MEETING: Commissioners Meeting at Tue, Nov 12, 09:00 AM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Meeting Summary

Public Comment on General Topics

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:24–00:19:02
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Open Public Comment)
  • Categories: services, infrastructure, operations, planning, public safety, other

Topic Summary

The session began with general public comment, during which citizens addressed two main issues: proposed revisions to the county's solid waste and recycling program, and the maintenance and amenities of the JUMP! Universal Movement Playground at H.J. Carroll Park. Concerns regarding solid waste focused heavily on maintaining the ability for residents, particularly those in rural areas, to self-haul garbage and recyclables, voicing skepticism that proposed changes promoting curbside pickup would lead to lower fees or prevent illegal dumping. The playground comments requested shade structures over the play equipment, especially the heated "orcas," for the comfort of supervising adults.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner (00:00:52) clarified that highly specific comments on the transportation plan should be reserved for the public hearing scheduled for 10:30 a.m.
  • Julia (00:02:15) expressed immediate appreciation for the JUMP! playground and advocated for shade structures in the center of the play area for parents and caregivers to avoid the summer heat.
  • Tom Tirsch (00:04:49) commented on the proposed solid waste program changes, stating the changes appear designed to promote the commercial hauler, Waste Connections, and discourage self-hauling. He requested concrete financial data to back the claim that increased commercial hauling would "lower the tipping fee for garbage service" (00:05:48) and called the move deceitful.
  • Commissioner Dean (00:09:18) acknowledged Mr. Tirsch's concerns and stated that incentivizing curbside service has improved solid waste management in other areas like Grays Harbor. She agreed with the skepticism regarding tipping fees being reduced (00:12:30), suggesting the focus should be on "arresting the increase."
  • Commissioner Dean (00:12:48) expressed concern that increasing barriers to disposal might lead to more illegal trash dumping on Forest Service and county roads, noting efforts to find options for low-income residents for garbage and recycling services.
  • Commissioner Dean (00:13:33) noted that providing a low-income option at the transfer station resulted in people utilizing it.
  • Commissioner D (00:13:52) stated her primary interest is developing policy that encourages behavior change, leading to less single-use material being purchased or greater recovery of clean, recyclable material.
  • Craig Durgen (00:15:21), a self-hauler and rural resident, voiced hope that the transfer station remains open, especially for large debris loads from reconstruction projects inappropriate for curbside bins.
  • Shelly Yarnell (04:16:27) opposed taking away self-hauling, arguing many residents have limited waste, are on limited budgets, and doing so will cause illegal dumping to "go way up."
  • Jean Ball (04:17:47), a self-hauler, also opposed mandatory curbside pickup due to the physical burden of carting refuse from rural property to the road (00:18:00). She noted a need for volunteers to clean up illegal dump sites she reported on social media (00:18:28).
  • Commissioner Dean (00:20:05) stated there has been no discussion of completely "shutting down public access to the transfer station," but acknowledged that unmanaged remote recycling drop-off sites and the contamination cost of glass recycling are unsustainable.

Public Comments

  • Julia: Likes the playground, requested shade for parents near play structures, noted the Winter Welcoming Center had 19 visitors and 6 donors on its first day (00:03:48).
  • Tom Tirsch: Opposes changes promoting commercial hauling/Waste Connections, requested concrete data on purported tipping fee reductions, and advocated for policies that do not punish self-haulers.
  • Craig Durgen: Supports the transfer station remaining open for bulk and construction waste.
  • Shelly Yarnell: Opposed taking away self-hauling due to limited budgets and forecast a spike in illegal dumping.
  • Jean Ball: Opposed mandatory curbside pick-up due to logistical burden for rural residents.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • The JUMP! Playground Construction – Phase 2 Agreement was referenced in terms of adding shade structures and the children's 2-5 structure (00:02:18).
  • The discussion on solid waste and recycling addressed points to be presented formally in the Workshop: Update on Pending Solid Waste Recycling Program Revisions later in the day.

Financials

  • Commissioner Dean speculated that the cost of low-income disposal and recycling options could help mitigate environmental damage (00:12:48).
  • Mention of $15.00 to $20.00 of every garbage bill supporting the current recycling program (03:51:17).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Commissioner Dean suggested funding for a low-income option for transfer station use as a solution to increase legal disposal and reduce country dumping (00:13:33).
  • Commissioner D suggested a splash pad/water feature to cool the hot play structures (00:14:24), deeming it likely too expensive and a poor use of scarce water resources.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; item was preliminary public comment.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: Solid waste discussion scheduled for a later workshop.

