified that the ordinance established boundaries, but, not a new governmental structure. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 In early 2007 a portion of the Discovery Bay commercial shellfish growing area was downgraded from approved to restricted. The County was required to establish a shellfish protection or clean water district under RCW 90.72. It could have been local or regional in scale, however, it was decided to go more comprehensive based on threats to water quality in other areas of Eastern Jefferson County such as Mats Mats Bay and the Hood Canal No.3 growing area. This was also based on the relative experience of Mason and Kitsap Counties. Mason County has had a number of shellfish growing area downgrades over the years and has implemented more local shellfish protection districts. They have never had a comprehensive program in place. Kitsap County established a comprehensive surface water management program and have had some areas upgraded. A more comprehensive program is more proactive than reactive. As we look toward the future of Jefferson County it is important to understand that we have more people living here and septic systems age over time. The shellfish industry currently generates approximately $20 million per year in Jefferson County, not including the positive impacts of the tribal and recreational harvest. Shellfish harvesting is a very popular activity for residents and visitors alike and this time of year he gets calls daily from individuals asking if it is safe to harvest shellfish on various beaches. This fee could fund many of the activities that are currently funded by Centennial Clean Water Fund Grants. Some of the activities which could be funded include water quality monitoring; pollution identification and correction; and onsite septic system technical education for homeowners. This fee could provide a match for grant funding on a $1 (Jefferson County funding) to a $3 (State or federal funding) basis. A $5 fee per parcel, excluding some areas, would raise approximately $88,000 per year and would offset the approximate $121,000 in matching funds that they foresee in the preliminary 2010 water quality budget. Excluded areas which are exempt from paying the fee are Port Townsend and Port Ludlow because they are the only areas in the County that have sewage and stormwater control. Also excluded are parcels which are designated as timber land or open space timber land (per RCW) and parcels which are enrolled in the Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Tax Exemption program. The West End of Jefferson County is not part of the Clean Water District and is also excluded. The fees collected can only be spent on services that are linked to improving or maintaining water quality in shellfish growing areas or shellfish tidelands. The funds would be tracked to insure that they are spent on appropriate programs and services as defined in RCW 90.72.030. Neil Harrington discussed the services provided for the clean water projects in each of the following areas: Discovery Bay; Hood Canal; Mats Mats Bay; and Chimacum Creek. Public Health staff recommends clarifYing "Section 03: Annual Fee" of the ordinance so it is clear that tax parcels located in West Jefferson County are exempt from paying the fee. It needs to be clarified that this fee will only be collected from parcels in the Clean Water District (Eastern Jefferson County as defined by Hospital District No.2). Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 Chairman Sullivan opened the hearing for public testimony. Dick Bergeron. Chimacum spoke on behalf ofthe Chimacum Grange and submitted and read his testimony. (See permanent record) Jim Hagen. 150 Manle Drive. Cane George submitted and reviewed his testimony. (See permanent record) Tom Thiersch. Jefferson County stated that asserted that all the residents of Jefferson County benefit from the services provided by the Clean Water District. He strongly disagrees with that assertion. He does not receive any services from the Clean Water District as far as he can tell. He has not yet seen any public education regarding septic system maintenance. It was promoted as one of the benefits when the Clean Water District was being debated a couple of years ago. There were suppose to be homeowner training sessions so that people could maintain their own septic systems. That has not happened and he has not heard a thing about it except for one little note about it in the Board of Health minutes recently. So, he is not receiving any services. The 5% figure with respect to the human sources of fecal coliform is a real number which was measured in an area in which the human population near the shoreline area in question is much greater than in most areas of Jefferson County. If you live on a parcel that is inland you are allowed to drill a well within a couple of hundred feet of your septic system. So, that makes the assumption that the effluent that goes through your septic system is safe by the time it reaches that well, a very short distance away. Now he's being told that if he lives inland a couple of miles away from the nearest shoreline that his septic system will have an impact on the health of the salt water shellfish area. He doesn't think that is credible. It is a scare tactic being raised by all kinds of folks. He doesn't know their motivation, but, they want to tax the hell out him and he is not happy about it. He also pointed out that there is a requirement for the County to work cooperatively with municipalities within its boundaries to develop support for the Clean Water or Shellfish Protection District and to develop funding sources jointly. Now the County is saying well, "okay, Port Townsend, you're off the hook." That is not what the statute envisions. The County is supposed to work with the City and get them to pay at least a fair share portion of this tax. You just carmot blanket exempt them. Dennis Schultz. 250 N. Jacob Miller Road. Port Townsend stated the Board exempted the parcels in Port Townsend and Port Ludlow from paying the fee just because they have sewer districts and stormwater management. The odds of a major sewer spill from any of those sewer districts are astronomical compared to the amount of sewage that could be spilled from an individual septic system, and yet the County is saying that the properties with sewage and stormwater control are safe and should not be included. Areas that are not exempt include: the Quimper Peninsula, Marrowstone Island, the Miller Peninsula and other areas where there is no way that those inland properties can spill sewage into the saltwater or contaminate the shellfish beds. Port Ludlow draws its water from the Port Ludlow drainage area. Who is going to pay the cost to make sure their water is clean? Port Townsend draws its water from Quiicene. They store the water in lakes in the upper watershed. You are asking the rest of the County to pay to keep that water clean and not Port Townsend or Port Ludlow. Either tax us all or don't tax anybody. The structure of this tax is unfair. We benefit from the Centennial Clean Water funding, but, this is in the category of a "nice to have", not a "have to have." Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 George Yount. 717 25th Street. Port Townsend spoke on behalf of the Olympic Environmental Council and submitted and read his testimony. (See permanent record) William Wheeler. 