PORT LUDLOW VILLAGE COUNCIL

General Meeting Minutes

 

January 3, 2008           

 

The meeting was convened at 3:00 p.m. at the Bay Club.

Present: Vaughn Bradshaw, Bill Browne, Greg McCarry, Tom McCay, Jack McKay, Dan Meade, Dean Mosher, Larry Nobles, Frank Siler.

Absent: Gene Carmody, Lynn Gauché, Adele Govert.

Mea Graham served as Recording Secretary

 

President Greg McCarry called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and ensured that there was a quorum. Approximately 55 persons were in attendance

 

MSP to approve the minutes of the November 1 General meeting (all ayes).

 

Utility Committee Report

Port Ludlow Utilities Committee: A report on the Port Ludlow water system plan was moderated by Phil Otness who introduced Frank Merriwether, Regional Engineer, Washington State, Department of Health (DOH) and Karen Locke, Planner, Office of Drinking Water (ODW).

Their presentation involved answering a series of previously prepared questions which in general covered most of the resident concerns while delineating the role of the State Department of Health with reference to the OWSI water plan, which was approved by DOH on Dec. 5, 2007.

 

In regard to regulation of water systems there are two groups of clients: A group (such as OWSI) and a second group over which Jefferson County has overall authority. For issuance and review, the responsibility ultimately lies with ODW and of DOH.  In turn, these agencies work in partnership with the Department of Ecology (DOE) concerning water rights in partnership with the Utilities and Transportation Commission, which is concerned with finances of water systems, budget, sufficient money, financial viability. All results are sent as one response back to the water system seeking water rights and the appropriate county offices.  When a builder seeks a building permit from the county, the county considers the water right availability by checking with DOE before issuing the permit.  If sufficient water and water rights are available to cover the needs, a permit could be granted.

 

How does one know that there are no more available approved water connections to give? When the county says there are not sufficient water rights, or capacity of the water system to fill the projected need.  

 

If the OWSI were to fail (receivership being the worst situation), what role does the state have to play to ensure continuing operation?  The state tries to stop this from happening, by working with the water system and adjusting the approved plan.  The state is committed to ensure that the community would still get water.

            What happens if the water drawn exceeds the limits set by the water assigned water rights?  This is the area of specialty for the DOE. The water company should use the cost reimbursement process to insure quicker review of requests to increase the number of water rights and use additional conservation measures to ensure that adequate water is available. OWSI would be subject to penalties if not in compliance, but the DOE would prefer to work with the utility to help keep them in compliance.

           

What happened to OWSI’s application for added water rights in 1994?  It is still being processed. OWSI has also applied to DOE in November, 2007 for additional water rights. The DOE views the water rights needs for a projected 6 years and a projected 20 years.  The DOE does not see any problems for the next 6 years and for the anticipated construction taking Port Ludlow to 2197 ERU’s (equivalent residential units).

 

What is the validity of the concern of OWSI not properly completing the water request applications?  Since OWSI made the applications, beginning in 1994, there have been changes in the technical regulations thus OWSI may want to use a cost reimbursement process that will allow previous rights applications to rise faster on the waiting line list. (See Phil Crane re cost reimbursement process)

 

Are OWSI and PLA adequately properly addressing the potential water problems in our community? It was suggested that OWSI should seek added interaction with the Watershed planning unit (one of ecology’s tools using local interaction and expertise).  OWSI has filed the necessary applications for wells 13, 14 and 16 demonstrating that they are prepared for the continued expansion of the MPR.

 

Does OWSI have to fund a financial reserve account?  The Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) does not require reserves.  Even though there have been financial losses during recent years, the current 2007 plan (approved in December), with proposed rate changes, is feasible for the 6 year time frame.   Projected positive earnings should replace losses experienced during the past few years. UTC thinks the 2007 plan is viable.  Prior to the end of the six year plan, a new plan will have to be submitted to DOH, which will coordinate approvals with DOE, and UTC.

