MEETING: Commissioners Meeting at Mon, Aug 05, 09:00 AM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

North Olympic Peninsula Recompete Grant Award

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:52.508–00:01:42.297
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Public Announcement by Commissioner)
  • Categories: other

Topic Summary

The meeting began with a public announcement celebrating the North Olympic Peninsula's success in receiving the Recompete Grant, securing $35 million over the next five years. This federal funding is dedicated to supporting barrier removals, social services, and workforce development through collaboration between various local entities. The announcement emphasized the prestigious nature of the award, noting that the project was one of only six selected from 652 original applicants in the highly oversubscribed program.

Key Discussion Points

  • The North Olympic Peninsula successfully secured a $35 million Recompete Grant from the federal government, distributed over the next five years for various barrier removals, social services, and workforce/school support [00:00:52.508].
  • Partnering organizations include Jefferson EDC, the North Olympic Development Council, Peninsula College, and Olympic Health [00:00:52.508–00:01:03.220].
  • The project was selected as one of only six final awardees out of 652 original applicants, noting it was the program's "most subscribed program ever" [00:01:23.332–00:01:28.052].
  • Commissioner Dean acknowledged the extraordinary effort by the team, specifically naming Amanda Christopherson in their office, for putting in many hours beyond her normal duties [00:01:28.052–00:01:33.732].
  • Some specific projects submitted by local entities did not receive funding, which Commissioner Dean stated would be broken down later [00:02:02.009–02:02.009].

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Grant Award Value: $35 million [00:00:52.508].
  • Duration of Funding: Over the next 5 years [00:00:58.541].

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational announcement; no action taken.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Dean/Staff: Prepare and release a press release regarding the grant and provide further details on specific funded and unfunded projects [00:01:20.916–00:02:15.623].

Public Comment: Bayside/American Legion ROI and Data Collection

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:02:15.623–00:05:36.418
  • Agenda Item: Public Comment
  • Categories: services, operations

Topic Summary

Public commenter Maggie detailed persistent issues regarding the mandatory Release of Information (ROI) document at the American Legion shelter operated by Bayside Housing, asserting that the document remains illegal, violates HIPAA, and facilitates unauthorized dissemination of private information to non-governmental entities. Maggie claimed that the mandatory nature of the document causes occupants fear and constitutes human trafficking, organized crime, racketeering, and consumer fraud.

Key Discussion Points

  • Maggie (Public Comment): Stated that approximately one week prior to the meeting, Bayside allegedly threatened to evict everyone at the American Legion if they did not sign the mandatory ROI [00:02:26.854].
  • Maggie (Public Comment): Alleged that Bayside is still using the ROI, described as an "illegal document," to gather and disseminate private information in violation of HIPAA laws to non-government organizations like the American Legion [00:02:24.798–00:02:56.695].
  • Maggie (Public Comment): Characterized the collection and selling of private data as "human trafficking, it's organized crime, it's racketeering, and it's consumer fraud" [00:03:23.765–00:03:25.830].
  • Maggie (Public Comment): Asserted that the illegal document has not been returned to the occupants to destroy, and occupants remain in fear of eviction [00:03:31.223–00:03:51.318].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Stated that sweeping, broad allegations make it difficult to take specific action and confirmed the County is continuing to work on the ROI issue with Bayside [00:08:41.307–00:09:03.624].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Clarified that she facilitated the conversation about the ROI issue but did not outright "oppose" the ROI at the Shelter Coalition meeting [00:09:13.277–00:09:22.339].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Indicated the core contention is that the American Legion wants to be informed if someone is exited from the shelter for "disruptive behavior" because they often return to the vicinity [00:10:32.064–00:10:41.575].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Stated that while the information is likely not protected by HIPAA, "there are laws that protect this information" [00:10:36.647].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Mentioned she has a follow-up meeting with Bayside and the County the following day (Tuesday) to address the issue, seeking a path that maintains peace without infringing on people's rights [00:10:41.575–01:11:11.880].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Acknowledged the possibility of using different forms—one for notifying the landlord of an issue and a separate one for voluntarily reaching out for service support [00:14:46.383–01:44:06.310].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Stated that continued public attacks on Bayside's reputation are "not helpful" and expressed gratitude for their work, recognizing that management of the shelter is difficult [00:23:13.778–00:23:33.438].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Confirmed Bayside continues to express willingness to participate in public meetings to resolve the issue [00:23:51.631–00:24:00.068].

Public Comments

  • Maggie: Reiterated various allegations about the illegal use of the mandatory ROI by Bayside and the American Legion, asserting violations of HIPAA and calling the practice human trafficking and organized crime [00:02:24.798–00:05:36.418].
  • Shelley (Public Comment): Expressed support for Maggie's frustration over the lack of solid answers and stressed the need for special attention, emphasizing that bullying needs to stop and more compassion is needed, noting Bayside's reputation is not "stellar" [01:15:53.306–01:17:15.308].
  • Viola (Public Comment): Agreed that the choice between being outside or signing a violation-perceived document feels "oppressive" [01:17:34.583–01:38:36.8].
  • Viola (Public Comment): Offered to assist in developing a resolution and suggested a meeting between Bayside, the Legion, and a Shelter Service Provider (who understands the issues) [01:17:48.368–01:18:28.452].
  • Viola (Public Comment): Raised concern that demanding ROI information may set up individuals who have been exited from a shelter for "discrimination" if they try to access services at the Legion as a customer [01:18:30.518–01:18:42.828].