222 Big Leaf Lane. Ouilcene submitted and read his testimony. (See permanent record) Bud Schindler. Brinnon testified that he was a problem solver his entire career making sure that everyone understood what the problem was before he related any kind of a solution. In terms of the Clean Water District, it should have been Clean Water District Phase I. A problem statement needs to be identified. What is clean water? It needs to be identified along with everything that affects the Puget Sound and Hood Canal. It could have been phase I dealing with fecal coliform only. Or if the County is going to be dealing with stormwater it should be identified as such. In looking at all the descriptions, each one says clean water. What is meant by clean water? This is confusing to the public. The County didn't identifY clean water or it would have taken into account the sewage treatment centers, pharmaceuticals, and heavy metals to determine how it all affects the salmon, the canal, and our shellfish industry. The human element is only a minor portion of the problem. This has been clarified by Kitsap County which does not conduct any source testing. They assume that all their contaminants are caused by humans. Jefferson County has failed to clearly and concisely identifY the problems with the water. All elements of the water, not just the fecal contaminants. What is polluted water? Where is it coming from? And what are the impacts? All factors need to be taken into account. Roger Short. Chimacum said that he is getting tired of coming in here to discuss clean water and he thinks it is a slap in the face to the rural County for all the accomplishments and work done on water quality by the Conservation District. How much is enough? The County is calling it a fee, but, he noticed Mr. Harrington slip and call it a tax during his presentation. He is still led to believe that it is a tax instead of a fee. He owns 9 parcels and will only have to pay $45. It cost him more than that to come here today, so he is not here today about the money. He is here for other reasons. These are tough economic times for everyone. The County is putting more burden on the taxpayers. Preparing for and coming to these hearings takes time away from businesses and weakens them. No wonder the 250+ dairies in Jefferson County are now down to 1, with a few news ones starting out. It is due to additional regulations and burdens imposed by County government. The County says they want local agriculture, yet, everything the County does is against that. There are beaver problems in the streams which is flooding more of the groung and creating more frogs and frog eggs resulting in poor water quality. Elk are a problem too. Citizens carmot keep coming here trying to defend themselves from the intrusion of more government. Pat Pearson. 1201 Ludlow Bav Road. Port Ludlow stated she is the W.S.U. Extension Water Quality Agent for Jefferson County. She believes in public process and appreciates the support and effort of the Board with regard to clean water. She doesn't think this is a perfect Clean Water District program, but, it is a good start and it will get better. There is not going to be anything more important in this County over the next 3 to 5 years than water quality issues. Shellfish farming is a whole other aspect of farming and of our local economy. We are going to learn a lot more, but, the only way for the County to do that is to have the money to do the research and the monitoring. We have seen the budget projections. It is not a mandated service to provide, so we have to find a way to step up to the plate. She thinks it is a nominal fee. It is likely that more Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 money will be needed, but, it is a good start and she believes the County can do a lot with it. She knows how much staff and the Commissioners actually pay attention to try not to impose any more fees than they absolutely have to. She supports it for these reasons. Mike Whittaker. 170 Moon Vallev Drive. P.O. Box 220. Ouilcene stated that he talked with past Commissioner Glen Huntingford who feels this issue is cyclical and is not something new. There is enough science to suggest that septic systems did not cause the problem. There is enough science to show that runoff from cities and high density areas, and problems with sewage treatment plants are contributing factors. He wants to be shown a treatment plant that doesn't have a valve, which nobody wants to talk about, that when they get overwhelmed they just open it everything goes out into the water. This is America where it is all about the money. During the public hearing held 2 years ago at Fort Worden when the district was first established people overwhelmingly testified that this was a bad plan. There is a correlation between this fee and the reason people are supporting the initiative to limit property taxes. He believes a problem defined is half solved. Education on septic systems is the first place to begin. Joe D'Amico. Fort Discoverv testified that he lives on one of the largest parcels on Discovery Bay. A $5 tax doesn't sound like a lot, but, there are 250 parcels where he lives and many of them are vacant undeveloped land. He asked the Board to consider not putting a fee on vacant parcels. He noted that livaboard boats may also be an issue with regard to water quality. He has also seen a lot of piping coming off of the bluffs across Discovery Bay from where he lives which could be causing a problem. He suggested the County test the water in that area prior to imposing a tax on Jefferson County residents. The RV park along Highway 101 has 50 full time residents living on 10 acres. He suggested the County check on any overflow issues there as well. Mike Belenski. Jefferson Countv pointed out that a comment was made that if you live in Port Townsend you are already paying for waste disposal. When he got his septic permit in 2000 it cost him between $15,000 and $16,000, not counting the 200 to 300 hours he spent fighting the County to get the permit. The fact that County residents pay up front rather than a monthly fee like Port Townsend residents is a relevant argument. He questioned why the County is exempting Port Ludlow and Port Townsend from paying the fee because they have sewer, and yet their pipes go straight out into the bay? He questioned if the County is monitoring those areas to insure that they are not contributing to the problem? Staff reported that Mason County created a Shellfish Protection Area, Kitsap Created a Stormwater Management Plan and yet Jefferson County creates a Clean Water District. Commissioner Austin lives in Port Ludlow and Commissioner Johnson lives in Port Townsend, so two of the Commissioners won't be affected by having to pay the fee. The County is trying to selectively enforce this tax in certain areas when everyone has an interest in clean water. The tax burden should be on everyone. He agrees that the problem needs to be identified before trying to figure out a solution. This whole thing is a scam. It is a budget bandaid to generate more money with no articulated findings as to the problem and how it will be addressed. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed amendment to the Clean Water District Ordinance, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. Due to a concern expressed by a citizen who testified earlier, Commissioner Austin noted that forested parcels are exempt from paying the fee. Page II Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 Commissioner Austin moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 07-0810.09 amending the Clean Water District Ordinance No. 08.1017.07, JCC8.65. and to include the change to section 3 clarifYing that the properties in the West End are also exempted from this fee as recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Assessor Jack Westerman clarified that parcels will be exempt from the fee only if they are entirely designated as Forest Land or Open Space Timber. Parcels which are only partially in designated Forest Land or Open Space Timber will be not be exempt from the fee. Chairman Sullivan stated problem identification is a major part of every grant that is written. Neil Harrington added that problem identification was part of the original ordinance establishing the Clean Water District. Commissioner Johnson added that this is about problem identification and monitoring. Neil Harrington said that he is open to trying to secure additional funding from outside agencies to conduct microbial source testing. It is not an "off the shelf' technology, so doing experimental studies can lead to ambiguous results. Jean Baldwin added that this is also being reviewed by all Puget Sound Counties. Commissioner Johnson stated that there is a lot oftruth that there are stormwater issues in Port Townsend and probably Port Ludlow as well and he would like to investigate that more. He personally doesn't like imposing the parcel fee, but, he is going to agree to it even though he doesn't feel it is particularly equitable. Chairman Sullivan stated that there are pros and cons to all the issues they face. Improvements can be made in the future, but, decisions need to be made now. The budget does play into this because there are a lot of unknowns. If the County could afford to pay for this out of reserves from the General Fund, it might continue doing that, but, it would be at the expense of other things right now as we