MEETING: Commissioners Meeting at Mon, Aug 04, 09:00 AM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING SUMMARY

Meeting Date: 2025-08-04

Meeting Called to Order and Procedural Announcements

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:05–00:01:18
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated
  • Categories: operations, personnel

Topic Summary

The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Commissioner Dudley-Nollette. A procedural matter required removing the planned emergency management update from the agenda due to the unexpected absence of Willie Bentz. This alteration meant the meeting would likely not be broadcast on KPTZ radio as planned.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette was acting as Chair for the first time (00:00:22).
  • Willie Bentz (Emergency Management) had to call in at the last minute and would not be present (00:00:50).
  • The Emergency Management update was pulled from the agenda (00:01:02).
  • The pulling of this item was assumed to mean KPTZ would not be broadcasting the meeting, although they were welcome to listen in (00:01:02–00:01:11).
  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette announced her son's 19th birthday (00:00:30).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • The Emergency Management Update was pulled, altering the established agenda.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The meeting was called to order. The Emergency Management Update was removed from the agenda.
  • Vote: Not applicable.
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Public Comment: Housing Crisis and Encampsments (Julia Hoggren)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:02:03–00:04:48
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated
  • Categories: services, planning, public safety

Topic Summary

Julia Hoggren addressed the Board to raise awareness of discussions planned at the City Council regarding the encampment at DSHS (last roundabout). She highlighted potential mass housing loss on October 1st due to subsidized housing changes, and strongly advocated for the urgent creation of a major, supported encampment that includes basic infrastructure like water and fire safety measures.

Key Discussion Points

  • Julia Hoggren alerted the Commissioners to the City Council meeting scheduled for that evening at 6:00 p.m. regarding the DSHS encampment (00:02:32).
  • Hoggren stated that documents suggest telling the Housing Fund Board to "solve it" (00:02:54).
  • She expressed concern that 40% to 75% of people on subsidized housing in Jefferson County could lose their subsidy come October 1st, potentially leading to a large number of people experiencing homelessness, many of whom may be elderly or inexperienced in dealing with the situation (00:03:01–00:03:28).
  • She strongly pushed for a major supported encampment with delineated tent lines (like at the fairgrounds) and access to water for drinking and fire suppression (00:03:37–00:04:20).
  • Hoggren referenced a fire incident at the encampment where fire was put out, but nobody was notified, pointing to a lack of support, communication, and basic infrastructure (00:03:49–00:04:03).

Public Comments

  • - Julia Hoggren (Housing Fund Board): Urged the creation of a major supported encampment with organized campsites and water access, predicting the need due to potential loss of subsidized housing for many elderly residents on October 1st.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational. Commissioner Brotherton stated he would try to tune in remotely to the City Council meeting (00:14:10). Commissioner Dudley-Nollette confirmed she would listen in remotely and follow up (00:16:56).
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Brotherton & Dudley-Nollette: Listen in remotely to the City Council discussion at 6:00 p.m. (00:14:10).
  • - Shelter Coalition: Continue the conversation (00:15:26).

Public Comment: South Shore Road, Emergency Management, and Transportation Benefit District (Ed Bowen)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:04:53–00:06:52
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated
  • Categories: infrastructure, emergency management, budgeting

Topic Summary

Ed Bowen from the West End asked for an update on the South Shore Road status and the planned community meeting. He expressed disappointment that the Emergency Management update was canceled, preventing a debrief on the recent tsunami alert. Finally, he commented on the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) resolution, expressing concern that the stated priority of the funds favored preservation over improvement of existing infrastructure.

Key Discussion Points

  • Ed Bowen expressed disappointment that he had not received any updates on the South Shore Road or a planned West End meeting for the topic (00:05:00–00:05:16). He noted a community meeting is planned for October at the Ho Tribe (00:05:16).
  • He was disappointed that the Emergency Management update was pulled, as he wanted a briefing on the success of the alert system during the recent tsunami event and wave actions (00:05:30–00:05:51).
  • Regarding the TBD resolution, Bowen expressed concern over the "same strategy with WASDOT" (00:06:09) that prioritizes: preserve, operate, and maintain roads over improving them (00:06:14).
  • Bowen requested moving "improve existing transportation infrastructures" to the front of the list, ahead of preservation due to fears that "other projects" (Section C) could tap the TBD money without voter knowledge (00:06:20–00:06:52).