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed relative to the dispute.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion of developing a separate document for landlord/disruptive behavior notification versus voluntary service enrollment [01:44:06.310].

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational/discussion item; no action taken.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Dean: Attend meeting with Bayside/County staff on Tuesday morning to discuss the ROI [00:09:01.997].
  • - Commissioner Dean: Relays Viola's offer to assist in developing a resolution document [00:22:26.409].

Public Comment: MRC Meeting Location/Format Error

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:06:08.609–00:06:42.763
  • Agenda Item: Public Comment
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

Gordon King informed the Board that the weekly calendar incorrectly listed the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) meeting scheduled for the following night as "virtual," despite the meeting actually being held primarily in person, noting it is sometimes hybrid but specifically cautioned against attendees believing it was virtual only.

Key Discussion Points

  • Gordon King (Public Comment): Pointed out that the weekly calendar incorrectly listed the upcoming MRC meeting as "virtual" [00:06:13.791–00:06:18.166].
  • Gordon King (Public Comment): Clarified that the meeting is actually in person and is either in person or a "kind of hybrid" format, but explicitly stated, "it's not not virtual" [00:06:26.792–00:06:42.763].
  • Commissioner Eisenhower (Response): Will follow up with Wendy (who generates the weekly meeting list) to clarify meeting formats, noting the intent to attend the MRC meeting in person [01:12:51.258–01:13:06.104].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Suggested revising the calendar to remove the misleading "virtual" attendance status for the MRC meeting moving forward [01:13:06.104–01:13:16.606].

Public Comments

  • - Gordon King: Notified the Board that Sunday's calendar incorrectly labeled the Tuesday MRC meeting as virtual, confirming the meeting is either in person or hybrid [00:06:13.791–00:06:42.763].

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: None.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Eisenhower: Check in with Wendy about the meeting calendar format [01:12:51.258–01:13:06.104].
  • - Commissioners: Agreed to remove attendance format notes from the calendar entry for the MRC meeting [01:13:16.606–01:13:18.370].

Public Comment: Mom's Laundry Vouchers

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:07:26.259–00:07:49.685
  • Agenda Item: Public Comment referring to Consent Agenda
  • Categories: contracts, services

Topic Summary

Public commenter Julia expressed curiosity regarding a payment listed on the Consent Agenda for Mom's Laundry, noting that someone from the Health Department had previously informed her that the laundromat was no longer accepting vouchers for unsheltered individuals. She questioned whether the payment stemmed from waiting for reimbursement or other issues, highlighting the importance of the service ahead of the imminent opening of a welcoming center.

Key Discussion Points

  • Julia (Public Comment): Questioned the payment to Mom's Laundry on the Consent Agenda, stating she was informed by the Health Department that the business was "no longer accepting vouchers" [00:07:26.259–00:07:42.204].
  • Julia (Public Comment): Expressed curiosity about the cause of the delay (waiting for payment vs. other issues) as the vouchers are important for the upcoming opening of a welcoming center [00:07:42.204–00:07:47.855].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Expressed gratification that the laundry voucher contract was back on the Consent Agenda, stating that service access had been revoked for "some time" [01:11:47.863–01:11:57.653].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Speculated that the item signifies the contract is back in place after potentially running into resistance from the laundromat [01:11:57.653–01:12:13.843].
  • Commissioner Eisenhower (Response): Noted that the contract was dated for the first day of the new State fiscal year (July 1st), suggesting the delay might relate to state funding availability [01:12:07.958–01:12:11.141].

Public Comments

  • - Julia: Inquired about the status of the laundry voucher payment on the consent agenda given her prior knowledge that Mom's Laundry was not accepting them [00:07:26.259–00:07:47.855].

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Consent Agenda item regarding payment/amendment for Mom’s Laundromat [00:07:26.259]. See CONSENT AGENDA: Amendment 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Mom’s Laundromat (Laundry Vouchers Program)

Financials

  • The discussion pertains to a payment/contract listed on the Consent Agenda for Mom's Laundromat [00:07:26.259].

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: None.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Dean: Seek more information about the backstory of the contract delay from Public Health staff ("Pinky") [01:11:47.863–01:12:13.843].

Public Comment: Agenda/Materials Posting and Transparency Concerns

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:15:09.027–01:17:34.583
  • Agenda Item: Public Comment
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

Two public commenters, Tom Tiers and Shelley, raised concerns about the transparency of meeting material dissemination. Mr. Tiers noted that the BOCC agenda and AV capture were not functioning/listed, while Shelley stated the agenda was posted just minutes before the 9 AM meeting time, making prep work difficult. The Commissioners acknowledged the technical challenges stemmed from a widespread internet outage and confirmed that materials were still technically accessible via the Laserfiche system.

Key Discussion Points

  • Tom Tiers (Public Comment): Noticed that the BOCC agenda and AV capture functionality were not listed or functioning [01:15:09.027–01:15:18.051].
  • Shelley (Public Comment): Complained that the agenda was not listed online until "just minutes before 9 o'clock," impeding public preparation [01:15:48.914–01:15:53.306].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Stated the agenda was posted in advance, but the required supporting materials were not posted due to an Internet outage on Friday [01:19:33.401–01:19:40.341].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Confirmed the requirement to post the agenda 24 hours in advance was met, with instructions to access supporting materials available on Laserfiche [01:20:34.717–01:20:40.464].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response): Acknowledged the issue was frustrating and related to the Internet outage and technical problems with AV capture, stating staff is seeking "new vendors" [01:19:44.670–01:20:01.030].
  • Commissioner Eisenhower (Response): Added that the agenda notification was posted highly visibly at the top of the "newsflash" section on the county website [01:20:20.828–01:20:27.151].
  • Commissioner Dean (Response to Tiers' query-forward trajectory): Stated the department is moving "a little backwards right now" with technology issues but plans to stop moving sideways and "maybe move forward," aiming to make the website upgrade successful this fall [01:21:16.400–01:21:30.915].