are facing a recession that was not anticipated. Commissioner Johnson noted that a citizen commented that there was no benefit to himself, to which he explained that a $20 million portion of our economy reaches throughout the County in some level. County Administrator Morley commented that the Clean Water District is a shellfish protection zone. Issues with water quality for our shellfish have been documented. Waterbodies have been on watch lists and as issues have been addressed we have seen improvement in some of those waterbodies which shows the problem diagnosis, while not perfect, is somewhat correct. From an institutional perspective, establishing the Clean Water District and a reliable funding source allows for an institution which can evolve over time as science improves to come up with even better solutions. He recommends the Board move forward with the adoption ofthis fee. Chairman Sullivan called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 10,2009 ~ ~ (CANCELLED) Department of Natural Resources; Jefferson County Income Report and Presentation of Forest Funds: The presentation was cancelled. Copies of the report will be mailed to Jefferson County by the State Department of Revenue. Letter Congratulating Jefferson County Accountant Karen Bednarski on Receiving the "Professional Finance Officer A ward": Commissioner Austin moved that the Board send a letter to Jefferson County Accountant Karen Bednarski congratulating her on receiving the "Professional Finance Officer Award". Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Commissioners: . Schedule coordination . Budget update . Miscellaneous items . Courthouse Grant Opportunities Letter to Director Jay Manning, Washington State Department of Ecology Regarding Pleasant Harbor Resort, Brinnon: Commissioner Austin moved that the Board send a letter to Director Jay Marming, State Department of Ecology supporting an expeditious response to the water rights application submitted by Statesman Group for the Pleasant Harbor Resort in Brinnon. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:39 p.m. until the next regular meeting on Monday, August 17,2009 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ":~/I:L~~ David Sullivan, Chair ~ on, Member A!2~ (1~ John Austin, Member Page 13 (C '? It BH 109 ..:2;;:;:u, '" --"-f""" -,'" ..~::~o J ....0( cC )~~~~f,::~j' Jefferson County County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend Washington 98368 ~o+ f-(.':'iJ1snM ('''liNn. ....' _, ...!( . \. . ".I" \~ I.l'., ' "t , To the Jefferson County County Commissioners, Now is not the time to hit us, your constituency, with another obscure and ineffectual tax. What I am referring to is the "Clean Water" tax. This proposal will add more rules that will be costly to landowners who are already burdened under this current economic crisis. Your offices have, through the auditors efforts, already increased our property taxes from 1 0 to 15 percent during a time when; 1. Interest that your aging constituents had lived on has evaporated 2. Banks are failing 3. Homes are being foreclosed 4. Younger constituents are loosing their jobs 5. Those with jobs are being asked to accept reduced wages to help their employers (i.e. the county) maintain their balance sheets If this trend continues, your constituency will fall further behind. They will continue to default on their mortgages, and they will not be able to buy, build, or remodel any residence in the county. Property and its associated taxes are the bread and butter of the counties tax base. Middle class working and retired people will not be able to sustain this added burden. How do you feel that you are dong the right thing by adding more people on the payroll (which will not be covered by the proposed $5 tax)? Your constituency is educated enough to realize that the manpower requirements to fulfill the obligations of the proposed inspections and the legal cost of condemning and evicting landowners from their property will not be covered by this $5 increase. We can only assume that you have planned for, and are fully expecting this tax to escalate. This is not acceptable! Please review this proposition for the negative effect that passing such an ordinance will have on us, the middle class and retired people who elected you to office. Your concerned constituent, ~~ / -James D. Simcoe aUJI'-lJ't f/~jJ(/9 $- jky& ~ . Read( rt~ l..e#K,c~~ JOt-"""es :s;~ ?~2- (( t}K.ee. d IV r ~.. of- .I/:t:f, :21)(:; 0 Name Addr&'ss Sinn,Jt" e/ U61lA.) ~. t:.. ,~ $"2.. ~ A/J j'1 AJJ {)t.:fI.L ^ . n.. .L UllV1-</ttl.J I.) {)",(,/ p,.Jrl.. . I J. "/I -'AL ./}. ) ,,~./ O~ ~'(fl ANQIfItSoiV). K ....P~:!3\ '..#. &d (t . V 19 -r <ES 1/ './h/ J [;!J J1uk J)r: L--.L ../_ d fiR J'-o":;rfL-: j) ,oo ,c>," Cl S,,~~"~ I~(?);. \~ ~~~fL_ r' >P"Lik.' / , A. '--I... 4- (j, .4. . AN, M, 9;J J}" ,.., :-:- .111#5/, .... . (4-Nl VJin ;, n ~'}\1 .{ ?J3b M n\'ffi"ll-Prfl^ CiY\ \ /1 .--' , y n i-fa.. ,Y,iA "'Au A J.or /p?, liAr (0 (If -Ln1.A VA /j;/;1;:S.,'.Y~ Ab/l97. >'V\."uc f', CR..rte-.r t.ob S, ~<tcck~ f'?r_ --- --;; ,&..d:iv //c.l,'" -c: "/}-f/. < ,:JS- uJ Va..l.2.&. f!efl_ ;~ /". ~7...#-A.. /) A / 0 L/ t- L.G r\-\ 8\ s )O~ Page I of 1 jeffbocc From: Jim Hagen Ochagen@donobLnet] Sent: Wednesday. August 05.20099:14 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: CWO Public Comment HEARI~. ,J~ R.~. r('\j ~ ."". .,., .".1 ~ i' .~;.,.., ~ < }. " '..', ,'~ , ,< '.*-',.' ':;'::' '",.", Commissioners, It is not the $5 fee that is objectionable but the flawed poiicy of instituting a Clean Water District back in 2007. Hopefully, an inventory of all related costs will be provided prior to the public hearing this Monday so citizens know the total expenditures to date. Even before the economic downturn the county's budget projections were not good, but the SoCC went ahead anyway and adopted a CWD. without funding. when the more prudent action would have been to simply establish a Shellfish Protection District. So before the issue of water quality and monitoring is discussed, this is first and foremost a matter of effective public policy and good government, of which this is a poor example. Too often Ecology grants provide the incentive/temptation for local jurisdictions to pursue regulatory programs they cannot afford. One issue we can probably agree on is if these grants are deemed necessary to meet statutory requirements, then they should be 100% funded mandates. It is sometimes hard to sympathize. though. with a SoCC that appears to endorse the expansive and costly regulatory solution to every perceived problem. Eventually the bill comes due, and that responsibility inevitably falls on the taxpayer. I support the end goal of water quality monitoring for purposes of both establishing a baseline of existing conditions. improving immediate concerns, and proactively heading off future threats. If the scope of detection protocols included all pollutants regardless of source I could even enthusiastically support this but the entire focus of the identification and correction procedures is aimed solely at failing septic systems. which according to studies conducted thus far in the county account for roughly 4% of all systems. The recent WRIA 17 presentation of Dungeness water quality studies, attended by commissioner Sullivan, revealed roughly 5% of detected pollutants originated from human sources. Laying the problem at the feet of rural landowners is the equivalent of environmental profiling. Until the issue of water quality monitoring and detection of potential sources is approached with open.minded, scientific objectivity that encompasses all possible sources of pollution, including birds and wildlife, the money spent on and outcome of this program will be of limited value. This is somewhat akin to a criminal investigation that is narrowly confined to one suspect while the real culprits may very well remain at large. Of course this is more expensive but that then becomes a budgeting priority issue. Not only do the assumptions of this program limit focus of source detection on humans but it goes even further by limiting that to a specific class of human - the rural landowner. The exclusion of urban areas such as Port Townsend and Port Ludlow is arbitrary and unfair. Is this Clean Water District really about clean water in Jefferson County, or just specified areas that will not produce political repercussions? I suppose the argument would be the presence of sanitary sewer systems would distinguish these two areas from the rest of the county which relies on septic systems. but is the county confident that the urban activities associated with Port Townsend and Port Ludlow are less harmful? Also, the city often argues that the environmental condition of the county is their business. too. Along with that argument comes equal financial responsibility. I do not want my concerns with this program to be confused with my respect for the work of the Conservation District and the work of Neil Harrington at the Department of Health. The issues at stake here are not matters of ends so much as means. Jim Hagen 150 Maple Dr. Cape George P.S. Why is the written comment deadline today and not at the conclusion of public comment at the Hearing this Monday? 