City Council - Regular Meeting

Regular meeting on Monday morning.

Recording in progress.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Get overzealous here. It is Monday, July 27th. This is our Monday morning, 10 o'clock regular meeting. I'm going to start. I would like to move this podium here just because nobody can see up here.

Let's move it over here. Except we'll need it for public. Yeah, we'll need it. You can just put it to the middle. Just put it in the middle.

Yeah. But maybe put it behind where Heidi's going to be sitting. Is it going to mess up PCAT? There you go. I think we jumbled this a lot, so thank you very much. Yeah. Will they be able to, will ECHO be able to? Okay, I'm gonna officially call to order and let's go ahead and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Well, welcome Clara, our new clerk of the board. So this is your first meeting, correct?

Yes.

Well, welcome. And we are lucky to have you.

Thank you so much. All right. For members of the public wishing to comment remotely at the board of commissioners regular Monday business meeting during designated public comment times, the following options are available. For internet users, please click on the raised hand feature to signal that you would like to comment. The sound will be unmuted and the internet participant is encouraged but not required to identify themselves. The participant will be called upon to speak at the appropriate time. Closed captions have been enabled. Members of the public can view the link to instructions in the chat. Please note that we will not be able to assist you should you experience technical difficulties. For call-in users, please dial star nine on your keypad to signal that you would like to comment. The last four digits of the call-in number will be announced, and call-in participants are encouraged but not required to identify themselves. Item 2A, resolution appointing Laura Ratgard to the Park Advisory Board to complete a vacant three-year term ending December 31st, 2026.

Okay. All right. Do we have a motion?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution appointing Laura Rodegaard to the Parks Advisory Board to complete a vacant three-year term ending in December. December 31, 2026, and hopefully she'll re-up for a full term. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yes. The Parks Advisory Board, the purpose is to provide timely advice to the Parks Director and County Commissioners regarding the acquisition, development, and administration of park properties. The advisory board may also be asked to address specific issues related to property acquisition and park improvements. I'm really excited that Laura applied for this position and is willing to do it. She and her husband chose to retire to Indianola in 2017. She has had a 35-year career with the National Park Service and seven years in private practice as a landscape architect. She is hoping her experience is useful to county parks, recreation and open space and to help create a sustainable future that preserves and improves our resources along with serving public need. And I know from talking with Laura that she has particular expertise in the aesthetic design of parks. So where you place signs, how you do trails, et cetera. So I think that that background is gonna be really useful and helpful to the group.

Oh, that's yeah, great.

OK. All right. Any more discussion?

I know that Laura is online. Oh, great. I also see Linda, who is another North Kitsap Parks advised long time, long serving Park Advisory Board member. So you're going to have a new friend, Linda.

OK. All right. Okay. I'm thinking about if I remember Laura. I don't remember Laura, so I was trying to see if I can make a comment, but it sounds like a great addition. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Welcome aboard, Laura. And please.

Item three, county administrators. I think Laura is online.

Hold on one second. Let's...

She is online, but it doesn't look like her hand is up. Laura, are you wanting to speak at this time? Okay, her hand is up now.

Okay. All right, go ahead, Laura. Can you hear me? We can hear you loud and clear.

Ah, thank you. I appreciate the approval. I look forward to working with this group of folk, and thanks. I'm excited to get going.

Well, great. And your experience is noted. And boy, we're glad to have you. All right.

All right. Next item three, county commissioner comments.

It's going to be county administrator comments. Go ahead.

Oh, yeah. County administrator. None today. Thank you, members of the board.

Okay. Thank you. Tori.

All right. Item four. This is the opportunity for the public to address the board on the regular business agenda, including the consent agenda and non-consent agenda. Please limit individual comments to two minutes. Written comments may also be submitted to the board. If the timeframe is insufficient comments on items slated for the public hearing will be deferred until the hearing.

Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a, it looks like one, two, SEVEN PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA ON THE COMMENTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES AS STATED. ARE WE OUT OF, GO AHEAD. TORI.

I JUST NOTE, THIS IS FOR ALL COMMENTS ON THE BUSINESS AGENDA, INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA AND ITEMS PULLED OFF OF CONSENT. SO I WANTED TO I'll clarify that. Okay.

Pulled off consent as well. Yes. Yeah.

So this is the time for people to speak on both. What would happen, I believe, after that is you would complete your public comments on this, which is all agenda items, consent and otherwise. Then you would take on the consent agenda, and then in sequence you would take on each item pulled off consent. So I just wanted to members of the public who are looking for where to speak on an item pulled off consent, this is that place.