Public Comments

  • - Tom Tiers: Asked about any news or movement regarding the non-functioning AV capture and BOCC agenda display [01:15:09.027–01:15:18.051].
  • - Shelley: Complained that the agenda was posted just minutes before 9 AM, hindering preparation [01:15:48.914–01:15:53.306].

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: None.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - County Staff: Continue working to resolve the issue with AV capture and material organization during the upcoming website upgrade planned for the fall [01:21:30.915–01:21:44.065].

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:23:57.076–02:27:14.397 (Approval: 02:46:44.4–02:48:30.4)
  • Agenda Item: Consent Agenda
  • Categories: contracts, infrastructure, financial, health, operations, personnel, planning, permits

Topic Summary

The Board of County Commissioners reviewed a robust Consent Agenda covering payroll, various construction, environmental, and financial services contracts, and departmental operations, including amendments for crucial public health services (laundry vouchers, mental health mentoring), a major sewer construction contract, and the resignation of a key committee member. After brief deliberation, specifically affirming support for the new sewer contract and the resumed laundry voucher program, the agenda was unanimously approved.

Key Discussion Points

  • Sewer Work (Public Works): Commissioner Dean and Commissioner Eisenhower expressed enthusiastic support and gratitude for the award of the $2.58 million sewer contract (Phase 4 – Stage 1) for the Port Hadlock UGA [02:46:44.4–02:49:57.3].
  • Laundry Vouchers (Public Health): The Commissioners celebrated the inclusion of Amendment 1 to the Mom’s Laundromat contract, restoring the service after a lapse [02:44:42.533–02:57:31.098]. (See also Public Comment: Mom's Laundry Vouchers)
  • Historical Document Enhancement (Auditor): Commissioner Dean highlighted the Auditor's contract for document image enhancement as a model for developing internal county capacity (i.e., straightening documents, reducing data storage sizes) that could save money on future phases [02:59:10.595–02:59:53.303].
  • Resignations (Personnel): The resignation of Cadence Sagan/Grey Cadence Schad from the Board of Health and the Behavioral Health Advisory Committee was noted as a significant loss requiring filling [03:00:20.640–03:00:27.539].

Public Comments

  • Julia noted concerns about the lapse in the Mom's Laundry Voucher program, addressed in the response section above [00:07:26.259].

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Consent agenda included resolutions and exhibits for all items summarized below under Financials.

Financials

  • Payroll Warrants (July 5, 2024): $167,293.17 (Approved by Auditor)
  • Claims (July 22, 2024): $888,950.27 (Approved by Auditor)
  • Claims (July 29, 2024): $402,191.45 (Approved by Auditor)
  • DDA Agreement Amendment 2 (Public Health): Increases funding by $867,692.00 for services for individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities (IDD).
  • Mom’s Laundromat PSA Amendment 1 (Public Health): Adds $6,000.00 for the Harm Reduction Homelessness Laundry Voucher Program.
  • Olympic ESD #114 PSA Amendment 2 (Public Health): Adds $191,260.00 (total $382,520 maximum) for youth behavioral health counseling services, funded by the 1/10th of 1% Sales Tax Fund.
  • Gina Veloni PSA Amendment 4 (Public Health): Adds $3,570.00 for Infant Mental Health Reflective Supervision consultation for Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) staff (DCYF funding).
  • Evren Northwest, Inc. PSA Amendment 5 (Public Health): Increases contract value by $4,050.00 for the Chimacum Confluence ESA Work Plan development (ECY funding).
  • Water Reclamation Plant Change Order #3 (Public Works): Increases contract by $82,523.59 (total $10,183,042.53) for drain venting, anchor bolts, and fence extension (Department of Commerce funding).
  • Grinder Pump Installation Contract (Public Works): Awarded to Strider Construction Inc. for $2,589,588.87.
  • Historical Document Enhancement (Auditor): Funding commitment of $265,856.12 (Auditor’s O&M Fund) for imaging/indexing services with US Imaging, Inc.
  • Quilcene Skate Park Grant (Public Works): Resolution to apply as secondary sponsor for an RCO COAF Grant of $972,920 (100% grant funded).
  • Economic Development Services (Admin): Professional Services Agreement for $10,000.00 with Clallam County EDC General Fund.
  • Naylors Creek Fish Exclusion (Public Works): PSA, maximum $6,000.00, with North Olympic Salmon Coalition (WSDOT/FHWA PROTECT grant).
  • Naylors Creek Survey (Public Works): Agreement for $25,225.00 with Van Aller Surveying (WSDOT/FHWA PROTECT grant).

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed beyond those noted in deliberation.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve and adopt the Consent Agenda for August 5th [02:27:39.507].
  • Vote: Unanimous [02:27:48.304–02:28:02.096].
  • Next Steps:
  • - DCD/Staff: Begin working to fill the vacancy left by Ms. Sagan/Schad [03:00:20.640].
  • - Public Health/Staff: Implement the resumed Laundry Voucher program.
  • - Public Works/Staff: Proceed with execution of contracts, grants, and change orders.