8/5/2009 (c : 1>\-\ 815109 Page I of I jeffbocc :::~: :e::eh~:::~hA[~:i::;~:~~~~~C~~~;~g~lations.com] H EAR I.~\~ G; To: jeffbocc Subject: Public comments regarding funding for Jefferson County's Clean Water District ", ........ r'l n ! ~ .~ f~f' :'; ': ~. ',':. ~;I', ,.: k'~ ,'" >~"",. r . ., .'." Submitted by: Tom Thiersch, resident. Jefferson County The following are my public comments regarding the proposed per.parcel fee for funding Jefferson County's Clean Water District. 1. Jefferson County never had the authority to create the "Clean Water District" (CWO). The county abused the provisions of RCW 90.72 "Shellfish Protection Districts" as cover to create this illegal CWO; RCW 90.72 was enacted and intended to protect limited areas, areas directly adjacent to the at.risk saltwater tidelands where shellfish aquaculture occurs; it was never intended to permit the creation of broad, county.wide, districts. 2. Including the entirety of East Jefferson County in the CWO demonstrates how far removed this district is from the intent of the Shellfish Protection District act. Properties with septic systems located miles away from large rivers and miles away from the nearest shoreline cannot possibly have any measurable or meaningful effect on shellfish growing areas. RCW 90.72.030 specifically limits the "district to include areas in which nonpoint pollution threatens the water quality upon which the continuation or restoration of shellfish farming or harvesting is dependent." The entire East County cannot possibly be envisioned as a threat to the shoreline areas. 3. The proposed "fee" is not a fee - it is a TAX - and cannot therefore be levied until approved by a vote of the people. A "fee" is charge one pays for an explicitly requested service. RCW 90.72.030 states "the county legislative authority shall have full jurisdiction and authority to manage, regulate, and control its programs and to fix, alter, regulate, and control the fees for services providjld" (emphasis added); I will not be requesting or receiving any such "services" from the county, so the county cannot charge me a fee. 4. RCW 90.72.070 describes in detail the various funding mechanisms that the legislature intended to be used. Again, it is explicitly stated that any fees are to be "fees for services provided". 5. If a fee is to be assessed, it cannot be applied to all parcels; it must be focused on individuals, businesses, and activities in specific areas that are proven to be threats to the shellfish areas. 6. Since pets are a significant source of the microorganisms that threaten shellfish, Port Townsend's and Port Ludlow's pet owners - particularly those who walk their dogs on the beach - should be charged fees commensurate with the environmental harm they cause. 7. The proposal to exempt all of Port Townsend from any fees is absurd because there are numerous parcels in Port Townsend that are not connected to the city sewer system. A fundamental rationale for the existence of Shellfish Protection Districts is that failing septic systems contribute significantly to the deterioration of the shellfish growing areas. If this is true, then the parcels using septic within the city limits are no different than any others that are located near the shellfish beds. 8. Once the Tri.Area sewer is placed in service, all of the parcels within that area will be exempt from all charges (fees, taxes, whatever) under RCW 90.72.040 - see the reference to RCW 36.94. In summary, I strongly oppose the imposition of any per-parcel tax to fund the Jefferson County Clean Water District. If the CWO is in need of additional funding, then this decision must be left to the voters. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County 8/5/2009 Cc: 1>\-\ 8/'5109 Page I of I jeffbocc From: Jim Boyer [baysiders@cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05,200912:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Clean Water District fir' II D'/~ 'r:; . :fp"'~' 1. , ., '" I"~ , ;<" r:'':1.~' ~l aft ~f' , i!:'Wt \.,)) ., :~ '~l ,~ Sirs; Since the original problem that caused this rush to appear proactive has been resolved in most part by the Beckett system and... Since it is not enough of a concern to solicit participation from the energetic environmental lobby in Port Townsend and... Since the blurred lines between taxation without a vote being disguised as a fee is likely to cost the county more money with a court test: This idea should be tabled while we address the budget short fall before us in 2010. Jim Boyer Port Ludlow 8/5/2009 c(.... ? ~ e(~(oq Page 1 of 1 jeffbocc From: Ron Gregory [builder@cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1 :29 PM To: jeffbocc@co. jefferson.wa.us Subject: Clean Water District "FEE" ~'r... /..''''It ,p, .; \~i<1!"r'l I.J.: ( ___ ',~( r"-j_~~', \.:~,;:''': ~ i ,,,,,~,.. '\,'-: <: ." ,,::' '\"0:") r live in Port Ludlow, which is supposed to be exempt from this TAX. A so called clean water district was implemented without adequate public notice and participation and now you want to impose a TAX because the BoCC has spent itself into the red. This is not a fee, this is a tax and will be challenged. Ron Gregory Port Ludlow ~ FREE Animations for your email .bylncrediMail! L ,.~ HenJl }t \ 8/5/2009 Page I of] jeffbocc From: William Wheeler [fairleafarms@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Clean Water District Funding Proposal. Public Comment 1;!~i';"I. r}~l',,-.- t:,W R , ;:v ,,, .', II ' August 5, 2009 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners From: William A. Wheeler, 222 Big Leaf Lane, QUilcene, WA 98376 Subject: Proposed funding for the Jefferson County Clean Water District, public comment. As a property owner in Jefferson County and one directly effected by both the activities associated with the Clean Water District and the fee being proposed to fund the district I am filing my objection to the funding proposal as follows: 1. The proposed fee is intended to provide matching funds for state DOE grants which by their very nature have proved to disproportionately, and without scientific justification, saddle rural property owners with the cost of regulations which far exceeds the modest fee proposed. The philosophical basis and scientific assumptions of these grants have continually ignored the fact that real, human caused, water quality issues do not begin with rural septic systems but with transportation, industrial and urban activities. 2. The proposed fee exempts the very urban centers which, through the accumulation of heavy metals and pharmacological pass through are likely to make a far greater contribution to overall water quality problems than do septic systems. While I object to funding the CWD in general, as it is now being used, at least providing funding from the counties general fund shares the cost of the CWD with the city residents. Respectfully Submitted, William A. Wheeler Fair Lea Tree Farm 222 Big Leaf Lane Quilcene, WA 98376 Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail@. Try it now. 8/5/2009 Page 1 of I jeffbocc From: Larry Carter [Iwc@cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 20092:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County water district fee Here you rascals go again! This issue has already been shot down in flames on the ballot. It seems that you three are the only ones in the county with all the answers and damn the voters. Those of us in the county note with great interest that Port Townsend wanted nothing to do with the paying the costs so we wiil be stuck with the tab again. Did you ever consider that maybe we don.t need to fund this thing at all? We met the mandate by establishing the district on paper so just let it ride. If the state was really serious about it they would pick up the biil. The DOE simply wants to leverage us into taking action that suits their agenda. By the way, where is the evidence that the district's action was solely responsible for allowing shellfish farming to resume on Disco Bay? The DOE will take credit for anything that wiillimit property rights!! There is a new wave sweeping the land to take back our country from those that are purveyors of big government and you commissioners would be advised to get your head out of the sand and listen to those that elected you for a change. We don't want and don't need another illegal tax. Larry Carter 931 Olele Point Rd, Porl Ludlow, WA 98365 360-437.9224 Fax: 360-437.9224 Cell: 360.301.2264 8/5/2009 c...