Great. Great.

Thank you for allowing me to explain that further.

Thank you. It's unusual today. Yeah, it's a little different, so I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we're just going to go down the line, and Ms. Diane Iverson, you're first. And, ma'am, you can sit down right there. The table is also available. Yeah, you're good.

Yeah.

Yeah. There, that's a little bit better. Are there any buttons? Yep, just push.

Go ahead. All lights are on. Thank you, Chair Root and commissioners, for the opportunity to speak about Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park. I'm Diane Iverson from Bremerton. I'm concerned about the timeline for constructing the Soundville Olympics Trail through the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park. Planning is important, but too much planning can delay projects that the community clearly wants and needs. This park has already benefited from strong analysis to guide decisions. At this point, we need a clear timeline for completing and approving the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park framework plan, and we need to stick to the new timeline. Above in the email that I sent you, you will see the county's timeline for the plan's approval. Currently, we are four years over its own schedule. The above timeline also pre-approved two projects, the Ride Park and the Sound to Olympics Trail. Many of us in the community are excited about the Soundtoe Olympics Trail. I'm one of them. But unlike many people, I personally cannot currently use the existing trails through the park if I am on my own. The unpredictable condition of the dirt surface of the existing trails makes it not a viable option for me. I'm handicapped, and the current trails are not accessible to me or anyone using a wheelchair. So adding additional criteria linked to approval of the framework continues to delay the building of the Sound Olympics Trail, which is how I will be able to use and enjoy this fantastic county park. Let me tell you a personal story. In 2015, I had an amputation of my right leg. My recovery was several months. It was spring and summertime. Where did I go daily to learn to walk with my new leg? A county park parking lot that was closed. It was safe, quiet, and a hard surface to learn to walk. But I think we can do better. Timelines matter. Additional criteria tied to the framework will continue to slow the construction of the Sound to Olympics Trail. Okay, Diane. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Diane.

What's that?

Well, it's a little awkward right there.

Okay.

Do we want it closer to the table? OK. Thanks, BCAT. Want some help?

There we go.

Is that better?

Yeah, that's better. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. All right.

And people can sit, too.

Yeah, they can sit, too. As long as we have a thumbs up from BCAT, it works. Thank you. Thank you, Diane, for your comments. Okay. Ms. Beverly Parsons, you're next.

Do I need to turn that one off? Good morning, I'm Beverly Parsons from Handsville in North Kitsap. I'm commenting on item B under Parks on the agenda, the contract with Fisher Bauman to update and finalize the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park Framework Master Plan. I request a change in the contract and or in instructions to the Parks Department on implementation of the contract to address two points. Number one, the BALMA contract identifies sections of the existing 2022 framework that are not to be impacted or changed. They include the substantial future funding allocated to building facilities in the north end of the park, rather than restoration of the forest that is being clear cut and harvested. By excluding such sections of the framework from possible change in public input, the contract shuts out conversations about possibly better ways to generate economic development and deal with our current and projected climate conditions and community well-being. Excuse me. The restricted areas for update leave the framework stuck in a way of thinking about economic development that was proposed four years ago. Updated thinking needs to be considered that addresses approaches to economic development that center forest restoration and community well-being. Number two, the proposed scope of public engagement is too narrow and does not ensure that public input will be used in the update of the framework. The scope needs to be changed to be more inclusive and ensure actual use of public input. Thank you for your consideration of these changes and implementation.

Thank you. Okay. All right, next is Heidi Campo.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Heidi Campo, and I'm a Kingston resident and have been enjoying the Port Gamble Forest with my family for over 22 years. I have spent many volunteer hours on trails. I have helped formulate the ride park design and trail standards and have been a part of many organized bicycle races and have organized bicycle races there. I've been a board member of the North Kitsap Trails Association for three years, and I was recently voted in as president. Like so many people, I have a very special adoration of the Port Gamble Forest. and appreciate the hard work and respect of so many people that created the framework plan, which was completed four years ago. I understand that the county is currently undergoing a wildlife study that will need to be incorporated into the master plan, and now it's determined that you want to include park capacity analysis and user conflicts. I'd like to testify that in my 22 years of using the Port Gamble trails, I have never witnessed a user conflict. Everyone I have met on horse, on foot, on bicycle have been courteous and shared the pathway. The only issues I have seen are from children who quite haven't learned the trail etiquette yet. I'm suspicious that conflict... Complaints to you have been greatly exaggerated to benefit the people that want to limit other people's use of the park. The Sound to Olympics Trail through Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park is a highly anticipated benefit to the community for families with strollers, kids on balance bikes, to disabled users in wheelchairs, to anyone looking to get outside, enjoy nature, and get some exercise. This is what I hope the parks want to encourage. And if you can do that in a timely fashion, that would be great. Thank you so much.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Next is... Doug? Oh, yeah. Marquess. How are you? Maray. Maray. Doug, is that how you say that?

