MEETING: Untitled Meeting at Wed, Sep 24, 05:00 PM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

Jefferson County Board Commissioners Special Meeting Summary

Public Safety Partner Reports

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:01:00–00:37:43
  • Agenda Item: Originally Item 3, switched to Item 2 per request.
  • Categories: operations, public safety, services, personnel, infrastructure, planning, other

Topic Summary

The meeting began with reports from various fire districts and federal partners detailing current operations, progress on community safety programs, and updates on active wildfires. Key programs discussed included Wildfire Ready Neighbors, the Fire CARES program (Community Assistance Referral Education Services), and Community Risk Reduction (CRR) efforts. Federal partners provided updates on the Bear Gulch and Tunnel Creek fires. The discussion also addressed the importance of the Washington State Rating Bureau (WSRB) scores, and a comprehensive wildfire evacuation plan being developed.

Key Discussion Points

  • Agenda Adjustment: Commissioner Bill requested switching Agenda Item 3 (Partner Reports) to Item 2 (00:00:52).
  • Wildfire Ready Neighbors (District 1): This program, initially supported by a Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) grant that ended June 30th, completed 188 home-specific wildfire risk assessments (00:02:06). There is a current waitlist of 65 people (00:02:36). Staff are training 4 additional volunteers and career staff to complete assessments and are planning a comprehensive scheduling and data system to continue the program (00:02:45, 00:02:59).
  • Fire CARES (District 1): Chief Brett Black reported the Community Assistance Referral Education Services (CARES) program has been running for about 3 years and served 1,500 members of District 1 in 2024 (00:04:27). Of those customers, 1,300 were senior citizens over the age of 65 (00:04:36). The program operates inter-county and addresses compounded issues like repeat falls, housing instability, and substance abuse (00:04:51). CARES uses HIPAA-compliant interagency software to facilitate referrals (00:06:30).
  • Community Risk Reduction (CRR): Robert Witburg defined CRR as a shift from typical prevention to a broad-based approach to identify and mitigate community risk, enhancing fire prevention programming (00:07:29, 00:07:44).
  • Washington State Rating Bureau (WSRB): Chief Black explained WSRB provides an independent evaluation of fire risk, highly impacting insurance rates (00:08:40, 00:10:58). Scores range from 1 (best) to 10 (worst) (00:11:04). The fire service can influence scores related to training, equipment, personnel, and fire prevention (00:09:19). East Jefferson Fire Rescue (District 1) currently rates 4 overall, and 3 within Port Townsend city limits (00:12:19). Chief Black noted that WSRB standards, requiring 6 firefighters per engine, are antiquated and penalize rural districts (00:09:57, 00:10:07).
  • Quilcene Fire & Rescue (District 2): Deputy Fire Chief Don Spetich reported 30 people are waiting for fire-adapted community assessments (00:13:32). Quilcene is developing a demonstration site at the Quilcene community campground by mid-next year (00:13:53, 00:13:57). District 2 is focusing efforts on rural communities surrounded by state lands, like Camp Harmony and the Coil area, due to high wildfire risk (00:14:19).
  • Brinnon Fire Department (District 4): Chief Tim Manley reported the WSRB rating improved from 7 to 6 in August of the previous year (00:15:38, 00:15:43). The department had 12 weeks of deployment for state mobilization on the Bear Gulch and Grand Creek fires (00:15:54). Locally, the Belgian Fire and Dulce Wallops Fire tested readiness (00:16:13). Call volume year-to-date is 503, mostly EMS calls (00:16:38). Future goals include strengthening Type 5 Wildland teams and expanding marine firefighting capabilities (00:16:43, 00:16:50).
  • Federal Wildfire Update (National Park Service): Jeff Bortner, Olympic Interagency Fire Management Officer, reported virtually on two active fires (00:17:50). Bear Gulch Fire is approximately 19,899 acres and 5% contained, burning primarily in the Mount Skokomish and Winter Mountain/Daniel J. Evans Wildernesses (00:18:15). Tunnel Creek Fire is 550 acres and 0% contained in the Buckhorn Wilderness (00:19:15). Weather is expected to transition into a wet, marine onshore flow, potentially bringing up to 2.5 inches of needed rain (00:19:56). Both sites are steep and inaccessible (00:20:20). Bortner confirmed hydrological impacts are a concern due to high-severity burn patches, and a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team is reevaluating the situation (00:27:40, 00:28:19). Recovery from Bear Gulch is expected to be a multi-year, 5-year process (00:29:33, 00:30:04).
  • Comprehensive Evacuation Plan (DEM): Willie Betts, Director of the Department of Emergency Management (DEM), detailed the development of a comprehensive wildfire-specific evacuation plan, stemming from an action item in the Comprehensive Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (00:22:19, 00:22:51). A recent tabletop exercise used Ladris AI to simulate scenarios (00:23:17). The exercise revealed a critical need for pre-defined, easily communicable evacuation zones, which DEM is now developing (00:24:37, 00:24:57). The first draft is expected by November for partner and eventually public review (00:25:22).
  • Post-Fire Runoff/Erosion Coordination: A public commenter (Shelly) raised concerns about water runoff and erosion damaging private property following the Jupiter fire last year, noting a lack of communication between "river people" (ecologists/restoration groups like Natural Systems Design) and "forest people" (DNR/Forest Service) (00:31:42, 00:33:02). Deputy Chief Spetich noted the issue was likely due to fire suppression machine work on DNR land and recommended contacting DNR and Rainier (a landowner) (00:35:08).