<:: "PH qI5}~ Page 1 of I jeffbocc From: Teren Macleod [teren@ptproperty.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05,20093:58 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Neil Harrington Subject: CWO - comment A- t-': !" !!Jf Ie Dear Commissioners: Regarding the Clean Water District - I am opposed to any program and fee or tax that is not equally shared by all residents of the county. What is the reason for an exemption to residents in Port Townsend and Port ludlow? Municipal system water users have a large share of the pollution-loading - they need to have at least an equal share of the cost. Charging on a per parcel basis is not equitable - as you have indicated more than 250 people own more than 5 parcels as one building site. Commissioner Sullivan's comment that it was too complicated to figure out a more balanced approach is not a good answer to the problem. Monitoring and development of a baseline are important aspects of a clean water district - and those actions should involve the assistance of the Conservation District and landowners in a voluntary program that includes education and incentives. Teren Macleod Teren Macleod teren@ptproperty.com http://ww\N~opertY..com/ 8/5/2009 cc ?t\ elli2 IVi Page 1 of I jeffbocc From: Norman Macleod [gaelwolf@waypt.com] Sent: Wednesday. August 05.20093:57 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment on the proposed $5 per parcel fee for the Clean Water District I.r r'" i. " "om;r kl~' ::i'"" " ~ ~ . ,..~ ,.,. , ~ , I The proposed Clean Water District $5.00 per parcel fee, may actually be legally definable as a tax. If this is the case, the proposed feeltax should be brought forward to the ballot for a vote by the registered voters of Jefferson County. In order to determine whether this proposed fee is actually a fee or is, indeed, a tax, you should obtain a legal opinion from qualified counsel. When forming policy for environmental issues, we have come to an understanding in forming policy here in the United States of America that the "polluter pays". In the case of water quality testing, the county has not adequately demonstrated that there is, indeed, a pollution problem caused by rural residents of Jefferson County of a significance that merits the assessment of a per-parcel fee or tax on the entire body of rural landowners in the designated Clean Water District. Those county residents who can be demonstrated to contribute to water quality problems in the Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca as a whole class are those served by municipal sewer operations that treat contaminated water only to secondary levels. These residents include those living in the City of Port Townsend and the master planned portion of Port ludlow, who you propose to exempt from this fee or tax. Because these residents can be demonstrated to be significantly contributing to the introduction of contaminants, such as biopharmaceutical residuals and household chemicals that have been shown to adversely affect marine animals, including those species on the federal Threatened and Endangered lists, they should, if this fee is adopted, be required to pay the fee under the "polluter pays" philosophy prevalent in the vast majority of jurisdictions in this state and nation. If it is your intent to assess this, you should first determine whether it meets the statutory definition of a fee or a tax. If it is, indeed, classifiable as a tax, then the question of whether to impose it should be sent to the ballot at the earliest possible date. If the voters decide it should be imposed, it should then be imposed on all, including those within the boundaries of Port Townsend and Port ludlow. If it is determined to legally qualify as a fee instead of a tax, it should then be imposed on all, including those within Port Townsend and Port ludlow. The only exemption should be reserved for those low. income seniors you have proposed be exempted. Norman Macleod 241 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 8/6/2009 CC.. Y\--\ b\lolO'l Page 1 of 1 jeffbocc From: Joe D'Amico Uoe@ssnwhq.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 20094:29 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley; Leslie Locke; Erin Lundgren Subject: Jefferson County water district fee/tax Importance: High I, Olf: ' f" .d' l""\;. '''l, 1 Dear BOCC, I have lived and worked in Jefferson County for 43 years. For many of those years, I have lived on Discovery Bay. Just last week, my family and I spent most of the weekend during that unbearable heat swimming and playing along the shoreline on the western side of Discovery Bay, at Fort Discovery. The water was clear and full of eelgrass and marine life. The most noticeable impacts from my simple little observation the overwhelming debris field left over from the 4th of July. If you really want to make a difference in Discovery Bay, then you should start with banning fireworks. What appears to trump all logic, are these issues which have no science. Just like SSNW. A noise issue, but no one from the county has ever conducted a noise study? Yes, more money to the risk pool is my forecast. The more red tape the more the lawyers will love Jeffco. Why are the polluters not being held responsible, like the City? Isn't this about the urban areas within Jefferson County, NOT the rural areas. Also, will this be a fee or a tax? If it's a tax this will need to be put before the citizen of Jefferson for a vote. Rural people are not the cause of pollutions. Thank you. Respectfully, Joe D'Amico, President Security Services NW Inc. HQ 1.800-859.3463 (24 Dispatch) 8/6/2009 Ce, .'?\-\ 6((9/00, Page I of2 , ... jeffbocc From: ellen grus [slick1941@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 20094:25 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: re: Clean Water District I ; To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners City Council of Pt. Townsend Port Townsend Leader August 5, 2009 When is this "Let them eat cake" attitude, exclusive to Pt. Townsend/Pt. Ludlow but extended to all the remaining low.life in Jefferson County going to stop? I'm referring to your latest arrogant proposal, of a $5.00 "fee" (as you refer to it, instead of a tax against my property, so we can't vote on it), to fund your Clean Water District. Something YOU voted to impose on everyone in said county, EXCEPT Pt. Townsend & Pt. Ludlow. Funny thing is, your toilets all happen to flush into the same body(s) of water our rural toilets do. What??!! You beg to differ? Okay, then maybe we're NOT the ones polluting Your waters, so you should actually be footing your own bill. I've done my homework and every last one of you (may be one exception out there), the Jefferson County Commissioners, & Pt. Townsend City Council (who created another totally unnecessary (unknown)money- gulping bureaucracy (CAC).....AND all their hand picked members, are ALL residents of Pt. Townsend or Pt. Ludlow (with an exception or two like I said of Cape George, Nordland?) But yet you deemed yourselves ALL exempt from this hidden property tax. Coincidence? We think not. You ARE all part of the same county. Most of you, I'm sure have some kind of beautiful property, view, waterfront.....whatever, and you're closer to the Straight or Hood Canal, than we'll ever be, being rural & economically harder hit. If ANYONE is closer to polluting the Sound, it would be all of you, NOT us. You did list seniors as exempt. We're assuming you weren't being descriminatory, and included ALL seniors, even the ones that own numerous parcels of land NOT in your chosen exempt areas. But then again, maybe not. Just look at ALL