Participation in Counties Litigation Against DCYF (Juvenile Rehabilitation Intake Freeze)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 03:33:41.383–04:02:35.113
  • Agenda Item: County's Litigation Against DCYF Related to Juvenile Rehabilitation Intake
  • Categories: public safety, operations, contracts

Topic Summary

The Board considered a request from the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) to authorize Jefferson County’s participation in a lawsuit, organized by WSAC, against the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). This legal action seeks to force DCYF to accept mandated juvenile offenders into Juvenile Rehabilitation (JR) facilities following DCYF’s suspension of intake on July 5th. The PAO emphasized the urgency, noting that Jefferson County faces compounded stress because it lacks its own detention center and its contract partner (Kitsap County) may refuse to house offenders due to the statewide freeze. The Board voted unanimously to join the lawsuit to hold the State accountable for its statutory duties.

Key Discussion Points

  • Melissa Pleimann (PAO): Requested authorization to be added as a participant in the lawsuit filed by Pacifica Law Group on behalf of WSAC and 12 other counties [03:33:44.726–03:34:04.989].
  • Melissa Pleimann (PAO): Explained the lawsuit targets DCYF’s announcement on July 5th to freeze admissions to JR centers, which was "a blow for our county" [03:35:15.745] because the County had recently sentenced one youth and was preparing to sentence another [03:36:22.131].
  • Melissa Pleimann (PAO): Clarified that sentences over 30 days mandate housing in a DCYF center (RCW 13.40.185(1)), but the freeze has severely limited the County’s options [03:36:52.922–03:37:32.145].
  • Melissa Pleimann (PAO): Noted Jefferson County's unique vulnerability as it lacks its own detention center and faces resistance from contract jurisdictions attempting to reduce their own numbers due to the freeze [03:37:43.142–03:38:25.541].
  • Commissioner Eisenhower: Characterized the required action as forcing the State to "do your job" and noted the "cascading impacts" of non-compliance [03:39:01.654–03:39:04.900].
  • Commissioner Dean: Stressed that supporting the lawsuit is about holding the State to its statutory requirements [04:03:03.858–04:03:04.484]. She emphasized that detaining juveniles in Jefferson County happens very rarely and is treated seriously when youth pose a danger, noting the existence of a proctor house to prevent detention [04:03:50.436–04:04:44.732].
  • Commissioner Eisenhower: Recalled that Washington State facilities were found to be overcapacity, asserting that this capacity issue is not the County's fault [04:04:58.394–04:04:58.394]. He believes the lawsuit will hold the State's "feet to the fire" to build necessary capacity [04:06:50.719–04:07:00.092].

Public Comments

  • The item was opened up for public comment but none were offered after the initial discussion.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • The legal obligation of DCYF under RCW 13.40.185(1) [03:35:15.745].

Financials

  • The litigation is being funded by WSAC [03:33:56.119].
  • Participation is expected to result in minimal financial impact on the PAO [03:38:46.823].

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion approved to authorize Jefferson County’s participation in the lawsuit against DCYF [04:08:03.965–04:08:04.484].
  • Vote: Unanimous [04:08:34.230–04:08:35.113].
  • Next Steps:
  • - PAO: Submit Jefferson County's approval to Pacifica Law Group for inclusion in the amended complaint [03:34:52.307].

Workshop: DCD Fee Schedule Update and Hearing Notice

Metadata

  • Time Range: 04:30:13.714–05:17:15.001
  • Agenda Item: Hearing Notice Regarding DCD Fee Schedule Update
  • Categories: planning, permits, budgeting

Topic Summary

DCD presented final proposed fee schedules based on the FCS Group's recommendation of a $123.20 hourly rate, intended to achieve 100% cost recovery. The schedules covered building, fire marshal, and land use permits. The core request was to approve a public hearing notice for August 19th to formally adopt a new Ordinance (removing old fees from County Code) and a new Resolution (adopting the updated fees). DCD staff highlighted efficiency improvements reflected in reduced estimated processing hours for several land use permits (e.g., shoreline exemption reductions) and affirmed that the fees comply with state law requiring "reasonable fees." After discussion addressing public concerns about upward fee mobility and efficiency, the Board unanimously approved the hearing notice.