Responses and Discussion

  • Commissioner Brotherton confirmed he spoke with Eric Kuzma (Deputy Director of Public Works) and WSDOT, but acknowledged, "it's not looking good for South Shore Road" (00:11:53–00:12:10).
  • Commissioner Brotherton noted he would try to connect with another Gray Harbor County Commissioner (00:12:20). He also noted low community interest, stating, "the only person that I've heard about the South Shore Road is, in fact, Ed Bowen" (00:12:25).
  • Commissioner Brotherton intends to still go out to the Quinault area of the West End to connect with the school district and Quinault Nation (00:12:55–00:13:16).
  • Commissioner Brotherton reported receiving multiple tsunami alerts and was under the impression the system worked really well (00:13:53).
  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette mentioned they would pull the relevant page 3 section (3A) of the TBD resolution for discussion later (00:20:53).

Public Comments

  • - Ed Bowen (West End): Sought updates on South Shore Road and criticized the TBD resolution for prioritizing preservation over improvement, suggesting that language should be legally reversed.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational. The TBD concerns would be discussed later (00:20:57).
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Brotherton: Set up a dedicated meeting for South Shore Road (00:13:24).
  • - Board/Staff: Note the TBD concern regarding project order for the later discussion (00:20:57).

Public Comment: LTAC Bylaws and Code Inconsistencies (Tom Tirche)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:07:08–00:08:43
  • Agenda Item: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Bylaws
  • Categories: ordinances, operations, governance

Topic Summary

Tom Tirche provided detailed comments on the proposed LTAC bylaws, flagging a "recurring theme" over whether a County Commissioner must chair the committee (a county statute requirement but not a state statute requirement). He also identified an inconsistency in the County Code (3.25.020 Part 3) stating that LTAC superseded and replaced the Tourism Coordination Council (TCC), yet the TCC still exists.

Key Discussion Points

  • Tom Tirche focused on Item 3.25.020 in the County Code regarding the LTAC/TCC relationship (00:07:17).
  • He highlighted an "interesting footnote on page 7" of the proposed bylaws regarding the chain of command, noting that while state statute allows any elected official to chair LTAC, county code mandates a BOCC member to serve as chair (00:07:33).
  • Tirche pointed out that JCC 3.25.020 Part 3 mandates that LTAC "shall supersede and replace the Tourism Coordination Council" (TCC), questioning why the TCC still exists (00:08:22–00:08:31).
  • He suggested that the county code needs revision regardless of the decision about the LTAC chair position (00:08:31).

Responses and Discussion

  • Commissioner Brotherton confirmed Tirche's reading of the code was correct, calling point 3.25.30 an "artifact of years ago" before LTAC legislation passed (00:10:06–00:10:17).
  • Commissioner Brotherton stated the vision was for TCC to function much like Port Townsend's marketing workgroup, and agreed that the code point should be revised/excised (00:10:34–00:10:46).
  • Commissioner Brotherton defended requiring a Commissioner to chair LTAC, noting it is an "natural function" due to the number of boards Commissioners serve on, and it is the norm throughout the state (00:11:04–00:11:15).

Public Comments

  • - Tom Tirche: Identified inconsistencies in County Code 3.25.020 requiring LTAC to replace the TCC, despite the TCC's continued existence. Also questioned the internal requirement limiting the LTAC chair position to a County Commissioner.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • LTAC Bylaws (draft)
  • JCC 3.25.020

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Informal suggestion to excise JCC 3.25.020 sub-3 (00:10:46).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational. Commissioners agreed to discuss the code clarification later in the meeting (00:11:04).
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: Staff (Arielle Spester, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney) was later directed to draft a memo clarifying these issues (04:00:55).