Public Comments

  • - (Unidentified Speaker): Asked if the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) information has been shared broadly, expressing concern about the lack of public awareness and the absence of fire prevention education in schools (00:26:27, 00:26:52, 00:27:03).
  • - (Ed Bowen, West Jefferson): Expressed concern that the Bear Gulch fire is advancing toward Enchanted Valley Chalet and Western Jefferson County, urging county officials to obtain the most current IR (Infrared) data on the fire’s location (01:19:00). He also asked for clarity on the fire district presence in West Jefferson (01:21:50).
  • - (Shelly): Raised the issue of post-fire erosion damaging her neighbor's property due to diverted water runoff from suppression efforts on DNR land, highlighting the difficulty citizens face getting remedy from the agencies (00:33:40, 00:36:06).
  • - (Gene): Asked about the incidence rate of fires started by people versus lightning strikes, noting low lightning activity in the area (01:23:04).
  • - (Russell, Woodbridge): Noted frustration that fire district non-structural assessments are limited to private property and do not address hazards in adjacent unmaintained timber land managed by HOAs (01:36:17).
  • - (Multiple Speakers): Expressed appreciation for the open and communicative nature of the special meeting (02:00:04, 02:01:07).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • The Comprehensive Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (00:21:19, 00:25:57)
  • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Grant (00:02:06)
  • Jefferson County Code 2.40.020 (00:39:29)

Financials

  • No specific financial figures were discussed beyond noting the DNR grant funding for Wildfire Ready Neighbors ended June 30th (00:02:06). Details on the unselected $3 million Community Wildfire Defense Grant application were mentioned later (02:46:43).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Commissioner Bill requested switching Agenda Item 3 to Item 2, which was accepted (00:00:52).
  • Discussion initiated regarding finding a forum/contact point to coordinate land and water resource recovery efforts post-fire (0:31:01).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Partner reports were provided and accepted as informational. No formal motion was required.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps:
  • - DEM/Partners: Continue development of the Comprehensive Evacuation Plan, with the first draft expected by November (00:25:22).
  • - Fire Marshal/DCD: Create new links/publish the list of public safety websites referenced during the discussion to the County Fire Marshal webpage within the next few days (01:21:27, 01:21:33, 01:21:42).

Office of the Fire Marshal and Building Code Effectiveness

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:37:43–00:46:11
  • Agenda Item: Originally Item 2, addressed after Partner Reports.
  • Categories: operations, ordinances, public safety, inspections

Topic Summary

County Fire Marshal Phil led a presentation detailing the formation and purpose of the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) within Jefferson County. The OFM serves as the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for fire and life safety, encompassing plan review, inspections, enforcement, and addressing/road naming. Phil also outlined his dual role as County Building Official and highlighted the importance of the Commercial Inspection Program to improve the county’s Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau (WSRB) Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) score, currently rated 3 out of 10 (00:42:52).