Key Discussion Points

  • Regulatory Foundation/Objective: The update is based on the FCS Group study recommending an hourly rate of $123.20 (up from $111.00) to achieve 100% cost recovery for DCD’s cost-recoverable services (permits) [04:47:39.887–04:48:13]. The final decision to adopt the fees would be made after the public hearing [05:01:14.026].
  • Fee Calculation: The fees are calculated by multiplying the new $123.20 hourly rate by the estimated hours required for service, plus technology and scan fees [04:48:15.400].
  • Efficiency Adjustments (Land Use): Based on staff efficiency gains experienced through regulatory reform, DCD reduced the required billable hours for a handful of land use permits. Examples mentioned by Greg Ballard included:
    • Shoreline Exemption: Now set at 7 hours if standard buffers are met [04:52:10.467].
    • Lot Consolidation: Reduced from 4 hours to 2 hours [04:52:55.720].
    • Forestry Conversion/Option Harvest: Reduced from 7 hours to 4 hours [04:53:22.485].
  • Permit Process Changes: The new process involves adopting an Ordinance to remove fees from the County Code (JCC) and a Resolution to adopt the updated fee schedules [04:50:15.323–05:00:04.125].
  • Consultation Meetings (CAMs): David Wayne Johnson proposed a formal 2-hour fee for complicated CAMs (Consultation and Maintenance) per request, separate from the informal (free) 15-minute consultations offered at the counter [04:51:45.953–05:01:04.298].
  • Fire Marshal Fees: Fire Marshal fees will follow the same $123.20/hour rate but are adopted by resolution, bypassing the ordinance process required for codified fees (JCC) [05:02:59.533–05:03:16.049].
  • Guardrail Concerns (Public Comment): Tom Tiers criticized the lack of "guardrails" or upper bounds on the time spent on tasks, expressing worry that escalating fees could be self-justified by DCD, also noting the shift away from ordinance approval reduces scrutiny [05:05:02.280–05:05:40.689]. Shelley echoed the lack of guardrails, especially concerning consultants, which could make the county less friendly to work in [05:08:47.694].
  • Staff Response to Guardrails: Greg Ballard stated he would be "reluctant" to exceed the base fee (estimated hours) and noted the County is subject to the RCW requiring "reasonable fees" [05:09:48.321–05:11:06.191]. Commissioner Eisenhower pointed out the evidence of staff implementing reductions in required hours validates the system's ability to drive efficiency [05:11:06.754].
  • Unverified Inspection Allegation: Tom Tiers claimed he was charged for inspections (re-roof, solar panels) where nobody physically came out, and a previous director laughed off his complaint [05:07:12.528–05:07:43.223]. Phil Cecere responded that inspections are typically done physically, and staff would review the specific case, noting solar/re-roofing would generally require at least one on-site inspection [05:12:12.084–05:14:45.748].

Public Comments

  • - Tom Tiers: Argued that eliminating the ordinance process and the lack of upward limits ("guardrails") could lead to unjustifiable fee increases, suggesting inflation control (implicit price deflator) as an annual cap [05:04:50.721–05:06:56.334]. Also alleged he paid fees for unperformed re-roof and solar inspections [05:07:10.218–05:07:25.722].
  • - Shelley: Expressed concern about the lack of "guardrails," particularly for consultant use, arguing it adds financial burdens that make the County unfriendly for development [05:08:34.990–05:08:54.840].

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Fee study completed by the FCS Group [04:47:52.054].
  • Regulatory Reform Resolution No. 17-19 [05:17:46.997].
  • Statutory requirements: RCW 82.02.020 (reasonable fees) [05:11:06.191].

Financials

  • Proposed New Hourly Rate: $123.20.
  • Estimated Hearing Examiner Fee Averted: $1,400.00 (Proposed cost, referenced by David Wayne Johnson) [04:54:40.432].

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative Pricing: Failure to adopt the new fees requires perpetual subsidy from the General Fund [04:48:00.558].

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion approved to approve the hearing notice for the DCD fee schedule update for publication [05:14:57.927].
  • Vote: Unanimous [05:15:05.001–05:15:19.348].
  • Next Steps:
  • - DCD/Staff: Publish the public hearing notice on August 7th and August 14th [05:03:50.231].
  • - BOCC: Hold a public hearing on August 19, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. to act on the proposed Ordinance and Resolution [05:03:37.700].

Fire Marshal Resource Request: Vehicle, Technology, and Equipment

Metadata

  • Time Range: 05:15:19.348–05:31:02.164
  • Agenda Item: Fire Marshal Resource Request: Vehicle, Technology, and Equipment
  • Categories: public safety, budgeting, operations, technology

Topic Summary

The Office of the Fire Marshal presented a request for $83,928 in one-time third-quarter appropriation funding for necessary equipment and a new vehicle. The discussion focused heavily on the proposed purchase of a gasoline Ford F-150, which staff justified due to concerns about the limited range (127 miles when towing/loaded) of the electric F-150 Lightning, charging infrastructure constraints in rural areas (West End), and the risk of power loss during a disaster response. The Commissioners expressed frustration over the perceived lack of commitment to moving the fleet to electric vehicles, refusing to approve the gasoline vehicle. The Board approved the ancillary equipment and software request but deferred the vehicle purchase.

Key Discussion Points

  • Program & Mission: The Fire Marshal (FM) Office manages fire and life safety inspections (commercial, short-term rentals), fire/arson investigations, burn regulations, and disaster response [05:17:35.920–05:19:12.084].
  • Vehicle Rationale (Gasoline F-150): A crew cab F-150 was requested for: 1) a "clean cab" to store soiled/contaminated gear/evidence; 2) disaster response; 3) need for seating during confidential interviews [05:22:04.800].
  • EV Rejection: Staff cited concerns that the F-150 Lightning's range severely dips to about 127 miles when loaded with gear or towing (a necessity for a wide-ranging job) [05:24:00.766–05:24:33.896]. They also cited the lack of charging infrastructure on the West End and the inability to quickly recharge during emergency/disaster scenarios where electricity might be unavailable, and the need to be on call [05:25:06.817–05:25:20.187].
  • Commissioner Frustration (EV Mandate): Commissioner Dean and Commissioner Eisenhower expressed strong frustration, arguing that purchasing another gas vehicle goes against the County's commitment to fleet electrification and climate goals [05:29:56.088–05:32:06.801].
  • Funding Duplication/Equity: Commissioner Dean noted that residents already pay significant amounts (20% of property tax) to fire districts, raising governance concerns about shifting investigation and inspection duties to the County Fire Marshal, which is funded through general funds and new fees [05:48:30.500].
  • FM/Fire District Relationship: Joshua Peters clarified that the fire districts' core statutory duty is fire suppression, while the Fire Marshal's statutory duty is investigation, inspection, and education [05:49:42.329–05:51:02.433]. Current interlocal agreements are confusing, and the Fire Marshal is acting as the "clearing house" per JCC Chapter 2 [05:45:54.553–05:52:27.650].
  • Technology Requests:
    • Tyler Fire Prevention Mobile ($6,699 one-time + annual IT fee): Streamlines inspections, integrates code libraries, and emails reports immediately [05:35:51.677–05:36:19.395].
    • Tyler Crew Force ($900 one-time): Provides real-time incident data visibility for FM staff (similar to Jeffcom CAD) [05:39:00.704].
    • PAPR Respirators ($3,500 for two PAs): Requested by risk management for staff safety against carcinogen inhalation during fire investigations [06:01:59.497–06:02:14.174].