those $5.00 fees you'd miss to fund your past screw-ups. It's a known fact that NONE of you can manage funds. We rural landowners have to foot the bill on ALL your silly projects (beautify Sims Way). If THAT isn't an oxy.moron. I understand that Clean Water funding that is now part of the 2010 budget is somewhere around $100,000. Will my new tax (NOT a fee) be deducted from that? The whole neighborhood expects a response from "someone"......one/any of you. I noticed not one person is represented from Brinnon, Quilcene, Chimacum, Gardiner/Disco Bay area. Or is Gardiner considered West Jefferson County? And I DO understand all about waste-water treatment (King Co........Metro) if that's clue enough for you. NO ONE should be exempt from this fee. Come down off your high horses, or let's make you people exempt from sitting on CAC, and other "conflict.of.interest" committees, or even holding certain offices. You're all a slap in the face, cough up your fair share. (P.s.) another household suggestion. Every time one of your friends or constituents cruizes in to our shores on a yacht or sailboat, maybe you can make a provision that they have to donate to the Jefferson County clean water fund. Ellen Grus Scott Hawes 8/6/2009 Page 20f2 10<10 Da"Dob Quilcene, WA cc: Senator Jim Hargrove Rep. Lynn Kessler Rep. Kevin Van De Wege Get free photo software from Windows Live Cii.c:k here, 8/6/2009 CC yt\ e.J!<S \09 Page I of2 , .. Leslie Locke From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday. August 05, 2009 5:05 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Clean Water District Fee t.... i~ ,)':j, From: Dennis Schultz[SMTP:DSCHUL TZ@WAYPOINT.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 05. 20094:01 :59 PM To: David Sullivan; John Austin: Phil Johnson Cc: Philip Morley Subject: Clean Water District Fee Auto forwarded by a Rule DENNIS lL S(;HlJl..TZ 250 N Jacob Miller Rd Port Townsend, WA 98368 360.379-0338 dschultz@wayptcom August 5,2009 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Port Townsend, WA Clean Water District Fee . Dear Sirs, I strongly do not approve of putting this fee/tax in place for the following reasons: . The City of Port Townsend is excluded even though the City gets its water from the Quilcene watersheds. The people owning property in these watersheds will be required to pay the fee/tax to protect the city's water. . The Port Ludlow Master plan Resort (Which is excluded) gets water from the local watershed and the rest ofthe rural areas will be required to subsidize protecting their watershed. . Property owners in the rural Quimper and Miller Peninsulas where there are no streams will be required to subsidize protecting the areas with streams including Port Ludlow and Quilcene. . You use the argument that the City and Port Ludlow have sewer systems so they should not have to pay the fee/tax. How about the other community sewer/septic systems in the County, why aren't they excluded. . The West End is so sparsely populated that the residents can't possibly affect the watershed, yet 8/6/2009 Page 2 of2 , ... they will have to pay this fee/tax, even after you promised them they would be excluded, in writing. . This is a fee/tax to solve a problem that does not currently exist. We currently have laws and ordinances in place to prevent these potential problems from happening. . It has not been proven that septic failures are the problem. In Clallum County, it was found that birds and wildlife were the major sources of pollution. Septic failures were less than 5%, and even pet waste was a more significant cause of pollution. Before you consider imposing a tax like this, the results of the past two years of monitoring must be released for public review. This leads the public to assume that you have something to hide and do not want the results released. It is almost impossible to get this type of information from Public Health. How has the money been spent in this district in the last two years? How much was in testing, how much in building the septic database, how much in overhead? We are in an economic recession as you well know from your difficulty in trying to balance the County budget. The Clean Water District is in the category of "Nice to have, but not necessary". In other words a luxury we cannot afford at the present time. Imposing this fee/tax at the present time shows that you have a callous, uncaring attitude toward the rural residents of the County. The voters in this County have not forgotten your last attempt to impose this fee/tax. Sincerely, Dennis A. Schultz 8/6/2009 QC t>t-\ 8i19lUl Page I of! Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Phil Johnson Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:42 PM Leslie Locke f.iiO Subject: FW: CWD From: MBelenski@aol.com[SMTP:MBELENSKI@AOL.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:37:44 PM To: dschultz@waypoint.com; John Austin; Phil Johnson Cc: MBelenski@aol.com Subject: CWD Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear BoCC........ So you are implementing a new tax under the guise of a fee. And a selective tax at that.........more money taken from the pockets of rural taxpayers to fund the desires of those who won't be subject to the tax, but want the benefits it. Why should the public fund this when Commissioner Sullivan likely will cost the people of Jefferson County tens of thousands of $$$$$ because of his pizza lawsuit? How about the $20,000 Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Johnson recently voted themselves to fund their retirement? How about the $45,000 that you paid for a mold infested mobile home that you were only able sell for $13,000 ? And on and on it goes as Commissioners Sullivan. Johnson and Austin drive Jefferson County to bankruptcy, with mismanagement, incompetence, negligence and greed........all the while forcing a select portion of Jefferson County taxpayers to fund their schemes. You don't responsibly manage the money you already have, why should the public provide more? Also, the hearing is scheduled for the Commissioners chambers which has a posted fire code occupancy of 49. More than 150 people attended the last Clean Water District Hearing. More indirect discouragement to attend the Hearing. Try to exclude as many people as possible. Maybe you will remove all the chairs and make people stand like you did at the Health Department meeting on January 17, 2008. $5 now..............more next year and the year after that and the year after that.......... You (Commissioners Sullivan, Johnson and Austin) don't responsibly manage the money you are getting now, why should taxpayers provide you more? Mike Belenski 8/6/2009 ~c 'P\+ '1 l'b'l \09 jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: mtnhntr@netzero.net Thursday, July 30, 2009 11 :29 AM jeffbocc Clean Water District, Comments On '~"i } Dear Sir, I read in the local papers that you are proposing to create a clean water district and fund it by levying an annual fee of $5 per parcel on land owned in East Jefferson County. I am opposed to this proposal. First, I don't see why we need added government programs when we already have the State Departments of Health and Ecology. Second, It appears the County is already doing some of the things proposed and it is funded by the general fund. Third, since Discovery Bay seems to be the problem area, why expand it to the rest of the county? Fourth, taxing each parcel is unfair as many (like myself) own more than one tax parcel, and in many cases the additional parcels are vacant. Fifth, where you do have a problem (like in Discovery Bay) the polluters should be required to pay for the clean-up. I look at this as just another tax to create yet another bureauracy. Thank You, Ken Turner, Quilcene Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrFG3tWQsQclbbCTGyErEfYcqsNcK8yzlKv q8KHphlUOSdkYXmQ/ 1 c c '. ? \-\ BI~\Oq Page I of I jeffbocc From: Jan Nagel [chickaro01@cablespeed.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 9:35 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Clean Water District comments !: r: r. 