 

Has the Port Ludlow community and PLA adequately addressed the water supply issues? The DOE is unaware of drinking water problems during the approved six year period; however, they are aware of longer term problems which can be solved by advanced planning. They feel that OWSI has been very clear in regard to their planning for the future water needs. Where they see potential problems OWSI develops plans for responding to them.

 

Will Port Ludlow have adequate water and connections for future home use both in the 6 year time frame (foreseeable future) and the 20 year time frame (the far future)? Water conservation and additional water rights would resolve this. OWSI has made efforts to secure those rights. Hence Mr. Merriwether believes that they (OWSI) are doing what they can.

See Appendix 1 for all the questions asked and answered.

 

General questions:

Larry Smith, in response to member questions, stated that there will be a rate increase and possible change in the rate structure.  Internal review is currently underway and OWSI will be ready to share their proposals with the utility committee in the near future.

 

There were a number of questions concerning the measurement of water use, water rights, the increased use of water in the newer homes, the water availability for future villages, the water availability for sold (but empty) lots, the activation of older wells, the compatibility of water flows in and between zone A(most of North Bay) and B (South Bay plus Village Center and resort), and the process for expediting the water right requests through hiring outside consultants for technical review of OWSI’s proposals.

 

Dan Meade felt that a normal business process has been utilized and solutions are in place. A regulator processes the application as it rises to the top; if the purveyor is willing to pay for outside consultants to assist the DOH review, then the application can be approved in much shorter time period. Larry Smith stated the new application is under the cost reimbursement program which will expedite consideration.

 

Jefferson County Administrator’s Report - John Fischbach gave a Port Ludlow update:  The Ludlow Cove II development hearing will held in February and chaired by Casseaux.  Nothing unusual is expected. Appellate Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts’ ruling of The Ludlow Village appeal was expected on Friday, January 4, 2008.

Bayview Village Association has submitted an application to the county for vegetation management for some 200+ trees in common open areas as part of the Critical Areas Review. Vegetation removal in a critical area or its buffer requires a review and approval from DCD and usually requires scientific analysis from a geologist, biologist or arborist. Vegetation removal requires review and approval from DCD and that process is currently underway.

 

County Commissioner’s Report - John Austin described FEMA response to recent storm damage.  The county is considered a disaster area for public property destroyed, but has not yet reached the cusp for private property to be compensated. FEMA will study private property claims. If you have damage be sure to let Bob Hamlin (emergency operations director Jefferson County) know in order for the county to reach the minimal level.

Wage increases to county employees were offset by lower health care costs; reserves drawn down by the county by hiring 3.5 employees. In response to Dan Meade concerns about drawing down reserves, Austin stated they would rather not draw down the reserves, and yes they are going to have to restock these reserves. “Banked capacity” was discussed. There is some possible construction in the south end of the county.

 

Port Ludlow Associates’ Report – Diana Smeland reported that all 3 Olympic Terrace II models are open now, that Kevin Earl left the Resort effective Dec 31st, 2007, that a Resort General Manager, Paul Wolman, will be starting January 14; and a golf director has yet to be chosen.

 

Fire District #3 – no report

 

Treasurer’s Report: no report. See Appendix 2

 

Committee Reports

Communications Committee – Jack McKay – no report

Community Development – Tom McCay reported. See Appendix 3.

Natural Resources/Trails – no report

Disaster Preparedness – Tom Stone reported.  See Appendix 4.

 

Correspondence:

None

 

Comments from the Floor

$2000 dollars were set aside for the Christmas lights; flaggers will be needed next year, but not new equipment so this will be a much less costly budget item in future years. The Fire Dept was thanked for its help.

 

Greg McCarry announced he is moving from Port Ludlow, and hence resigning his position on the PLVC.  Lynn Gauché will assume the chair and a member from North Bay needs to be appointed to the council. Greg stated that he will meet with Lynn and Larry Nobles before departing.