Key Discussion Points

  • OFM Mission: Serves as the key authority (AHJ) in safeguarding the community from fire dangers through risk reduction, education, inspections, investigation, plan review, and code enforcement (00:38:47).
  • OFM Duties (per JCC 2.40.020): Enforce fire code (IFC), conduct plan review/investigations/inspections, enforce local regulations, manage addressing/road naming, monitor atmospheric conditions for fire restrictions, and provide expert testimony (00:39:29, 00:40:19, 00:40:34).
  • Dual Role: Phil concurrently serves as the County Building Official, managing building inspection and plan review for new construction (00:40:40, 00:41:01).
  • Commercial Inspection Program: This program is crucial for boosting the WSRB rating (00:42:01, 00:42:14). Work focuses on public safety by ensuring businesses have safe exits and are code-compliant (00:43:56).
  • BCEGS Score: The Office of the Fire Marshal itself does not receive a fire rating, but the county's Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) rating is currently a 3 (lower is better, 1 is best), an increase from previous years (00:42:31, 00:42:52).
  • Hazard Correction Terms: A deficiency hazard system classifies risks: Extreme (immediate correction or evacuation), High (next settlement meeting, non-immediate threat), Moderate (14 days for correction), and Low (30 days for correction of minor issues like missing switch covers) (00:44:49, 00:45:36).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Jefferson County Code (JCC) 2.40.020 (00:39:29)
  • International Fire Code (IFC) (00:39:55)
  • Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau (WSRB) (00:42:01)

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps:
  • - Fire Marshal Office: Prepare an annual update briefing for the Commissioners within the next 3 months (00:44:37).

Fire Danger Ratings and Burn Restriction Discussion

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:46:11–01:57:32
  • Agenda Item: Discussion on atmospheric conditions and burn restrictions.
  • Categories: public safety, operations, ordinances, weather

Topic Summary

The Fire Marshal and fire professionals presented a detailed analysis of local, regional, and national weather patterns to inform a decision on extending or modifying the county's current High Fire Danger burn restrictions, which were set to expire September 30th (01:28:19, 01:29:04). The analysis indicated that despite forecasts for increased moisture, the region has experienced an unusually long dry spell (124 days without a "wetting rain" event of 0.25 inches in 24 hours), leaving deep fuels available for burning (01:08:01). After extensive discussion, including input from chiefs and the public, the consensus was to extend the current High Fire Danger restrictions until at least October 15th, followed by a re-evaluation on September 30th or shortly after, allowing consistency and time for substantive "wetting rain."

Key Discussion Points

  • Weather Analysis: The Pacific Northwest has been above normal temperature-wise (00:49:35), and East Jefferson County is currently in a severe drought condition (00:53:44, 00:54:50).
  • Drought/Rain Outlook: National data forecasts the drought to abate between August 21st and November 30th (00:50:40). Seasonal rain is predicted to be above average (01:07:07). Predictions are challenging due to El Niño/La Niña fluctuations (00:51:41).
  • Fuel Conditions: Live fuel moistures have plateaued, indicating seasonal dormancy, making them available for burning (01:01:21, 01:01:50). The area has hit the critical dry line (15% moisture) several times for 1,000-hour fuels (large, heavy fuels that sustain fires), indicating prolonged high-fire risk (01:03:07, 01:03:20, 01:03:40).
  • "Wetting Rain" Definition: For the Olympic Peninsula, "wetting rain" is defined as 0.25 inches of rain over a 24-hour period (00:57:44, 01:08:26). The Quilcene RAWS station has not recorded such an event in 124 days (01:08:01).
  • Sufficient Rain for Fire Season End: To truly end fire season, 5 to 10 inches of sustained, long-term rain is required to achieve normal fuel moisture levels (01:10:30, 01:10:49).
  • Burn Restriction Expiration: By ordinance, current restrictions end September 30th unless officially extended (01:28:19, 01:29:04).
  • Chiefs' Concerns: Fire Chiefs noted current low staffing capabilities locally and regionally (01:17:30, 01:16:57) and strongly stressed the need for conditions to be in the "rearview mirror" before downgrading to Moderate (01:31:31, 01:32:24). Personal testimony noted dry sawdust immediately ignited on a chainsaw muffler (01:34:44).
  • Interagency Conflict: A major point of tension was the lack of synchronization between county restrictions and those set by DNR and Federal agencies (01:47:35). If DNR lowers its burn ban, residents become frustrated when they cannot use campfires on private property while tourists can use established fire rings in state/federal parks (01:47:59).