'P' , we were a bit surprised to find the JEFFERSON COUNTY PARKS cost $18 per night. for a bare-bones campsite. when the cost at WASHINGTON STATE PARK. LIKE SEQUIM BAY, IS 12-14 $A NIGHT AND HAS FLUSH TOilETS, SHOWERS, AND MANY OTHER THINGS. I know the view is great, but in Clallum, county, their residents get a price reduction, and seniors. You could use inmates for clean.up. As the park was not very clean either. We live here. but like to go close, because of price. and we have lovely county in our own back yard. We have been proud of our parks here. but $18 is a bit high for the bare-bones you offer. Jan 8/3/2009 ... . . t. Leslie Locke Page I ofl From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, August 03,20093:12 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Clean Water District fee Attachments: BARB CWD 8.3-9 BOCC.wps From: Dennis Schultz[SMTP:DSCHUL TZ@WAYPOINT.COM] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:08:06 PM To: David Sullivan; John Austin; Philip Morley; Phil Johnson Subject: Clean Water District fee Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Sirs: Please see the attached letter. Thank you, Barbara Schultz Greenwater Farm 250 N Jacob Miller RD Port Townsend, WA 98368 8/4/2009 I " ~."'i ;' , ., '"\" ..I.. Jo '- BOCC Jefferson Co. WA Dear County Commissioners: I do agree that everyone needs clean water, but I take exception that everyone gets to pay to make sure that the Port Townsend and Port Ludlow water supplies are kept clean. It is my understanding that the Port Townsend's water supply is the Big Quilcene River and Port Ludlow's is from the Port Ludlow watershed. I think it would only be fair for everyone to contribute to the Clean Water District. If the Clean Water District is going to check and regulate septic systems it should also address the fact that Port Townsend's sewage system is dumping hormones and pharmaceuticals in the ocean every day. Is the clean Water District going to clean this up and prevent more from being dumped? It is my belief that septic systems contribute less than 1% ( or a fraction there of) of the pollutants into the water. I would also like to know what documents you are referring to when you state that there are areas that have serious problems now. I don't think it is fair to correct for problems that might be present in "future" years. The stated reason for the creation ofthis "Clean Water District", was never proven to be failing septic systems, and since has been declared to not be the problem. Also is this a "tax" and not a "fee"? Therefore everyone in Jefferson Co. should be allowed to vote. Sincerely, Mrs. Barbara Schultz 250 N Jacob Miller Rd. Port Townsend, W A 98368 ~ ~. ltC, p\-\ e(lol09 . CHIMACUM GRANGE Serving Rural Jefferson County, Brinnon & Quilcene P.O. Box 604 Chimacum, WA 98325 360.732.00 15 August 10,2009 i !r . /"tIP, II"'< t"'!f("CORD ~~;\~.:,:A:.~ P0l, ~t '<('~ . .. Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 The Grange most certainly advocates for clean water, something that is prevalent in most of Jefferson County. Not only is clean water prevalent, but its quality is not threatened. Let's be clear that, despite media reports, the state did not require the establishment of a clean water district. Since the county did not take adequate measures during several years of wamings by the state Health Department to correct a deficiency in Discovery Bay, drastic action was forced by a state closure. Commissioner Sullivan championed a Clean Water District when a localized shellfish protection district would have sufficed. We have to suppose that the reason Mr. Sullivan advocated a CWD so strongly was not for clean water, but to satisfy an unfunded state mandate to catalog and control septic systems. We find it disconcerting that the $18 to 20 million value shellfish industry is cited as justification for the imposition of this new taxing district and tax when it appears that so many other county agencies under your leadership are hell bent on discouraging private enterprise and local farming. Mystery Bay is listed as a threatened area, yet it has consistently proven to have very clean water. It is only threatened because Chicken Little's in the state Health Department think that the number of boats in the bay could lead to pollution. Mats Mats Bay is another long.standing area of concern. Yet the high readings tend to occur only in late winter or springtime, not year around. County Health has been trying to find a cause, but they have to use source testing to narrow it down to a likely suspect. In Hood Canal #3, Area 143 has long been a concern yet County Health has been unable to locate a possible cause without source testing. Area 140 is where Pierce Creek flows at low tide. Pierce Creek is frequented by the large Duckabush population of elk. We are well aware that the bacteria count in elk poop is relatively low, much lower than human poop. The fact remains that people are not pooping in or near Pierce Creek; the elk are, lots of them. Add to that the high numbers of seals who frequent that area when the tide comes in. Area 142 is relatively shallow at high tide and is frequented by a significant number of seals. The entire Duckabush estuary is home to a substantial number of waterfowl, who also poop. Helping to make Jefferson County affordable, sustainable and self-sufficient \ ~. B;a'rd of County Commissioners Jefferson County Page Two August 10,2009 We can support clean water, yet we do not feel that a new tax is required. It is the voter.mandate to the county commissioners to work with available funds and prioritize what is most important for the residents of this county. Almost everyone in this room wishes they could simply create more money to pay their expenses. That's not legally possible. It is incumbent upon you commissioners to work with the funds you have to further the interests of all citizens of this county as you see fit. It is not your job to tax us more, especially in these difficult economic times. But if you do, all responsible citizens of this county need to feel the pain, including those in Port Townsend and Port Ludlow. They carmot be excluded simply because they complain too much about being overtaxed. Fecal coliform is the marker most commonly used to indicate human pollution. In Jefferson County it may well be that the high levels in areas of concern are caused by wild animals. That fecal coliform is removed from the millions of gallons of effluent dumped daily into the Puget sound by the urban areas. Nonetheless harmful contaminants are being dumped into our waters by these urban areas - pharmaceuticals and other chemicals that certainly do not contribute to clean water. The urban areas have to pay, too. When you impose this tax on us, we must demand that you direct the county agencies to prudently spend the money. Too much is being spent chasing that urban myth that failing septic systems are a significant problem rather than using modern scientific techniques to identify the true sources of fecal coliform pollution. / / ,.------:7 ---...- -----::/- /""' . /' / ~/ /" Dick Bergeron President Cc. \>\-\- 81\0109 , . ,r- \ . Jefferson County Commissioners, H'CARIt-1G. REC.Of'H" . q ,. ;; \~ RlJ .~:/~. .' ~.:V,; "." t "f~ ~, "',w1l~ i: i,} As a taxpayer I might be willing to invest in a comprehensive, objective water quality monitoring regime, but the end goal of the BoCC seems determined to justify large buffers and further restrictions on development. This despite a lack of convincing evidence that failing septic systems are significantly contributing to degraded water quality. This knee-jerk association was recently confirmed during a presentation of studies conducted in Dungeness before the WRIA 17 Planning Unit. While revealing human sources of fecal coliform accounted for less than 5% of detected fecal coliform, the conclusions of the studies nonetheless recommended further regulations on future development. If this were really about clean water, then most certainly two of the major urban areas responsible for degraded water quality, Port Townsend and the Port Ludlow MPR, would have been included. Port Townsend was excluded simply because they previously refused to participate. In reality this fee is as much about supporting the general fund as it is clean water. If this were really about clean water it would impartially consider all potential sources of pollution and would encompass ail areas of the County. Prior to approving this fee the people deserve a full accounting of where the money has gone and where it will be going in the future. Any responsible business plan requires this. While commissioner Sullivan has stated in the past it is his belief government is not a business, any responsible fiscal management is subject 0 basic laws of economics, especially at a time when government resources are so scare. ~ .' ... ., Finally, it is highly unusual to dose written comment before a public hearing. I can only deduce this occurred so that a decision can be made immediately following the hearing. This greatly reduces the value of meaningful public input and gives the distinct impression of fait accompli. Announcing the proposed fee on a Friday afternoon during the dog days ot summer. nght betore i.Jepartment ot Heaith engaged in bUdget evaiuattons, raises turther questions about the ooCL contldence on public acceptance ot thiS tee. {And is thiS a tee or a taXr;. /1 ' jim Hagen rU4t1 V l~U Mapie Ur. / r./ )-::.t$!f #/ (/ Cape beorge .