Commissioners' Discussion on Homelessness, Housing Vouchers, and Supported Encampments

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:14:10–00:20:41
  • Agenda Item: Follow-up to Public Comment on Homelessness
  • Categories: services, budgeting, housing

Topic Summary

The Commissioners discussed Julia Hoggren's recent points regarding the housing crisis. Commissioner Brotherton noted the high cost and liability associated with a county-managed supported encampment but is "slowly changing his tune" about providing supports (like sanitation and water). Commissioner Dudley-Nollette stressed the uncertainty surrounding the October 1st subsidized housing change impacts but supported the Housing Fund Board having inter-jurisdictional conversations.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner Brotherton noted that a true "supported encampment" requires the county to assume management, liability, and a substantial budget commitment (00:14:12–00:14:28).
  • Commissioner Brotherton is "slowly changing my tune" about supporting existing encampments with sanitation and water for "harm reduction" purposes (00:14:28–00:14:55).
  • Commissioner Brotherton guessed the City Council discussion is motivated by their desire to develop the Evans Vista property (00:15:00).
  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette felt the Housing Fund Board is the appropriate place for this city-county conversation, though she acknowledged the Board has a limited focus and resources (00:16:34–00:16:56).
  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette emphasized the anxiety and uncertainty around subsidy or rental voucher losses anticipated on October 1st, stressing that the precise "scale and scope" of the impact are still unclear (00:19:32–02:00:16).
  • Both Commissioners agreed the conversation about providing encampment support is timely and important (00:18:56).

Public Comments

No public comment was received during this discussion period.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Financial model considerations were raised regarding the high costs associated with managing a supported encampment and the limited funding sources of the Housing Fund Board (00:14:28, 00:18:09).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Commissioner Brotherton preferred the term "supporting encampments" over "creating [encampments]" (00:15:40).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational, indicating ongoing internal engagement on public shelter issues.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: The conversation will continue at the Shelter Coalition meeting (00:15:31).

Public Comment: Discussion on Brinnon Floodplain Planning and Restoration of the Dosewallips River

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:21:19–00:32:07
  • Agenda Item: Follow-up to Interagency Workshop
  • Categories: flood control, infrastructure, land use, planning

Topic Summary

Jean Ball provided comment and gratitude for the recent high-level interagency meeting in Brinnon concerning the Dosewallips River floodplain, FEMA designations, and downtown corridor risks. Commissioners provided a detailed recap, noting the complexity of balancing flood mitigation, human safety, and salmon habitat restoration (driven by grant funding requirements). Discussion clarified that the berm primarily directs the river's energy, not simply for flood control.

Key Discussion Points

  • Jean Ball expressed gratitude for the informative Brinnon meeting, noting attendance of 25-30 representatives from state and county organizations, engineers, and commissioners (00:21:30–00:21:48).
  • Ball stated the goal was to "prevent or mitigate" real damage and loss of life to the Brinnon downtown corridor (00:22:07).
  • Ball noted disappointment that the Fire Marshal and Willie Bentz (Emergency Management) were unable to attend (00:22:17).
  • Commissioner Brotherton noted the value of getting the State Park perspective and recognizing that work on one side of the river impacts the other (00:24:27).
  • Commissioner Brotherton noted the "long-term plan is still hazy" (00:25:05) and confirmed that the Natural Systems Design (NSD) stated the primary purpose of the berm is for directing the river, not for flood control (02:06:05–02:06:30).
  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette noted the value of listening to the expertise of multi-generational residents and confirmed that the presentation included "new modeling detail" presented to the public for the first time (00:27:40–00:28:43).
  • Commissioner Dudley-Nollette emphasized that grant dollars for restoration are focused on improving salmon habitat and that staff's goal is to fulfill the funding obligation while also improving the situation for people (00:31:18–00:31:41).

Public Comments

  • - Jean Ball: Provided thanks for the interagency floodplain meeting, highlighting the serious risk to life and property in downtown Brinnon and the necessary steps discussed.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Modeling/Presentations from Natural Systems Design and Public Works (referenced in discussion).

Financials

  • Discussion noted that dollars for flood work are tied to improving salmon habitat (00:31:18).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • The discussion highlighted that the initial design for the power lines reach was altered after modeling showed certain engineered log jams (ELJs) might increase flooding risk on property owners' land, highlighting careful planning (00:30:08).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational, acknowledging highly complex and ongoing work.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: Continued modeling and planning are needed.

Proclamation: National Farmers Market Week (August 3-9, 2025)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:32:35–00:45:00
  • Agenda Item: Proclamation
  • Categories: services, economic development

Topic Summary

The Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a proclamation declaring August 3rd through 9th, 2025, as National Farmers Market Week. Angela Dunham, President of the Jefferson County Farmers Market (JCFM) Board of Directors, accepted the proclamation and highlighted the market's significant sales, local economic impact (estimated at $5.37 million), and crucial food assistance programs serving low-income individuals. Dunham announced an upcoming fundraiser aimed at filling funding gaps due to recent cuts, particularly for SNAP funding administration.