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:11:14–02:28:27
  • Agenda Item: Consent Agenda
  • Categories: infrastructure, legislation, operations, planning, contracts, budgeting

Topic Summary

The Board discussed items on the consent agenda, specifically clarifying the implications of Public Works' resolution on emergency load limits, confirming the scope of Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF) grants for local transportation projects, and explaining the renewal of the Public Official Position Schedule Bond. The agenda was approved unanimously with a minor editorial change to meeting minutes documentation.

Key Discussion Points

  • Emergency Load Limits (02:21:54): Eric Kuzma (Deputy Director of Public Works) explained that a resolution replacing the annual one makes the power to enact temporary "emergency load limits on county roads" permanent, allowing quick action to protect vulnerable roads (low-volume, minimal base) from damage by heavy trucks (e.g., logging operations) during freeze/thaw cycles (02:23:20). He noted this authority has been used only once in the past 12 years (02:22:55).
  • Quilcene Complete Streets PIF Award (02:23:56): Commissioner Dean highlighted the excitement for this project, noting her history working on it prior to her employment with the county, and congratulated staff for finally securing and completing design after right-of-way challenges (02:24:26).
  • Public Official Position Bond (02:26:24): The cost and purpose of the Public Official Position Schedule Bond (Item 9) were clarified. It indemnifies the county from loss due to "malfeasance or nonfeasance in the faithful performance of their public duties" (02:27:24). The decision to place the annual payment of the Hartford Fire Insurance Company invoice on the consent agenda followed a review by the civil and risk offices (02:26:45).
  • LTAC Minutes Correction (02:26:10): Commissioner D requested changing the terminology in the joint LTAC minutes (Item 11) from "public comment" to "public testimony."

Public Comments

  • No public comment was taken during this discussion.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Continuation of Public Official Position Schedule Bond: The bond is issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company for 11 positions at an annual fee of $1,387.00.
  • Quilcene Complete Streets Project (Jefferson County Public Works): The PIF grant for $202,767 was discussed as highly anticipated for enhancing pedestrian safety in Quilcene (02:25:05).
  • JUMP! Playground Construction – Phase 2 Agreement: This item was approved on consent, including three large shade structures and a 2-5 age play structure (00:08:42).
  • Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF) Grant: Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) Eco-Industrial Park Project (Port of Port Townsend): Approved on consent.
  • Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF) Grant: Lawrence Street Complete Streets Project (City of Port Townsend): Approved on consent.

Financials

  • The annual renewal fee for the Public Official Position Schedule Bond is $1,387.00 (02:27:57).
  • The PIF funding awards for Quilcene Complete Streets, Lawrence Street, and the JCIA Eco-Industrial Park were implicitly approved via the consent agenda (00:07:51).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Amendment: Commissioner D proposed an edit to the LTAC minutes, changing "public comment" to "public testimony" (02:26:10).
  • No alternatives to the motions were discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The Consent Agenda was approved.
  • Vote: Unanimous (02:28:23).
  • Next Steps: Public Works will utilize the granted authority to establish emergency load limits as needed (02:28:00). The Public Official Position Schedule Bond will be renewed.

Adoption of 2025-2030 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:12:43–01:56:54
  • Agenda Item: Hearing: Adoption of the 2025-2030 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
  • Categories: infrastructure, planning, budgeting, transportation

Topic Summary

The Board held the mandated public hearing for the adoption of the 2025-2030 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The hearing generated discussion about the challenges of securing funding for road maintenance, safety improvements (especially for pedestrians), and the local commitment to non-motorized infrastructure. It was confirmed that the TIP largely reflects projects secured by external grants (Federal/State funds account for >97%), with local funds dedicated primarily to minor, opportunistic safety projects. The TIP was adopted as presented.