It's one of those French words. Mare. Mare. Mare, okay. Hi, I'm Doug Mare. Thank you, commissioners, for allowing me a few moments of your time. I moved to Kitsap in 1986, raised three kids in North Kitsap School District, and repeatedly... I had to go to Clallam County to find a safe place for my kids to take off training wheels and ride bicycles. In the new era of climate change, that is really unacceptable anymore. We need to move forward with this framework. I sat through almost every single public event putting together the framework. I'm an architect, planner of 45 years, and I have never been through such a thorough and comprehensive planning process that created your framework that was completed four years ago. We need to encourage you to adopt the framework so we can move forward. And it's still raising three kids, having to leave the county to find a safe place for them to learn how to bicycle. Now I have grandkids. And guess what? We still have to leave the county. to take them on extended bike rides. Please, let's move forward with the framework. Get the wildlife study in. It's important. And adopt it, and just quit adding new criteria. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. OK, next, Linda Berry. I have a hyphen as MRA. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk to the board again. I'm also here about the new criteria added to the Port Gamble framework update. I've been a volunteer with the county for 26 years. I think public parks are for everyone, all ages, all abilities, and diverse users, not just for me. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL PLANNING FOR THE PORT GAMBLE SHORELINE BLOCK IN 2012, THEN MORE PLANNING FOR THE EXPANDED FULL PARK IN 2014. I WAS PART OF THE PARK STEWARDS FROM 2015 TO 2016 WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THE PARKS PLANNER AND PARTICIPATED IN THE VERY PUBLIC THOROUGH PROCESS FOR THE FRAMEWORK THAT WENT FROM 2020 TO 2022. that the county had agreed when KEC filed an appeal of moving forward with the North Gateway that the county agreed to a wildlife study. That was a year and a half ago, and we've been waiting for that wildlife study. But last week, after a year and a half of waiting for that, we learned that two new criteria were proposed to be studied, user conflicts and park capacity. KEC has been vocally objecting to bikes and other users in the parks for quite some time. I've been involved in this park for a decade before it was a park, and though I'm a walker, not a mountain biker, I haven't seen those user conflicts. Last week we heard KEC leaders supplied language for the new Kriperia. One of them suggested metered parking and access to trailheads. And they also had proposed this capacity study. We were also told that carrying capacity isn't about limiting access to public spaces, but that could be the result. That's a big deal. I believe Port Gamble is the largest project in the state and expected has less users per acre than many other parks in our county. If we start limiting capacity in this park, are we going to limit capacity in all parks? Where are we going with this? Please, we've had enough planning. Let's update the framework with a wildlife study and move forward to adopt it. The county just opened two parking lots. Thank you, Diane.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Two minutes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Next on the list is Mr. Joe Lubashar.

Okay, good morning, Commissioners. Joe Libescher from Indianola. When Port Gamble Framework came out in December 2022, a basic assessment said that there were eight wetlands in the park. Commissioner Walters, your term started about that time. Two days after January 1st, I emailed Parks with two studies showing over... 20 wetlands and the important point here is that these were County studies and both were listed in the framework and So I followed up on that. Five months ago, DCD refused to add those studies to their database. And just a month ago, the parks director said the eight wetlands would not be revisited. We now know that there are over 30 wetlands in the park. And that's without an organized field search or review of forest practice. applications. I have just one FPA and that had six wetlands on it. So what's going on here? Why won't the framework use these county studies? Why in the world is the county and parks refusing to use its own data? This just makes no sense at all. The county has a legal duty to protect critical area ecosystems. Wetlands and streams have buffers, and buffers are really important. But the framework, page 62, completely writes those off. It can't ignore buffers any more than it ignores wetlands. The county has to meet the legal requirements of the GMA, of SEPA, and the CAO, and the plan has to be consistent with the comp plan. and the PROS plan, but by ignoring data, Parks and DCD are taking a very short-sighted, head-in-the-sand approach. So I suggest that these contracts be held back until you've gotten some answers to the many issues that have been raised.