Key Discussion Points

  • The Port Townsend Farmers Market (PTFM) is in its 33rd season (00:34:06).
  • JCFM markets feature over 100 vendors, generating $1.79 million in annual sales last year (00:34:32–00:34:41).
  • The total "ripple-out economic impact" for the local economy is approximated at $5.37 million (00:34:49).
  • Markets support resilience and food security, reducing the carbon footprint (00:35:25).
  • JCFM's food assistance programs served about 1,200 low-income community members last year, distributing $126,000 in local food (00:35:34–00:36:02).
  • Angela Dunham announced the annual fundraiser dinner on August 17th to raise funds for food access programs, stating the market is in "dire need this year because we have had some funding cuts" (00:37:39–00:37:48).
  • County Administrator Peters noted he met with Amanda Mulholland in June regarding a grant for permanent infrastructure at the Port Townsend Farmers Market, such as covered spaces and possible design of a stage (00:42:07–00:42:49).
  • Angela Dunham confirmed the primary funding challenge is administrative support for SNAP funding, noting JCFM took over administration for Clallam County as a "test model" (00:43:56–00:44:21).

Public Comments

  • - Angela Dunham (JCFM Board President): Thanked the Board for support, detailed the economic and community benefits, and solicited attendance/donations for the upcoming August 17th fundraiser due to critical funding cuts in food access programs (00:37:17).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Proclamation (verbatim read from 00:33:19–00:36:20), detailing economic impacts and program statistics.

Financials

  • Total annual sales: $1.79 million (00:34:41).
  • Estimated ripple-out economic impact: $5.37 million (00:34:49).
  • Food assistance distributed: $126,000 (00:35:46).
  • Funding cuts mentioned affecting food access programs (00:37:48, 00:43:56).
  • Mention of a grant concept for design funds for permanent market infrastructure (00:42:07).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Motion: Commissioner Brotherton moved to approve the proclamation as read. Commissioner Dudley-Nollette seconded (00:36:20–00:36:28).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Proclamation approved.
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 2, Nays: 0, Abstentions: 0) (00:36:34).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Angela Dunham: Continue fundraising for food access programs (00:37:39).
  • - County Administrator/Central Services Director: Collaborate with JCFM on permanent infrastructure design process if grant is funded (00:42:49).

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:45:00–00:50:34
  • Agenda Item: Consent Agenda
  • Categories: operations, contracts, infrastructure, financial

Topic Summary

The Board reviewed and adopted the Consent Agenda. Key discussions focused on a last-minute change to the Sea Home Road easement document, the establishment of the new opioid settlement fund (Fund 132), and the status of the LTAC RFP priorities.

Key Discussion Points

  • Agenda Item #2, the Right-of-Way Easement for Sea Home Road, had a replacement first page of the contract over the weekend, adjusting the land description (00:45:25–00:46:03).
  • A second resolution related to the Transportation Benefit District, which had been previously drafted, was removed from the agenda for adjustments (00:46:03–00:46:16).
  • Opioid Settlements Fund (Fund 132): A resolution creating Fund 132 was included to separate opioid settlement funds from the behavioral health Fund 131 (1/10th of 1% sales tax funds) for "clearer accounting" (00:46:26–00:46:44).
  • Investment of Funds: The resolution asks the Treasurer to invest Fund 132 assets (00:47:01–00:47:13). Commissioner Dudley-Nollette questioned if Fund 131 should also be invested but noted the discussion could be deferred (00:47:13–00:47:30).
  • LTAC RFP Priorities: Commissioner Dudley-Nollette noted the LTAC RFP draft listed new BOCC priorities "verbatim" from a memo, relegating the previous priorities to "additional considerations," and that questions were added to the RFP to assess if applicants meet priority requirements (00:48:01–00:49:41).

Public Comments

No public comment was received on the consent agenda items (note: public comment was open for agenda items 00:01:18–00:01:28).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Consent Agenda (including materials for the new Fund 132, Opioid Settlements Fund).
  • Supporting materials (e.g., "Exhibit A") were referenced but not provided for analysis.