Public Comments

  • - Tom Tiers: Supported removing the vehicle from the appropriation, dismissed the safety (power outage) argument for gas pumps as invalid, and questioned the need for a handheld GPS when phones have GPS technology [06:19:25.223–06:21:13.818].

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • JCC 2.40.020 (Fire Marshal duties) [05:16:32.967].

Financials

  • Total Request (One-time): $83,928.
  • Vehicle and Upfitting (Gas F150): Approximately $67,943 ($49,653 vehicle + $18,290 upfitting) [05:26:28.241].
  • Equipment/Software Approved: Approximately $15,985 (Technology: $7,599; Equipment: $4,886; PAPR: $3,500) [06:02:00.255].
  • Future Technology (Tyler Business Module): Proposed future investment of $47,000 for managing business/operational permits [06:04:41.748].
  • Annual Cost (Estimated Operating/Rent): $10,212 for the gas vehicle option [06:07:38.400].

Alternatives & Amendments

  • EV Mandate: Commissioners requested staff return with a proposal for an electric F-150 Lightning (or equivalent EV) [05:32:06.801].
  • Motion Amendment: The motion was amended to approve only the equipment and software (approx. $17,000) and defer the vehicle request [06:22:43.212].

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision (Equipment/Software): Motion passed to approve up to $17,000 for equipment and tools required to launch the FM programs, excluding the vehicle [06:22:43.212].
  • Vote (Equipment/Software): Unanimous [06:22:47.736].
  • Next Steps:
  • - Fire Marshal/DCD/Fleet: Return to the Board with a revised proposal for an electric vehicle option [06:37:37.589].
  • - Staff: Schedule requested workshop with Public Works and Fleet manager to solidify the County-wide electric vehicle policy [06:33:21.688–06:34:00.786].

Authorization for Trust Land Transfer Agreement and Special Session

Metadata

  • Time Range: 06:40:20.982–07:14:04.130 (Lunch break: 07:14:04.130–15:02:42.829)
  • Agenda Item: Trust Land Transfer Treaty Rights Protection Discussion
  • Categories: land use, planning, legal

Topic Summary

The Board discussed complications arising from the State's new Trust Land Transfer (TLT) program, specifically the lack of concrete language protecting tribal treaty rights in final funding documents. Due to the high weight given to tribal support (15 points) in the ranking process—which occurs before final documents are issued—the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) issued a letter of concern, jeopardizing Jefferson County's four proposed projects. County Attorney Phil Hunsucker devised a complex draft agreement that acts as a bridge: committing the County to inserting a legally defined Treaty Rights Easement onto the final parcel documents if funding is secured, thereby securing PNPTC support for the ranking process. Given the highly time-sensitive nature (ranking meeting pending Friday), the Board agreed to keep the special meeting scheduled for the following day (Tuesday) for a final review and authorized Chair Dean to sign the final agreement immediately upon resolution with the PNPTC.

Key Discussion Points

  • The Problem/Catch-22: The State TLT process requires tribal commentary/support for project ranking (15 points) before the final legal documents (containing treaty rights covenants/easements) are finalized. This forces tribes to object (earning a negative ranking) if they are concerned about future treaty rights protection [06:49:50.100–06:55:01.856].
  • PNPTC Objection: PNPTC (representing Port Gamble and Jamestown tribes) issued a letter of concern over the County's four applications due to the lack of treaty rights protection commitment [06:44:04.625].
  • Hunsucker's Solution (The Bridge Agreement): County Attorney Hunsucker drafted a multi-layered, complex legal agreement intended to secure tribal support in time for the ranking meeting [06:44:51.659].
    • Contractual Commitment: If funded, the County will immediately send the final documents to the tribes for review [07:07:44.731].
    • Objection Mechanism: Tribes can object if they feel treaty rights are violated, triggering a process for government-to-government meetings, mediation, and mandated arbitration [07:09:09.091–07:11:15.150].
    • Treaty Rights Easement: The core commitment is the establishment of a Treaty Rights Easement to be recorded on all successful project parcels, granting irrevocable access rights [07:12:43.100–07:14:05.432].
  • Timing Urgency: The ranking meeting is scheduled for Friday. The agreement must be finalized and signed immediately to allow PNPTC to rescind its letter of concern and submit a letter of support before the deadline [06:58:29.278–07:03:00.414].
  • Approving Authority: To meet the tight timeline, Hunsucker suggested authorizing one Commissioner (Chair Dean) to sign the final agreement immediately [07:13:07.116]. The special session planned for Tuesday (3PM) was maintained for final review and conversation [07:13:51.627].