Public Comments

  • - (Gene): Argued that given the lack of fire manpower, loosening restrictions prematurely is too risky (01:39:05).
  • - (Russell): Reiterated concerns over unmitigated fire hazards on adjacent HOA-managed timberland (01:36:08).
  • - (Sandy): Opposed arbitrary yo-yoing of the restrictions and advocated for consistency (01:47:02, 01:47:14).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • DNR regional fire danger ratings (01:30:00)
  • Quilcene RAWS Station data (00:58:47)
  • Jefferson County Ordinance (governing burn restrictions) (01:28:19)

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative 1 (Staff/Spetich Proposal): Drop to a Moderate restriction level as of October 1st, with re-evaluation in two weeks (01:31:40, 01:31:50). Rejected by consensus.
  • Alternative 2 (Unanimous Consensus): Extend the current High Fire Danger status to October 15th, with a definitive re-evaluation on September 30th (01:47:02, 01:54:20).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The High Fire Danger burn restrictions will be formally extended to October 15th.
  • Vote: Consensus vote among fire chiefs and the board (01:47:02, 01:54:20).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Fire Marshal Office: Prepare a press release and official declaration extending the High Fire Danger status with an expiry date of October 15th (01:55:21).
  • - Fire Marshal Office/Chiefs: Convene/discuss a definitive restriction level (High/Moderate) post-September 30th, potentially informed by DNR's actions (01:54:26, 01:55:28).
  • - Board/Public: Hold a briefing on the decision at the next Board of County Commissioners meeting on October 6th (01:56:48, 01:57:07).

Fireworks Regulation Review

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:58:09–02:37:42
  • Agenda Item: Review of current fireworks ordinance and options for future regulation.
  • Categories: ordinances, public safety, enforcement, legislative

Topic Summary

The discussion centered on the current fireworks ordinance, which allows the Fire Marshal to ban consumer fireworks during a Declaration of High Fire Hazard (02:07:43, 02:07:10). The Fire Marshal presented options for future regulation, as any restrictive change would not take effect until after the following year (July 2026). Options included a total ban, status quo, allowing only public permitted displays, or restricting to only "safe and sane" fireworks (02:11:40). Discussion highlighted issues with enforcement, the threat of illegal fireworks purchased outside the county, high fines, and balancing public enjoyment with safety due to extreme fire conditions.

Key Discussion Points

  • Current Ordinance: Allows the Fire Marshal to shut down fireworks sales and discharge during a Declaration of High Fire Hazard, as occurred this year (02:07:43, 02:07:49).
  • Legislative Timeline: Any new more restrictive ordinance passed now would not take effect for 365 days, meaning changes would apply to the 2026 holiday season (02:09:40). If the county sets a high fire hazard restriction, fireworks are banned regardless of the new ordinance (02:10:20).
  • Enforcement Issues: Enforcement is difficult; deputies rarely issue tickets because it is hard to identify the individual responsible, especially after a 15-20 minute response time (02:19:04). The legal distinction between legal and illegal fireworks is complex, even after an 8-hour training class (02:21:08, 02:21:11).
  • Fine Level: The current penalty for a first offense is $1,000, which an unidentified speaker felt was excessive and deterred deputies from enforcement (02:16:01, 02:16:52, 02:17:02). The Fire Marshal suggested surveying other jurisdictions to determine a "normal" range (02:17:02, 02:18:39).
  • Total Ban Risk: Randy (TNT Fireworks Representative) and the Fire Marshal noted that a total ban often forces consumers to unregulated tribal lands, resulting in illegal, unsafe aerials and firecrackers being brought back to the county, undermining regulation (02:15:06, 02:29:30, 02:31:35). Cities like Tukwila and SeaTac are reversing total bans and adopting "safe and sane" models due to decreased call volume (02:29:51).
  • Alternatives:
    • Status Quo (Least Change): Restrictions only under a High Fire Hazard Declaration (02:12:02).
    • Safe and Sane: Only allows fountains and ground-based fireworks that don't spin or leave a 10-foot radius (02:13:59). Risk: Doesn't eliminate fire risk; sparklers cause over 70% of nationwide injuries (02:14:30, 02:35:33).
    • Public Displays Only: Would require permits, licensed pyrotechnics, bonds, and inspections for the fallout zone and spectators (02:12:48). Would allow events outside of 4th of July (02:13:02).

Public Comments

  • - (Unidentified Speaker): Argued the $1,000 fine is excessive and suggests a lower, more enforceable fine (02:16:01).
  • - (Shelly): Spoke strongly in favor of banning non-safe and sane fireworks, referencing the danger of stockpiling (seen in social media photos) and the negative impact of loud explosions on veterans and animals (02:26:19, 02:27:31, 02:27:44).
  • - (Randy, TNT Fireworks): Argued against a total ban, citing that it leads to uncontrolled, illegal fireworks from reservations (02:29:30). He noted fireworks are the only item subject to a sale ban during a High Fire Hazard declaration, suggesting discrimination against the industry (02:30:26, 02:30:42). Advocated for public education and polling residents (02:32:22).
  • - (Unidentified Commissioner/Public): Stated permitted, commercial-grade shows (like those on the water) are much safer than consumer fireworks over dry fields (02:24:22).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Washington State RCW (State Law on Fireworks) (02:07:03)
  • Jefferson County Ordinance (passed 2022) (02:07:30)

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion on fine reduction (02:16:01) and safe zones/Little Genevas (02:33:07).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken. Item was informational and a review of possible future discussion topics.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps:
  • - Fire Marshal Office/DCD: Conduct a survey (traffic/industry standards) to determine a reasonable fine level for the $1,000 administrative violation (02:17:13, 02:18:39).

Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) Update

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:37:42–02:45:55
  • Agenda Item: Update on the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP).
  • Categories: infrastructure, planning, operations, ordinances

Topic Summary

The Fire Marshal provided an update on the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) review, managed by the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (02:38:01). The key challenge is determining fire flows that meet fire district needs without creating unrealistic development hurdles in the rural county (02:38:30, 02:39:06). The current plan, dating back to 1997, requires 750 gallons per minute (GPM) for 30 minutes, 50% above the state minimum of 500 GPM (02:39:45). Adopting the International Fire Code (IFC) Appendix B minimums would require flows (1,750 GPM for 2 hours for an average un-sprinklered home) that local infrastructure cannot support (02:39:53, 02:41:50). The committee is also working to streamline rules for connecting new builds to existing water systems (02:44:26).

Key Discussion Points

  • Fire Flow Requirements: Current CWSP requires 750 GPM for 30 minutes, which is higher than the state minimum of 500 GPM (02:39:32, 02:39:45).
  • IFC Appendix B Challenge: Full adoption of IFC Appendix B fire flow standards is "unrealistic" for rural Jefferson County and would severely hamper development (02:39:06, 02:41:59).
  • Rural Firefighting Method: The majority of fire suppression on structures relies on water tenders, not hydrants, reducing the immediate utility of high-demand hydrant flow requirements (02:40:54).
  • Aging CWSP: The plan was last updated in 1997, and the update process is addressing modern concerns like climate change and required connections to major water purveyors (02:43:54, 02:44:21).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • International Fire Code (IFC) Appendix B (02:38:55)
  • Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) (02:38:05)

Financials

  • No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational; CWSP review is ongoing.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps:
  • - Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC): Next meeting scheduled for October 10th at 3:00 PM in the Public Health Pacific Room (02:45:25, 02:45:32).

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Update

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:46:02–02:51:59
  • Agenda Item: Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Update.
  • Categories: planning, budgeting, public safety

Topic Summary

The Fire Marshal provided a brief update on the CWPP, noting the plan was completed last year (the county's first-ever) and is an excellent resource (02:46:14, 02:46:21). The major update was the recent denial of a $3 million Community Wildfire Defense Grant (CWDG) application, which contained over 27 priority projects (02:46:43, 02:46:49). Funding for fire risk mitigation is currently being directed mostly to the east side of the Cascade mountains (02:47:37). The team plans to look for alternative funding sources and prioritize the existing list of projects.

Key Discussion Points

  • Plan Status: CWPP completed last year; contains risk assessment explorer tools for the public (02:46:14, 02:49:22).
  • Grant Denial: The $3 million CWDG application was denied (02:46:43). All four Washington State-funded projects were on the east side of the Cascades (02:47:37).
  • West Side Fire Risk: Four of the 12 large ongoing wildfires in Washington State are on the west side of the Cascades (Bear Gulch, Tunnel Creek, Wildcat, April Mountain), suggesting an urgent need for west-side funding advocacy (02:48:18).
  • Future Action: The planning team must prioritize the 27 identified projects and seek other grant funding (02:47:01, 02:47:59).

Public Comments

  • - (Ed Bowen): Suggested the county use FPHS funds (Federal Public Health Service) to address fire management needs, particularly around establishing a new weather station (02:50:32). He advocated for a follow-up community meeting on the West End at the Clearwater School (02:50:49).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (02:46:14)
  • Community Wildfire Defense Grant (CWDG) (02:46:43)

Financials

  • A $3 million CWDG application was mentioned as denied (02:46:43).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • None discussed, other than seeking new funding sources.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Item was informational.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps:
  • - CWPP Team: Circle the wagons to reprioritize projects and search for alternative grant funding (02:47:01, 02:47:12).
  • - CWPP Team: Determine deficiencies in the denied CWDG proposal (02:47:29).
  • - County Officials: Consider holding a follow-up meeting on the CWPP at the Clearwater School (02:50:49).