Financials

  • Fund 132 (Opioid Settlements Fund): Established to separate funds from Fund 131 (Behavioral Health) (00:46:26). Funds 132 are authorized to be invested (00:47:01).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Proposed investment of Fund 131 assets noted but deferred for later discussion (00:47:13).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve and adopt the consent agenda as presented (00:50:11).
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 2, Nays: 0, Abstentions: 0) (00:50:20).
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Discussion: Jefferson County Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Ballot Measure

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:30:24–02:13:03
  • Agenda Item: Discussion and Potential Action regarding Jefferson County Transportation Benefit District
  • Categories: budgeting, infrastructure, ordinances

Topic Summary

The Board discussed the resolution to place an additional two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) sales and use tax (SUT) for the Jefferson County Transportation Benefit District (JCTBD) on the November 4, 2025, ballot. This measure would raise an estimated $1 million annually for 10 years, primarily for pavement preservation and road maintenance. The discussion addressed public input regarding the prioritization of preservation over improvement (as stated in the resolution), clarified that the money is for unincorporated county roads/trails, and confirmed the need to establish committees for and against the measure.

Key Discussion Points

  • County Administrator Peters noted the County already established the TBD by councilmanic action on December 16, 2024, imposing a 0.1% SUT and a $20 annual license fee in the unincorporated area (01:32:15–01:32:56).
  • The current resolution proposes the remaining maximum additional 0.2% SUT via a simple majority vote (01:33:12).
  • Road Fund Need: Peters stated the prioritization of preservation is consistent with the initial TBD ordinance and critical for the sustainability of the road fund, which is down at least 25% on budget and staffing compared to the late 90s, jeopardizing 400+ miles of roads (01:38:00–01:38:29).
  • Fund Use: The principal use is for preservation (chip sealing, asphalt overlays), but it provides flexibility for matching funds and quick fixes for emergent issues like washouts (01:38:52–01:39:05).
  • Tax Parity: If approved, the SUT level in unincorporated Jefferson County will match Port Townsend's rate of 9.4% (01:40:18–01:40:34).
  • Tax Cost & Visitors: The sales tax helps diversify revenue and captures funds from visitors using the roads (01:41:06–01:41:40).
  • Resolution Logistics: The deadline to submit the final language to the Auditor is the following day (August 5) (01:33:30).
  • Ballot Cost: The estimated cost to run the measure is approximately $20,000 (01:48:31, though Commissioners noted this seemed low based on previous TBD elections).
  • Trails and Access: Confirmed the funds can be used for trails (01:59:43).
  • Ten-Year Term: A 10-year term is mandated by RCW statute (01:52:03–01:52:22).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Resolution (draft) for the JCTBD SUT Ballot measure (01:33:19).
  • JCC documents (page 3, Section 3A of the TBD resolution referenced).
  • RCW statutes dictating the ten-year limit (01:52:03).

Financials

  • Proposed Sales Tax: 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent).
  • Estimated Revenue: $1,000,000 annually for 10 years, if approved (01:52:20).
  • Ballot Cost: Estimated at $20,000 (01:48:31).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Ed Bowen requested changing the order of priorities in the ballot resolution (00:06:20), but the Board chose to keep the priority on maintenance/preservation for consistency and critical need (01:38:52).

Public Comments on TBD Ballot Measure (Resolution 1)

Public Comments

  • - Jean Ball: Spoke in favor of the measure, calling it "entirely necessary and required" for infrastructure used by everyone. She noted her outreach campaign showed "overwhelming support" and felt motivated by the condition of Port Townsend roads (01:52:58–01:53:54).
  • - Tom Tirche: Supported the measure, appreciating the detailed explanation of the funds' uses and dedication only to roads. He called it an "economical way to do it" given the election date (01:54:15–01:55:53). Tirche urged the Commissioners to lobby legislators to remove the 10-year constraint on the tax via RCW (01:56:28).
  • - Marcia Kilbar (Quilcene): Supported the funding need but asked two clarifying questions: 1) What is the process for further reducing the traditional diversion of road funds to the General Fund (specifically, law enforcement)? 2) Who is the voting population for the TBD? (02:01:02–02:01:31).