Key Discussion Points

  • Program Overview (01:13:20): Eric Kuzma confirmed the TIP is a required annual plan, advertised twice, with all materials available online including an interactive map.
  • Rural Road Funding Crisis (01:30:19): Eric Kuzma stated the County Road Fund is in a "pretty dire" position, with only 2.7% of local dollars (1.4% overall) committed to TIP projects, stressing that major improvements like slope stabilization on East Quilcene Road cannot be funded without grant money or failing condition (01:32:38).
  • Speeding Concerns/Safety (01:18:21): Linda Herzog (Quilcene) requested a high-speed warning sign/device (01:18:47) on East Quilcene Road around mile three due to hazardous accelerating traffic toward a steep road and the subsequent risk to pedestrians and children.
  • Erosion/Road Repair (01:17:36): Linda Herzog asked for erosion repair on East Quilcene Road near mile three, where the hillside facing the water seems to be collapsing again (01:17:36).
  • Multimodal Project Priorities (01:25:34): Tom Tirsch expressed concern that a large portion of TIP funds is allocated to non-motorized projects, arguing they should be lowered in priority due to reliance on taxes paid primarily by motorized vehicle users (01:25:40) and the "pay for the things that you use" philosophy.
  • Staff Justification for Multimodal (01:44:21): Eric Kuzma and Monty Reinders defended multimodal funding, noting it is an opportunistic strategy that leverages small local contributions to secure massive state grants, aligns with state priorities, and provides ancillary benefits for health and safety (01:44:39).
  • Road Intersection Safety: Old Hadlock Road (01:19:59): Craig Durgen (Port Ludlow) raised concerns about the dangerous intersection of Elkins Road, Old Hadlock Road, and Chimicum Road due to high-speed truck traffic that frequently fails to stop, a problem exacerbated by projected large-scale gravel pit operations adding 41 dump truck loads per day (01:21:47). He proposed a roundabout or road vacation (01:22:11). Staff confirmed the dangerous nature of the crossing (01:38:27) but noted roundabouts would be too expensive and would fail priority screening (01:39:55).
  • Brennan Pedestrian Crossing (01:23:42): Amanda Christopherson and Shelly Yarnell (Brennan) requested staff prioritize a crosswalk and speed limit reduction on State Route 101 at Brennan Lane for pedestrian safety, noting high-cost estimates ($450,000) but stating a legislator is working with WSDOT on funding (01:27:52). Staff clarified this is a WSDOT/State project, not a county TIP project (01:36:15).

Public Comments

  • Linda Herzog (Quilcene): Thanked the board for moving up projects 1, 3, 5, 11, and 31 (01:16:21), requested erosion repair and speed enforcement measures on East Quilcene Road.
  • Craig Durgen (Port Ludlow): Highlighted the danger of the intersection at Elkins/Old Hadlock/Chimicum Roads due to increased heavy truck traffic from aggregate mining and requested a roundabout (01:22:11).
  • Amanda Christopherson (Port Townsend): Requested attention to the Brennan pedestrian crossing, expressing concern about safety on State Route 101 (01:23:42).
  • Tom Tirsch (Jefferson County): Expressed concern about high priority given to non-motorized infrastructure in the TIP compared to core road services (01:26:24).
  • Jean Ball (Quilcene): Provided information that Senator Mike Chapman is working on securing $450,000 for the Brennan crosswalk (01:27:52).
  • Shelly Yarnell (Brennan): Agreed with the critical need for a crosswalk on SR 101 at Brennan for community safety (01:28:29).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Hearing: Adoption of the 2025-2030 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Reference to the mandate and the composition of funding sources (76.7% Federal; 1.4% Local).
  • TIP projects 1, 3, 5, 11, and 31 (Quilcene Complete Streets) were referenced in public testimony, confirming their priority status (01:16:21).

Financials

  • Glass Crusher (01:50:00): Discussion noted the long-term, un-budgeted maintenance costs associated with new trail infrastructure, such as mowing, garbage pickup, and resurfacing, which must be borne by the road fund (01:49:03).
  • Local Funding: Local contribution accounts for only 1.4% of total TIP funding (01:31:25).
  • Project Costs: The estimated cost for the Brennan crosswalk on SR 101 is $450,000 (01:27:56).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternatives to TIP: No formal alternatives to the TIP were considered, as the TIP is a planning document based on external funding opportunities.
  • Intersection Alternatives: Craig Durgen proposed a roundabout or road vacation for the highly dangerous intersection on Chimicum Road (01:22:11).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve a resolution adopting the 2025–2030 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as presented. (01:55:10)
  • Vote: Unanimous (Aye: 3) (01:56:34).
  • Next Steps: Public Works will continue working on TIP projects; staff will continue to pursue solutions for local safety or maintenance outside the TIP scope when opportunities arise (01:34:57).