Thank you. Okay, next, Carol Price.

Good morning, Commissioners and citizens. I'm here to comment on the contracts, as everybody else has done. My name is Carol Price. I've lived in Kitsap County for over 31 years, and I've lived in Washington State virtually my whole life. With more than 3,400 acres PGFHP, presents the people of Kitsap County with an opportunity to protect and restore habitat critical to the diverse and thriving ecosystems that makes Kitsap County the natural site of Puget Sound. The many species that make up our region's interdependent systems, from the smallest amphibians to eagles and orca, from the microbial life in soil to evergreen forests, need connected habitat. Almost daily, that habitat is diminished by development. Our county's parks are nature's last stand on property owned by and for the people of Kitsap County. This park is an opportunity that we must not miss. to stem and reverse habitat loss and ensure that future generations of residents, visitors, and children can appreciate and experience nature. We envision a future for this park shaped by our community coming together around a common goal of putting nature at the center of our decisions and a vision for a greener Kitsap County. Thank you.

Thank you, Carol. Okay, that ties up our list. Was there anybody else that would like to make a comment? Is there anybody online? Okay.

Yep, we have a few online.

Okay.

Okay. First up, we have David Shoret.

Can you say the last name again, please?

Dave Shoret.

Shoret. Okay, thank you. Mr. Shoret, go ahead.

Hello.

Hello. We hear you loud and clear. Go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Dave Sharetta from Bainbridge Island. Just want to comment on a couple of things. One is first is the covenants and the grant language for the land transfer to Kitsap County. Virtually every one of those that I've been able to read has three values that are goals that need to be pursued. Conservation and restoration, recreation, and economic development. I think it's pretty clear that the county has... for one reason or another, and probably a good one, concentrated on recreation for, in my view, unfortunately, a small number of users, or small population portion of users, and has developed a reputation now as a bike park. Well, a world-class bike park is good. The entire park, I don't think anyone who ever contributed as I did, conceived that the bike use would be as extensive as it is. Walking is a different experience from riding a bike, and it needs to be understood that that's so. And I'm pretty connected to the walking community here on Bainbridge, and I can tell you that people are deterred from going to this park, a park that I used to go to long before, long ago. The other thing, though, I'd say is I'm very much in favor of The so-called user conflict study that's about to occur, I think that's the wrong term. I think it's more a matter of a win-win situation where you develop a great mountain bike park and you also have extensive miles of trails there for walking. Right now you have eight miles of bike trails and 2.7 of walking. It's a disparity I don't think I've ever seen before. In parks and I was on the park board for 15 years in Bainbridge. So I think it's good that you're going to address that and ultimately Create a world-class walking Environment as well as a biking environment and that will definitely help the value of economic development and that allow you to return to restoration and conservation What you need to do right great.

Thank you, mr. Short Thank you for your comments Okay. Who's next?

The next virtual speaker is Marla Powers.

Okay.

All right, Marla, you're good to speak.

Hi. Just checking. Can you hear me?

Loud and clear, Marla. Go ahead.

Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm Marla Powers. I work as an environmental planner for the Port Gamble Sklalom Tribe. I'm commenting on the item B under Parks on the Agenda, contract with Fisher-Balma to update and finalize the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park Framework. I wanted to let the County Commissioners know of the importance of the Fort Gamble Forest Heritage Park to the Tribe. The Tribal Council invited Eric Baker and Commissioner Gelder to speak to the changes and updates to the framework back in 2022. There were concerns about the intensity of the proposed uses, such as camping, and the development that is planned for the park. We did not have a second conversation with the County to close the loop on the Tribe's concerns and how those were addressed. I would like to request at least two meetings with the Port Gamble Scallown tribe to introduce the proposal and one to close a loop that shows how concerns were addressed. I would also like to request that the tribe be able to provide meaningful input between these two meetings that incorporate tribal cultural values and culturally meaningful vegetation and plantings that can help to serve future generations for harvesting and cultural preservation. The tribe has an invested interest in this land and its future and have been open to partnerships to assist with reforestation, restoration, environmental education, and other partnerships, similar to how the tribes partnered to help with the cleanup of the Port Gamble now. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Marla. Okay, next.

Robin Salthouse, you're good to speak.