Responses to Public Comments

  • Commissioner Brotherton clarified that only unincorporated Jefferson County residents will vote on the measure (02:01:34).
  • County Administrator Peters and Commissioner Brotherton explained the road fund diversion goes to traffic-related law enforcement (02:02:44), noting the diversion had been reduced from an estimated $700,000 to the $500,000 range (02:03:06–02:03:17). They clarified that the TBD measure is a separate, dedicated funding source and is not directly tied to the diversion conversation (02:03:38).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps (Resolution 1)

  • Decision: Motion to approve Resolution placing the JCTBD sales and use tax ballot measure (0.2%) on the November 4, 2025, ballot (01:50:54).
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 2, Nays: 0, Abstentions: 0) (02:06:56).
  • Next Steps: Staff will submit the resolution and materials to the Auditor's office by the August 5, 2025, deadline (02:13:37).

Appointment of For and Against Committee for TBD Ballot Measure

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:07:08–02:13:03
  • Agenda Item: Resolution to Appoint JCTBD Ballot Committee (For and Against)
  • Categories: governance, operations

Topic Summary

The Board addressed the mandatory step of formally appointing "For" and "Against" committees for the JCTBD ballot measure. Jean Ball and Thomas Thiersch were formally appointed to the "For" committee. Given the lack of volunteers for the "Against" committee, it was clarified that the County Auditor will solicit and appoint those members.

Key Discussion Points

  • The resolution appoints the "For" and "Against" committees required by RCW 29A.32.280 (02:07:08).
  • Jean Ball and Thomas Thiersch volunteered for the "For" committee (01:35:58).
  • The Auditor's office will reach out again to solicit a third member for the "For" committee and up to three members for the "Against" committee (02:07:29–02:07:42).
  • The deadline for these committees to draft their statements for the voter's pamphlet is August 12th (01:36:59, 02:07:51).
  • Interested members of the public can still express interest by emailing the County Administrator's office ([email protected]) or contacting the Auditor directly (02:10:23–02:10:48).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic. (An individual in the room missed the comment period but indicated they had comments about license tabs, which he was directed to submit via email) (02:12:02).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • RCW 29A.32.280 (02:07:08).
  • Auditor's Office procedures referenced (02:08:37).

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • The appointment of the "Against" committee is deferred to the County Auditor due to a lack of volunteers (01:36:30).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve the resolution appointing the For and Against committee (02:10:54).
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 2, Nays: 0, Abstentions: 0) (02:12:43).
  • Next Steps: The County Administrator will submit the necessary paperwork, including the committee form, to the Auditor's office tomorrow (August 5) (02:13:51).

Workshop: Amendments to PHUGA Sewer Utility Code

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:53:20–03:47:30
  • Agenda Item: Workshop regarding amendments to Jefferson County Code (13.02.010 and 13.04.010)
  • Categories: land use, infrastructure, ordinances

Topic Summary

Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker led a workshop on proposed amendments to the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (PHUGA) Sewer Utility Code. The amendments aim to formally clarify the date (September 8, 2025) and criteria (within 200 feet of a collection line) for when the urban-level zoning becomes live, turning off the transitional rural zoning overlay. The goal is clarity for the public, tied to the commencement of the sewer system’s operations.

Key Discussion Points

  • Key Date/Metric: The sewer system is expected to become operational on September 8, 2025 (03:00:08).
  • Definition of Availability: The proposed amendment redefines "available" as when a property is within 200 feet of an existing sewer collection line, accessible via rights-of-way or acceptable easements (03:03:40–03:04:12).
  • Zoning Change: This definition will act as the "virtual switch" that flips, removing the transitional rural zoning overlay (JCC 18.19) and activating the underlying UGA zoning (03:01:50, 03:09:41).
  • Map Discrepancy: The actual properties switching to urban zoning (within 200 feet of the now-built core lines) is smaller than the original core sewer plan boundary (03:16:01). Public Works staff noted certain areas (like B&R mobile home park and Sunset Meadows) were always planned as separate collection line projects (03:16:57–03:18:08).
  • Development Incentives/Compulsion:
    • If a developer extends a sewer line in a public rights-of-way, they can file a latecomer agreement to be reimbursed (for up to 20 years) by adjacent property owners who connect later (03:26:03–03:26:46).
    • Commercial properties that use over 4,000 gallons of water per month are compelled to connect when the sewer becomes available (03:26:53, 03:31:44).
    • Existing single-family residences/duplexes are generally not compelled to connect unless redeveloping (e.g., adding an ADU) (03:25:22).
  • Affordability: Low-income residential properties (single-family) receive a 50% discount on the base rate (from $80/ERU to $40/ERU) (03:40:02–03:40:28). Multi-family residential units are already discounted at 0.7 ERU, but low-income multi-family still pays $40 (half of the 1 ERU rate), not half of the already discounted multi-family rate (03:41:56–03:42:24).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 13 (PHUGA Sewer Utility Code)
  • JCC 18.19 (Transitional Rural Overlay)
  • Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update (2021)
  • Maps showing original UGA and final 200-foot availability areas.