Public Comments

  • Due to the nature of the complex legal document and ongoing negotiation, the County Attorney advised against posting the draft online, citing the deliberative process exception under the Public Records Act [07:15:53.435–07:20:38.220].
  • The item was opened for public comment, but none were offered [07:29:35.394–07:31:26.753].

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • TLT Prioritization Criteria (showing Tribal Support worth 5 points, max score 15, via 3x multiplier) [06:51:39.071].
  • Draft Legal Agreement and Treaty Rights Easement (Internal documents) [07:07:17.382].

Financials

  • Securing this agreement is critical to achieving a 15-point score for tribal support, which determines whether the projects receive funding [06:51:39.071].

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Proposed Action: Keep the special session (Tuesday 3 PM) for review and authorize Chair Dean to sign the agreement upon mutual consensus [07:13:51.627].

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion approved to authorize Chair Dean to sign the Trust Land Transfer Treaty Rights Protection agreement upon finalization, and to proceed with the special meeting scheduled for Tuesday [07:31:26.857].
  • Vote: Unanimous [07:31:29.451].
  • Next Steps:
  • - County Attorney/Chair Dean/PNPTC: Finalize the agreement language in the 1 PM meeting on Tuesday [07:31:10.434].
  • - BOCC: Conduct the special meeting at 3 PM on Tuesday to review the finalized agreement and authorize execution [07:31:17.910].

Bingen Allotment Land Transfer (Quinault Indian Nation)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 07:13:40.194–07:31:02.971
  • Agenda Item: Land Trade Letter (Walk-on Item/Action)
  • Categories: land use

Topic Summary

The Board discussed and unanimously approved sending a letter of non-objection to the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) regarding a federal effort (led by Congressman Kilmer) to transfer a 72-acre parcel, known as Allotment 1157, from the Forest Service to QIN. The land, which was formerly part of the reservation, is currently an old-growth Spotted Owl habitat and is deemed sacred by the QIN. The Quinault nation plans to utilize the land as a living museum for educational purposes and preservation, committing never to commercially log it.

Key Discussion Points

  • Request: The Quinault Indian Nation requested a letter of non-protest/non-objection from Jefferson County regarding the transfer of a 72-acre parcel (Allotment 1157) back to tribal authority [07:13:53.045–07:14:03.196].
  • Land History/Use: The land is located right off Highway 101, is surrounded by tribal land, and was previously found to be old-growth habitat for the Spotted Owl (preventing private logging) [07:14:16.926–07:14:43.978].
  • Tribal Intent: The QIN intends to maintain the land as a sacred place and living museum for educational purposes, committing to never commercially log the property [07:29:40.027–07:30:04.104].
  • Commissioner Dean: Described the proposed letter language as "pretty innocuous" and fully supported sending it [07:14:26.403–07:14:39.623].

Public Comments

  • The motion was initiated as a walk-on item and was opened for public comment, but none was offered [07:31:11.710–07:31:44.813].

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Map showing the 72-acre Allotment 1157 tract off 101 surrounded by tribal land [07:14:16.926].
  • Letter text detailing QIN plans to utilize the land as a living museum to teach future generations [07:29:40.027–07:30:04.104].

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion approved to authorize the signing of the letter of non-objection [07:31:04.104].
  • Vote: Unanimous [07:31:07.536].
  • Next Steps:
  • - Office Staff: Process the final letter for Commissioner signatures immediately to meet the perceived deadline [07:31:51.045–07:32:02.971].
  • - Chair Dean: Will digitally sign the letter first to expedite the process [07:32:48.975].

Workshop: Open Space Tax Program Amendment (Eliminating HE Hearing)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 08:04:21.217–08:37:07.395
  • Agenda Item: Amending the Resolution Adopting the Open Space Program (Resolution No. 82-91)
  • Categories: land use, planning, permits, budgeting

Topic Summary

DCD and the Assessor's office requested the Board adopt a Resolution removing the mandatory Hearing Examiner (HE) Public Hearing and recommendation requirement for Open Space Tax applications. Staff argued the step is expensive (saving the applicant roughly $1,363.36 in fees), unnecessary, and non-substantive since the final legislative authority rests with the BOCC. The change aligns with the 2019 Regulatory Reform Resolution. The Board was receptive, noting the complexity and infrequency (less than one per year historically) of applications did not justify the cumbersome process.

Key Discussion Points

  • Program Purpose: The Open Space Act (RCW 84.34) grants property tax breaks to landowners who preserve designated resource land (open space, Ag, timber) [08:07:23.813–08:07:54.135].
  • Current Process Flow: Applications are reviewed by DCD (confirming conservation elements via a Public Benefit Rating System worksheet) and the Assessor (determining tax value). The HE performs a public hearing and sends a recommendation to the BOCC, who is the final legislative decision-maker [08:12:01.278–08:14:41.920].
  • Rationale for Change: The HE hearing is considered an "unnecessary, expensive, and time-consuming" extra step, especially since the decision is not a land use decision and public attendance is minimal [08:14:56.520–08:15:26.415].
  • Regulatory Reform: The change directly addresses the goal of the 2019 regulatory reform (Resolution 17-19) to streamline processes [08:17:46.997].
  • Fiscal Impact/Savings: Removing the HE fee saves the applicant approximately $1,363.36 [08:24:50.764].
  • Pending Applications: There are currently four pending Open Space applications that staff would proceed with once the HE requirement is removed [08:21:13.722].
  • Future Revisions: The ultimate plan is to review the 30-year-old program, codify the process via an Ordinance (replacing the resolution), and revise the Public Benefit Rating System to potentially include categories for historic farms and conservation timberland [08:22:49.644–08:24:59.567].
  • Procedural Correction: County Attorney Hunsucker confirmed the draft resolution needed corrective language to properly amend the existing 1991 resolution rather than implying a full repeal and replacement [08:27:06.030–08:30:17.729].