Adoption of Code Compliance Rules of Procedure

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:40:44–02:57:25
  • Agenda Item: Repealing Resolution 42-03 and Adopting Code Compliance Rules of Procedure
  • Categories: ordinances, operations, personnel, services

Topic Summary

The Board considered and adopted a resolution repealing the outdated 2003 code compliance resolution (42-03) and newly adopting comprehensive Rules of Procedure, pursuant to Title 19 JCC. Staff emphasized that the new rules, developed cooperatively between Environmental Health, DCD, and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO), formalize a consistent, compassionate approach centered on voluntary compliance and provide clearer guidance to staff, enabling more effective enforcement than in the past, despite continued limited staff resources.

Key Discussion Points

  • Resolution History (02:29:40): Ariel Speser explained that Resolution 42-03 (2003) was essentially moot after the passage of Title 19 JCC (2020), which provided the comprehensive enforcement scheme, but the resolution remained technically active and confusing. Repealing it streamlines the regulatory framework (02:29:40).
  • Purpose of New Rules (02:30:29): The new rules explicitly authorize mechanisms for achieving compliance, such as using the enforcement fund for abatements, offering vouchers for owners lacking resources, and promoting settlement options (02:30:43). They ensure uniform application across departments (02:34:49).
  • Voluntary Compliance (02:38:00): Pinky Mingo stressed that compliance—not penalties—remains the core goal, and voluntary compliance is always sought, even during complex settlement negotiations (02:38:09).
  • Public Frustration with Lack of Enforcement (02:41:47): Tom Tirsch cited a complaint from 2007 (02:42:07) where violation notices went unheeded, leaving a property with "junk cars and solid waste" for two decades, even after an enforcement agent was reportedly met with a "brandished a weapon" (02:42:57), showing historical difficulty in enforcement. Shelly Yarnell agreed, stating that in Brennan, enforcement agents leave, and non-compliance immediately resumes, demonstrating a lack of "teeth" (02:44:53).
  • Staff Capacity & Process Challenges (02:46:10): Pinky Mingo noted that one Code Compliance Officer (Becca) manages over 100 high-priority cases, emphasizing the need to balance compassion (avoiding homelessness) with enforcement (02:46:27).
  • Case Building Time (02:52:31): Becca stated that building a legally sound enforcement case to withstand appeal often takes years, but Title 19 and the new EPL tracking system have improved effectiveness against the most dangerous "tier one" properties (02:49:54).
  • Enforcement Fund Limitations (02:54:13): Monty Reinders noted that while penalties feed the Enforcement Fund, the County must pay abatement costs upfront with limited reserves (02:54:24), meaning staff must be highly selective about which properties to abate.

Public Comments

  • Tom Tirsch: Expressed long-standing frustration with the County's inability to enforce compliance on repeat/long-term severe violations (02:41:47).
  • Shelly Yarnell (Brennan): Supported Mr. Tirsch's frustration, stating voluntary compliance efforts fail, and enforcement requires greater "teeth" (02:44:53).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Discussion and Potential Action: Repealing Res. 42-03 and Adopting Code Compliance Rules of Procedure: This document provides the framework for the discussion.
  • Rule 6 (Enforcement Fund) and Rule 7 (Voucher) were key changes discussed (02:30:43).

Financials

  • Financial discussion centered on the capacity of the Enforcement Fund and the need to establish cash reserves to cover abatement costs upfront (02:54:13).
  • The annual voucher program is limited to $5,000 per year for all services, with a maximum of $250.00 per voucher (via Rule 7 summary).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives were discussed, as the action was procedural and aimed at correcting outdated policy.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve the resolution repeating Resolution No. 42-03 and adopting the Code Compliance Rules of Procedure. (02:57:05)
  • Vote: Unanimous (Aye: 3) (02:57:16).
  • Next Steps: Staff will implement the new rules, relying on the improved legal support and standardized process (02:55:33).

Workshop: Compliance with Permit Process Requirements in SB 5290

Metadata

  • Time Range: 03:00:34–03:33:31
  • Agenda Item: Workshop regarding county compliance with permit process requirements and Senate Bill 5290
  • Categories: legislation, operations, planning

Topic Summary

DCD staff provided a workshop on compliance with Washington State Senate Bill (SB) 5290, which sets strict new processing timelines for development permits beginning January 1, 2025. DCD is proposing an expedited legislative process (Type Five) to amend the Unified Development Code (Title 18 JCC) and adopt a resolution to implement six pre-approved, expediting measures (more than the three required) to legally exempt the County from being obligated to issue fee refunds for missing deadlines. Staff expect to hold a public hearing on the matter on December 16th.