Thank you commissioners for this opportunity. My name is Robin Salthaus. I'm speaking as an individual who lives in Kingston. I ask that the following 4 changes regarding community input are made to the contract supporting the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park framework. So please consider these before any approval of the Fisher Bauman partnership contract. One, public meetings scheduled are compressed into a tight timeframe. Right now they could be as possibly compressed as three months. Please, I ask that this timeframe be expanded to at least 6 months for public input meetings. 2. Public meetings should reflect project progress and how past community input has been addressed and used for framework updates. AECOM should be contracted to attend all three public meetings to ensure they have addressed and acted on appropriate public input. Four, explicitly define the interest groups that are mentioned. What is their purpose? The included stakeholders and the meeting outcomes mentioned in the project schedule fall. This contract and project should not be seen as a box to check for public PR, but the chance to have dialogue with stakeholders to create a heritage park that preserves and protects habitat provides equitable access to all recreational users. and contributes to the rural land analysis habitat corridors and sensibly uses limited park funds. Unlike previous speakers, as a walker, I have talked to walkers inside and outside the park area who do not use this park at this time because of user conflicts with bicycles. Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to seeing these updates instituted.

Thank you, Robin, for your comments. Okay.

We have Doug Heyman next. It's ready for you to speak.

Good morning, commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity. I had previously written to you all a few months ago about the lack of map layers within the county GIS maps showing fish bearing streams and the buffers that are supposed to be protected. And I wanted to reiterate, re-emphasize what Joe Libercher said. There needs to be accurate mapping of the wetlands in this heritage park so that we can preserve and protect those. And I would request that we update our maps both to protect wetlands and fish bearing streams and other seasonal streams so that we show those protective buffers that are supposed to be, you know, shown on maps and clearly delineated as part of the critical areas ordinance. And I'd also like to back up what Dave Charette said. I think the percentage of trails that are for bicycles versus walkers seems pretty skewed. I too am someone who primarily walks. in parks and there are areas whether it's north kitsap heritage park or in that park that it's a better experience to know you're in a spot where you know you're in a dedicated walking area there's plenty of area in there for bike riders to do a variety of riding so i'd back that point of view as well but I please request that we update our maps. I provided a reference to some information that King County shows on their open GIS portal, which has a lot more extensive information about streams and wetlands than we currently have. And it'd be great to come up to speed and modern day for those. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Doug. Okay, next.

And finally, we have KEC Zoom host that's ready for you to speak.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear. Thank you. Oh, good. Well, sorry about that. My name is Martha Burke, and I reside in Suquamish. So, I'm commenting on the item B on the contract with Fisher Bauer. And my comment deals with cost and benefits. The original framework estimated that the cost to complete the work outlined in that document would be about 37,416,000, of which only 219,000 was for, quote, resource management. or less than 0.6% of the total. The vast majority of that total cost was to go to construct buildings and other infrastructure located in the north end of the park adjacent to the private Port Gamble Town. This cost is in addition to the amount that has already been spent to support mountain biking in the park and adjacent to it again in Port Gamble Town. This amount includes the construction of a paved trail from Carver Drive through Port Gamble Town to the north parking lot. This imbalance of expenditure is despite the fact that the land in the park was acquired with deed restrictions that require the land be devoted to long-term conservation uses and that that requirement be met through an annual monitoring report, which has not been done. Even the original consultants who were who are to conduct this update established that the public saw conservation as the highest use of this park, despite their final funding recommendations. So what is needed is not a minor update, but a more complete assessment and reassessment of the funding priorities that reflect the conservation mandate that created this park. The county, as well as the state, is saying that funds are limited. All the more reason that the amount of taxpayer funds should not be directed to the benefit of certain interests. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry, what was her first name again? Martha.

Martha Burke.

Okay, thank you. Okay. Anybody else?

I'm not seeing any other virtual attendees. If you would like to speak right now, please put your hand up. Okay. I do not see any other hands at this moment.

Okay. All right. Let's continue.

Okay. Next on the agenda is, Oh yeah. Is, um, consent items and other business.

Okay, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

Okay, we have a motion, a second. Any discussion? Okay, I think we've had a, do you have something? No. Oh, okay, sorry. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, consent agenda is approved. Okay, moving on.

Next on the agenda is 10 C resolution setting the salaries for Kitsap County commissioner district one, two, and three, the assessor auditor, clerk, treasurer, sheriff, and prosecutor.

Okay.

Do we have any, is there, there's no presentation for this one.

Um, all right.

I think that we just pulled it to be able to say what it was. Commissioner Walters, I'm sorry, you had your red light on.

No, no, that's the same. I think we pulled it. It's one of our tools that we're using to balance next year's budget, and we just wanted to make sure that people were aware. And thank our colleagues for also taking a reduction in pay.