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

 

Workshop Meeting – Tuesday, January 15, 3:00 PM, Bay Club

General Meeting – Thursday, February 7, 3:00 PM, Beach Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 

OWSI WATER PLAN

 

QUESTIONS FOR FRANK MERRIWETHER

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

 

 

  1. Can you explain generally how Washington State regulates water systems and planning?
  2. What role does Jefferson County play in the process?
  3. In the event OWSI were to fail what role does the State have in ensuring that the water system continues operations?
  4. At some future date, if it is determined that OWSI is drawing more water than allowed by allocated water rights in order to meet the needs of community water demand what happens?
  5. Why can’t the State of Washington respond to an application for water rights that was applied for in 1994?
  6. There are claims about the adequacy of water and financial status of OWSI’s owner.  Please explain the validity of the claims that Port Ludlow Associates has not properly completed the applications process for water rights.
  7. Another claim is that the Port Ludlow community and Port Ludlow Associates have not adequately addressed the potential water situation problems in our community, what is your view of this claim?
  8. Some in the Port Ludlow community demand that OWSI build an account for financial reserves.  What impact would meeting this request have on the water rate structure?
  9. Is there any reason for residents to be concerned about the community having adequate water for home use in the foreseeable future?  If yes, then what are the concerns and what should be done about those concerns that has not already been done?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2   Treasurer’s Report

FINANCIAL REPORT AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2007

DEPOSITS FOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER:

PHONE DIRECTORY-$515.00

PLVC DONATIONS-$100.00

TRAILS DONATION-$300.00

CLOSED KITSAP BANK ACCOUNT-$10,743.43

TOTAL:  $11,658.43

DEBITS FOR NOVEMBER/DECEMBER:

$1144.84

FUND BALANCES AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2007

PLVC OPERATING ACCOUNT BALANCE:  $8,274.49

PLVC TRAILS ACCOUNT BALANCE:  $7604.70

PLVC CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT:  $20,521.47

TOTAL COMBINED FUND BALANCES:  $36,400.66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3

Report of Community Development Committee- January 3, 2008

 

There have been no meetings of the CDC since our last meeting in December. However, pertinent to the build-out of Ludlow Bay Village, the County Appellant Hearing Examiner (AHE) held a hearing on December 6, 2007, at the Beach Club for the purpose of reviewing the arguments of the appellants (Les Powers, Greg Jordhausen and the LMC) and Port Ludlow Associates (defendant) in the appeal of the findings of the Hearing Examiner, Irving Berteig.  Following a brief walk around the tract for the benefit of the AHE, the hearing was opened at 10:34 AM and with a break for lunch, ended at 5:03.  Written conclusions were to be prepared by all principals and submitted to the AHE, who is slated to report his decision by January 4, 2008. Four members of our committee attended this hearing and I thank them for their participation.

At the November meeting of the PLVC, it was voted to approve expenditure, up to $2000, to provide lighting and holiday decorations for the median divider on Paradise Bay Road in the Village Center.  The services of Jimmy White, a local resident and contractor, were enlisted to install the displays, which included 3 lighted rattan deer. Unfortunately, parties unknown decided that their needs exceeded those of the local citizenry and visitors and stole the deer. The theft has been reported to our County Sheriff’s Department, but no progress has been made in apprehending the culprits or in recovering Rudolph and his companions.  Mr. White and hi helpers are to be commended for an excellent job. The lighting will be stored in our storage locker to be used in future years.

 

 

Tom McCay, Chair

Community Development Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4

Disaster/ Emergency Preparedness

·        Next quarterly Disaster preparedness radio drill will be at 9 AM, Tuesday 8 January.

·        Our focus is on two parts. First is retraining or refreshing our neighborhood Captains/ Co-Captains. We have scheduled four monthly training days (at the Fire Station). First one is Wednesday 23 Jan. We are trying to gather 8 neighborhood Captains/ Co-Captains from both North and South Bay for each training day.

·        Second part of our focus is alerting residents about their responsibilities in disaster preparedness.

o       People with special needs who are not ambulatory in a power outage need to let their neighborhood Captains/Co-Captains know who they are.

All other residents should create (or stock) a disaster Preparedness home kit with water, food, medications. Read the VOICE for more details