Key Discussion Points

  • SB 5290 Requirement (03:07:04): Josh Peters (DCD Director) explained that DCD must adopt code changes by the end of the year to meet new statutory permit review timelines (calendar days, e.g., 65 days for Type I, 170 days for Type III) to prevent code inconsistency (03:07:21).
  • Fee Refund Exemption (03:10:22): The County can opt out of the partial permit fee refund requirement by implementing at least three approved measures from a state-defined list (03:10:41). DCD has selected six measures to implement for risk management (03:16:58).
  • Shoreline Permit Update (03:18:15): A key proposed change is reclassifying Shoreline Substantial Development Permits (SDPs) from a Type III (requiring a public hearing) to a Type II process (ministerial review without hearing), as the hearing is not statutorily required. This will be accomplished via amendment to the Use Table (03:18:02).
  • Hearing Examiner Capacity (03:27:39): The new 170-day maximum for Type III permits (requiring a hearing) poses a risk, given the current Hearing Examiner often takes significant time to issue decisions. The DCD plans to mitigate this by recruiting one to three additional Hearing Examiners to deepen the bench (03:28:12).
  • Pre-Application Conferences (03:20:00): DCD is proposing to make pre-application conferences fully optional, satisfying another compliance measure. Staff hypothesized that the mandatory Site Development Review (SDR) process may have already lessened the need for optional pre-application conferences (03:21:07).
  • Code Change Timeline (03:28:50): Staff is targeting November 25th for a consent agenda request with the proposed changes, followed by posting for public review before the December 16th public hearing (03:30:38).

Public Comments

  • Sally (Homebuilders Association): Requested clarification on the reclassification of SDPs, confirming they will move from Type III to Type II, noting that SDRs (Site Development Reviews) remain Type I procedures (03:33:09).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Workshop: Compliance with Permit Process Requirements in SB 5290: The staff presentation detailed the specific RCW changes and the six selected mitigation measures, including: 1) Expedited review for simple Type I permits (03:13:58); 2) On-call consultants (03:17:08); 3) Public hearings mandated only by statute (03:18:02); and 4) Optional pre-application meetings (03:19:41).

Financials

  • No upfront financial cost was quantified for the adopted measures.
  • The avoidance of fee refund penalties (up to 20% of application fees per missed deadline) is the primary financial incentive for adopting the listed measures (03:06:30).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • DCD chose to implement six of the ten available options, providing a buffer against challenges to the validity of any one measure (03:16:58).
  • The alternative was to take no action and incur potential fee refunds (03:25:34).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; item was informational workshop.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: DCD will finalize the ordinance and resolution, seek expedited review from Commerce, and bring the request for notice of public hearing to the Board on November 25th for a hearing scheduled for December 16th (03:29:42).

Update on Pending Solid Waste Recycling Program Revisions

Metadata

  • Time Range: 03:33:40–04:07:07
  • Agenda Item: Workshop: Update on pending solid waste recycling program revisions
  • Categories: operations, services, budgeting, environment

Topic Summary

Public Works staff (Al Cairns and Monty Reinders) updated the Board on two major solid waste policy changes. First, the discontinuance of glass recycling drop-off services effective December 1, 2024, due to the termination of the regional market, forcing glass to be landfilled at a cost of approximately $10,000 per month (03:35:43). Second, the intent to eliminate the $300,000 annual subsidy for the source-separated public recycling program by shifting to a subscription-based, curbside-only model by January 1, 2026. This move would re-align county spending with waste management priorities (waste reduction/reuse over recycling) and potentially reduce the tipping fee or stabilize its rate.

Key Discussion Points

  • Glass Recycling Termination (03:35:00): The largest regional glass collector closed in mid-September. Due to the $10,000/month cost of landfilling the glass, the Public Works Director is exercising discretion to stop glass collection entirely on December 1st (03:36:33).
  • State of Recycling (03:39:30): Jefferson County is currently the only county in Washington State still practicing solely source-separated recycling. Staff are abandoning this "source-separated" method because it is inefficient and highly subsidized (03:39:30).
  • Subsidy Misalignment (03:40:00): The current $300,000 annual subsidy (funded by tipping fees and a Dept. of Ecology grant) conflicts with the Solid Waste Management Plan which prioritizes waste reduction/reuse (P1) and food waste diversion (P2) over recycling (P3) (03:40:21).
  • Proposed Model (03:42:38): The new model will be subscription-based, curbside-only collection, eliminating free drop-off sites by 2026. The goal is to reduce the tipping fee for garbage disposal by eliminating the subsidy (03:41:55).
  • Traffic Relief (03:47:40): Eliminating recycling drop-off services could reduce transfer station traffic (up to 25% of weekend customers are recycling-only) and alleviate severe traffic queues and hazards at the entrance, thus "bring[ing] some traffic relief to the transfer station." (03:48:21)
  • Implementation Steps (03:44:00): The transition requires sending a Letter of Intent to the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) hauler (Waste Connections) to trigger the rate-setting process, followed by the adoption of a Level of Service (LOS) Ordinance by the Board (03:46:08).
  • Low-Income Options (03:53:52): Al Cairns confirmed that discussions are underway within a multi-county ecology workgroup to see if the UTC has the purview to ratify low-income or discounted curbside collection rates, a conversation spurred by Jefferson County's existing minimum-fee discount program (03:55:31).
  • Concerns (04:03:26): Commissioner D expressed philosophical concern about abandoning the current incentive structure (where paying for garbage subsidizes recycling) and shifting to a model that reinforces market commodification within waste management (04:04:35).