Financials

  • Base rate for single-family residential unit (1 ERU): $80 per month (03:40:02).
  • Low-income rate for single-family/multi-family: $40 per month (03:40:28).
  • The initial hookup capital incentives are equal for all (03:41:24).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • The goal was to make the ordinance "more readable" by moving notes to definitions and separate sections (02:59:57, 03:36:03).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was a workshop; no immediate action was taken.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: A public hearing is scheduled for August 18, 2025, at 10:45 a.m. (03:47:25).

Discussion and Potential Action: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Bylaws

Metadata

  • Time Range: 03:48:44–04:15:39
  • Agenda Item: Discussion and potential action regarding the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Bylaws
  • Categories: governance, contracts, ordinances

Topic Summary

The Board approved the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) bylaws, finalizing the governance framework for the committee. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Arielle Spester responded to two questions raised by the LTAC regarding procedural clarity: 1) the process if the BOCC rejects an LTAC funding recommendation, and 2) the BOCC’s inherent authority to remove an LTAC member. Staff was directed to formalize the answers in a clarifying memo to be attached to the final bylaws. The discussion also initiated a review of JCC 3.25.020, which inaccurately states that the LTAC supersedes and replaces the Tourism Coordination Council (TCC).

Key Discussion Points

  • LTAC Questions: The LTAC submitted the draft bylaws with no proposed changes but sought clarification for two procedural points (03:51:31).
  • BOCC Authority (Question 2): Arielle Spester confirmed that the BOCC has inherent authority from RCW 67.28.1817(1) to review LTAC membership "annually and make changes as appropriate," independent of the LTAC voting on removal (03:59:04–03:59:36).
  • RFP Rejection Process (Question 1): Spester confirmed that if the BOCC rejects all proposals, funds remain unallocated for the remainder of the RFP cycle, and the BOCC (via LTAC) could issue another RFP for remaining funds (03:54:33). If the BOCC funds partially or changes the recommended amount, the measure must return to LTAC for comment for up to 45 days (03:56:03, 03:57:35).
  • TCC Code Inconsistency: The Commissioners reiterated Tom Tirche's public comment concern (04:09:44) that JCC 3.25.020 sub-3 inaccurately claims the LTAC supersedes the TCC (04:11:19). Staff was directed to bring back an ordinance amendment for a hearing to excise this obsolete sub-section during the next month (04:12:31).
  • Trust Concern: Tom Tirche spoke during public comment, arguing that the Board's detailed scrutiny of the bylaws and clarity questions suggested a "great deal of distrust" in the appointed LTAC members (04:02:45–04:03:00).
  • Response to Trust Concern: Commissioner Dudley-Nollette refuted the claim of distrust, stating the LTAC members themselves initiated the questions seeking clarity because the rules were unclear after the committee was recently reseeded (04:04:40–04:05:12).

Public Comments

  • - Tom Tirche: Criticized the level of BOCC scrutiny of the bylaws, claiming it reflects a "great deal of distrust" in the advisory board members, calling the entire process "silly and wasteful" (04:02:45).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • LTAC Bylaws (draft version) (03:54:55).
  • RCW 67.28.1817 (03:58:55).
  • JCC 3.25.020 sub-3 (referenced verbally, 04:09:44).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Staff Recommendation Adopted: Arielle Spester will draft an explanatory memo addressing the two LTAC questions, rather than modifying the bylaws directly (04:00:55, 04:01:32).
  • New Task Created: Staff will initiate proceedings to amend JCC 3.25.020 sub-3 to remove the statement that LTAC supersedes TCC (04:12:31).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve the draft LTAC bylaws as final (04:14:47).
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 2, Nays: 0, Abstentions: 0) (04:14:53).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Arielle Spester (PAO): Draft a memo addressing the LTAC's two procedural questions for transparency (04:15:39).
  • - Staff: Initiate the process to amend JCC 3.25.020 sub-3 via ordinance/hearing (04:13:16).

Generated On: 2025-11-07 13:59:22.067480-08:00 By: google/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025 running on https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/