~, cC' \'\-\ B(loloq George B. Yount 717.25th Street Port Townsend WA 98368 360.385.0456 ~.,~' Q' . " >I' j' ';(~.., Ii:, "~ .. i',,,}"1; J f\J G August 10,2009 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse POBox 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 Testimonv ReQardinQ the fundinQ of the Jefferson County Clean Water District On behalf of the Olympic Environmental Council, we wish to lend our support and approval for funding Jefferson County's Clean Water District. We applaud the Board of County Commissioners for their leadership in establishing the Clean Water District. Washington State Department of Health has determined there has been a degradation of water quality in Hood Canal, Mats Mats Bay, as well as Discovery Bay. A major portion of Jefferson County's economy is based on our shell fish industry. It is the primary function of county government to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County. It is clear that our commitment to keeping our waters clean and safe is what the citizens of Jefferson County desire. There are over 350 non-point drainage culverts and ditches that currently handle storm water run off in the county. The Jefferson County Public Health Department is responsible for conducting programs to remedy non-point surface pollution as well as the operation and monitoring of on.site sewage systems. The Health Department's services must be appropriately s.ustained and funded. We respectfully disagree that a five dollar fee on each parcel is enough to sustain a long term commitment to water quality. We believe it should be triple this amount. But we also recognize there will be opposition to any amount the Commissioner's establish. We concur with the recommendations submitted by the Clean Water District Funding Task Force and the variation submitted by the Jefferson County Health Department staff. We urge the Board of County Commissioners to approve and amend Jefferson County Clean Water District, JCC 8.65 George B. unt Representing the Olympic Environmental Council "., Public Stormwater Outfallls to Puget Sound Olympi,c pennillsula Outfalls III Ml3;llmad'<!. Oullalls It ~rO\le;rfI_ iIIc 1I\ISOOT Outfalls 0ufaI$ C.C. \?V\ 'GIOtc.:Fi , ' ~. ; r' \""11 ~. iI" .RV'" (''\ . ,.~.!"I.\IJ.'\,!",!. 'I..,." ~ ~t""I~!"r; >C, , ~(, ~',,4 :j ',', l~ ~:,.' ~, Good Morning. My name is William Wheeler, I live at 222 Big Leaf Lane in Quilcene. t Thank you for allowing me to speak on the important matter being considered. Since the fee proposed is less than what it cost me to drive up here today it's obvious that my reason for appearing is not a case of money. Indeed, for me and many others involved in forestry the fee can not be assessed. I have been an advocate of clean water for a long time, going back to my involvement with the Clallam County Streamkeepers program and an attempt to bring a similar program of scientific water quality monitoring using trained citizen volunteers when I was President of the Jefferson County Water Watchers. I agree that the public has a vital interest in protecting the quality of waters in our streams, rivers and near shore marine waters and I champion the need for rigorous scientific evidence to so that. If the Clean Water District and the proposed fee to fund it were seriously aimed at accomplishing that I would be one of the first in this room to cheer you on. Unfortunately, the CWD was conceived and developed with very narrow, and largely unsubstantiated idea that water quality is threatened by rural use of septic systems. It uses as it's sole measure of quality something called fecal coliform. Unfortunately this fecal coliform is pretty common stuff in the natural environment and so far as I can determine is a natural byproduct of just about every living creature, including my dog, the flock of ban tailed pigeons that spend the summer on my place. On any given day I suspect that the deer that croSS my meadow deposit a few pounds of the stuff, and I've not observed it personally but I understand that the Ocra that occasionally makes a pass by the shellfish beds in Tarboo Bay makes a rather sizable deposit from time to time. All of these creatures make deposits of fecal coliform rather regularly that finds itself in the test tubes that sample our waters. In fact, of all Gods creatures who may leave a bit of fecal coliform in the waters of Jefferson County I can tell you only two that will not. My wife and I will leave ours in a $7000, gold plated, county approved, marvel of engineering that the CWD requires I have inspected annually at great expense to make sure that it's functioning properly. If the data from areas that have bothered to study fecal coliform seriously is to be believed human fecal coliform, that is, failed septic systems or perhaps a hunter or fisherman, gastric emergency behind a steam side bush are a minor part of the problem. The CWD needs to recognize that, to date it has not. The fact that the CWD is based on simplistic assumptions to terribly complex problems, and that in its eagerness to get on with the job it imposes unnecessary and financially burdensome requirements on the rural citizens of the county that have questionable effectiveness is really a minor objection of mine. A much more serious problem so far 1 ... -. , as I'm concerned is that the real reason for the fee, and so far as that goes, the CWD, is that it, in the words of the proposed amendment, to provide proof of matching funds that can be used to match grants from other entities. For far too long parts of county government have functioned as grant writers, not service providers to county citizens. There are several problems with this. The frrst is that seeking, and contracting, for a grant is an administrative, not a public process. It's only later, often several years later that we're informed that we must do this or that, because we agreed to do so as part of a grant. We've taken, and spent the money, now we need to pass this or that ordinance. Many of these grants have been with the state Department of Ecology, and though the proposed amendment to the ordinance is vague on where future grants will come from, it seem certain that this is really a DOE, matching fund mechanism. Of great concern, in these grant relationships, is when it comes to the work being done, the decisions being made, and the results being considered, who is the Jefferson County government employee, or elected official working for? The granting agency, or the citizens of Jefferson County? Until grants are afforded the same level of public transparency and discussion that other public business is afforded, this will always be asked. Until such transparency becomes a normal part of county government, I will be opposed to creating a funding mechanism to further encourage using grants as a source of funding county government. One last thing. I believe that you have a sincere belief that it's necessary to fund the CWD, otherwise you would not be considering this proposal. I understand that you truly believe that doing so is a mater of great public importance, because you consider the CWD to be of great public importance. Yet by exempting landowners in Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, the low income elderly, and forest landowners from the fee you've shifted all of the burden to a minority of rural landowners in the county. I would think that the two of you who represent the rural districts would be more sensitive to the inequity of what you've proposed. If this is truly an issue of public importance, let funding remain with the general fund and compete with all of the other issues of public importance. Thats the fair thing to do, and its the equitable thing to do as well. Thank you for your time and consideration.