Public Comments

  • No public comment was taken during this discussion. (Public input was taken during the initial public comment period.)

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Workshop: Update on Pending Solid Waste Recycling Program Revisions: This document provided the financial and operational necessity arguments driving the proposed changes.
  • Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP): Referenced to show the misalignment between the current $300,000 subsidy and the plan's descending order of priorities (Waste Reduction > Reuse > Recycling) (03:40:14).

Financials

  • Glass Cost: $10,000/month cost to landfill glass (03:35:43).
  • Program Subsidy: The public recycling program currently requires an annual $300,000 subsidy (03:40:56) taken from the garbage tipping fee.
  • Tipping Fee Reduction: Eliminating the subsidy could result in a reduction of the tipping fee or hold off on the scheduled annual increase of 2.5% (03:41:55).
  • Capital Fund: The solid waste enterprise fund does not generate enough revenue to break even and has "very little money" in the capital fund for equipment or facilities maintenance (03:52:22).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Staff rejected the idea of charging a tipping fee for recycling at the current transfer station, stating it is infeasible due to severe site constraints and limited acreage needed for other higher-priority waste management functions (03:56:42).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action was taken; item was informational workshop. The Public Works Director confirmed the operational decision to discontinue glass recycling (03:36:33).
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: Public Works will issue a Letter of Intent to Waste Connections and begin drafting a Level of Service Ordinance for future Board review (late December/early January), potentially requiring a public hearing (04:06:01).

Action on Draft Letter to Point No Point Treaty Council (PNRTC)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 04:10:07–04:16:54
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Letter in Response to Tribal Concerns on Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort)
  • Categories: policy, other

Topic Summary

The Board considered and approved a motion authorizing the Chair and fellow Commissioners to sign a staff-prepared letter drafted by the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in response to concerns raised by the Point No Point Treaty Council, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort. Due to the proprietary nature and length of the letter (over 60 pages), and the courthouse closing time, full public review was not possible, a deficiency noted by public commenters.

Key Discussion Points

  • Context (04:11:16): The letter is a formal response to the PNRTC's concerns (raised in August) regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort (04:14:07), outlining the County's position, history, and understanding of the development process (04:14:26).
  • Timing/Process Conflict (04:15:14): Public commenters (Shelly Yarnell, Jean Ball) protested taking action on a 60-page letter without prior public review. Commissioner D acknowledged this as an unsatisfactory outcome due to the "collision of our weird processes in government" (04:16:11), clarifying that Board action triggers public comment, but staff reports to tribes do not require it.

Public Comments

  • Shelly Yarnell (Brennan): Asked where a full copy of the letter could be viewed and requested a summary of its general premise (04:12:44).
  • Jean Ball: Commented that the lack of time to review the letter made it "difficult to provide meaningful feedback" and that the act of soliciting comment under these conditions seemed "a little premature" (04:14:50).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • The content of the PNRTC letter (August 15) and the County's lengthy draft response were central to the discussion.

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Motion Amendment: The motion was revised to require final signatures only after editing and review by Philip Hunzucker and Commissioner Kate Dean (04:12:04).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion approved to authorize the three Commissioners' signatures on the finalized letter to the PNRTC (04:16:47).
  • Vote: Unanimous (Aye: 3) (04:16:53).
  • Next Steps: Philip Hunzucker and Commissioner Dean will finalize the letter for signature and transmittal (04:12:04).

Generated On: 2025-11-07 14:10:36.289078-08:00 By: google/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025 running on https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/