Public Comments

  • None offered after the presentation.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Open Space Taxation Act (RCW 84.34) [08:07:23.813].
  • Jefferson County Resolution 82-91 (Original Open Space Program) [08:08:44.854].
  • Regulatory Reform Resolution 17-19 [08:17:46.997].
  • Hearing Examiner Review Fee: $1,363.36 (Applicant cost savings) [08:24:50.764].

Financials

  • Cost Savings per Applicant: $1,363.36.
  • This process aims to save costs by removing the hearing process [08:24:50.764].

Alternatives & Amendments

  • The only alternative implied is continuing the current process, resulting in higher fees and more time for applicants [08:15:01.885].

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The Board determined the draft resolution needed correction by the County Attorney's office [08:30:06.782].
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - DCD/Assessor/PAO: Make necessary corrections to the resolution language (changing "ordinance" mentions, ensuring proper amendment structure) [08:30:06.782].
  • - BOCC: Expect the corrected resolution on the Consent Agenda for August 12th, or the following week, for final approval [08:30:06.782].

Workshop: Hadlock Sewer Ordinance and Finances

Metadata

  • Time Range: 03:42:35.652–04:43:02.356
  • Agenda Item: Continued Workshop: Sewer Ordinance
  • Categories: infrastructure, budgeting, operations, permits

Topic Summary

The Public Works Department concluded its workshop series on the Hadlock sewer project, finalizing discussion on the annual operating budget and the proposed fee structure. The current user fee of $80 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) will require an estimated $250,000 annual subsidy from the General Fund (after initial emergency and replacement reserves are paid for by other funds). The team presented the initial phase of connection incentives, including a deferral of System Development Charges (SDCs) until 2028. The complexity of future expansion (Phase 2), necessary to accommodate large prospective users like Habitat for Humanity's housing project (an estimated 100 ERUs), and the long-term goal of increasing customer connections to reduce the county subsidy were discussed.

Key Discussion Points

  • Operating Budget & Subsidy: The estimated steady-state annual operating cost for the sewer system (including labor, utilities, supplies, and administrative fees to county departments and Public Utility District [PUD] for billing) is approximately $500,000 per year [03:49:14.308].
  • User Fee: The proposed monthly fee is $80 per ERU ($960 annually, discounted for low-income users) [04:11:28.511].
  • Net Subsidy: With 287 ERUs connected, the annual revenue falls short of the $500,000 cost. However, two reserve funds ($95,000 total annually) may be covered by sales tax revenue or a prior $1 million County advance, reducing the expected operating subsidy to roughly $250,000 per year from the General Fund [03:49:45.718–03:54:13.045].
  • Grinder Pump Costs: The cost of the grinder pump assembly and onsite work for existing Phase 1 properties will be paid by the County per the proposal [04:05:08.671].
  • System Development Charges (SDCs): SDCs (for capital expansion) are deferred until 2028, then phased in over three years, reaching $3,000 per ERU by year six. This low SDC is intended to incentivize quick connection, as local SDCs can be significantly higher (e.g., Carlsborg $8,000) [03:56:00.753–04:03:07.144].
  • Capacity/Expansion (Future Costs): The current Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system has a capacity for 500 ERUs [04:22:20.767]. Habitat for Humanity has a prospective 90-100 ERUs of future housing not included in the current 287, in addition to other large projects like a potential pool facility [04:20:04.637–04:21:12.562]. Expanding the plant beyond 500 ERUs requires another $5 million to run a parallel unit [04:22:01.391].
  • Phasing: Public Works staff are currently focusing on initial residential hookups and proceeding with preliminary designs for Phase 2, which targets commercial properties like those at Cotton and Wooden Boat Center, and future industrial properties [04:25:47.261].

Public Comments

  • None offered after the presentation.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Estimates showing Hadlock UGA costs vs. fees (showing annual subsidy required) [04:12:06.815].
  • Comparison chart placing Hadlock's proposed $3,000 SDC far below neighboring jurisdictions (e.g., Bainbridge $16,000) [04:03:07.144].

Financials

  • Annual Maintenance/Operating Cost: ~$500,000 [03:49:14.308].
  • Annual Subsidy (Estimated): ~$250,000 from the General Fund (after initial reserve funds are covered by other County revenue) [03:54:05.050].
  • ERU User Fee: $80/month.
  • SDC (Year 6): $3,000 per ERU.
  • Future Expansion Cost: Estimated $5 million (new MBR unit, headworks) to run a parallel unit and expand capacity beyond 500 ERUs [04:22:01.391].

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Deferral/Waiver on SDCs: SDCs are deferred until 2028 to incentivize hookups; SDCs are waived entirely for affordable housing that remains affordable for 20 years [04:06:30.313].

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational item; no action taken.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Public Works/PAO: Finalize clean ordinance language, incorporating Board discussions, especially concerning the highly political connection requirements [04:08:44.830].
  • - Public Works: Coordinate with Board for a future work session/public meeting to roll out the final ordinance details [04:24:03.900].
  • - Public Works: Proceed with preliminary designs and engineering for commercial connections in Phase 2 [04:25:47.261].

Generated On: 2025-11-07 14:08:06.614276-08:00 By: google/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025 running on https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/