Yeah, so it's essentially a freeze on salaries for the elected officials of the county. with the exception of judges, because the judges' salaries are set by the state.

OK. It is a step to make sure that we're all making sure we're doing everything we possibly can to turn every rock over and see where we can save money for taxpayers. So do we have a motion?

I move to approve the resolution setting the salaries for Kitsap County commissioners, the assessor, auditor, clerk, treasurer, sheriff, and county prosecutor. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion?

Actually, I will say Commissioner Walters and I were part of a decision a couple of years ago where we decided rather than the commissioner set the salaries for all of the elected officials and essentially for the whole county, really. with the exception of the judges. And we passed a resolution back then to tie salary decisions to whatever the state salary commission was doing for statewide elected officials. And this year, the salary commission for statewide supported somewhat of a COLA. I'm going to say 2%. And as a group, we said let's hold off on the salary increase this year for the countywide elected officials. And so this resolution is amending a resolution that we passed a couple of years ago, but it is for this year, and we'll be back next year to talk about salaries again.

I want to acknowledge all the elected officials spoke out and they expressed their feelings on this. And it's always hard when we have, anytime we freeze a salary or we look at trying to save taxpayer funding because of the fiscal issue that we're in, it's difficult. And I want to acknowledge them and their expression on this. And it's hard for everybody, but it's the right thing to do this year. All right. Anything else? Okay. All right. Let's put it to a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Motion carried. 10A resolution carries. Thank you.

Next up is 11A, revenue contract between Kitsap County as the administrative entity for the Salish Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization and WealthPoint Washington, Inc. to provide funding for behavioral health crisis services for approximately 270 WLP Medicaid members.

Great. Thank you. Hi, Jolene. If you could just push your button. Oh, one more time. The other one. There we go. Red light's on. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning, Joleen Crone. I'm the Executive Director of the Salish Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization, here to present on our contract.

Joleen, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you pull that just a little closer to you? Yeah, we want to make sure. Is that better? Perfect.

Okay. So I am here to discuss our contract with WellPoint, but want to also just make sure folks are always aware when we present here that the Salish Behavioral Health Organization was formed under an interlocal agreement with Kuala Lumpur, Jefferson, and Kitsap Counties, and the Jamestown Skalama Tribe, to provide the oversight of community behavioral health services for the three-county region. But Kitsap County is our administrative entity, hence us being here for this presentation. And I'm here to talk about contract KC34826, which provides funding for crisis services to approximately 270 WellPoint enrolled Medicaid individuals from those three counties, Colalum, Jefferson, and Kitsap. The services include the Salish Regional Crisis Line services, mobile crisis outreach services, and a newly delegated service, which is facility-based crisis stabilization services. That covers the cost of portion of 22 beds in the Crisis Triage Center here in Kitsap and the Column County Respite Center in Column. It is an addition at the state level statewide due to House Bill 1813 for expansion of services. I just wanted to make sure we were clear. The new contract term is July 1 of 2026 through June 30th of 2027. And that funding estimate is $1,045,109. And that is based on a per member per month payment structure. So it is an estimated amount. If more individuals enroll with WellPoint, that goes up or down each month depending on how many folks in our three counties are being served by WellPoint.

Great. Thank you. Jolene, just to clarify that we're used more as a pass-through. We use for our Kitsap County residents, but we also pass through to Clallam County as well, correct?

Yes, so our organization serves all three counties, and Kitsap County provides administration as our administrative entity, but we provide oversight to those service provision in all three counties. So for the crisis system in particular, when we were talking about these Medicaid contracts with five managed care, WellPoint is one of five managed care organizations, it provides for the provision of a capacity-based crisis system, including the SALISH REGIONAL CRISIS LINE MOBILE CRISIS OUTREACH PROVIDED BY FOUR TEAMS ACROSS THOSE THREE COUNTIES AND THOSE TWO FACILITIES NOW.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

Here I have one question. Yeah. Hi, Jolene. Can you please expand a little bit on the 22 beds? Are those new beds or are those just a new way of paying for the existing beds?

So those are existing beds, but the change is the utilization management and oversight of bringing those beds under the ASO within the local regional payment structure rather than that utilization management being done directly by the MCO. So they were required by House Bill 1813 to delegate that service statewide to each ASO and so each ASO is responsible to support a fund and provide utilization management to the beds that in the region. We do not have any new beds. Those have been existing beds. There are areas of the state that are standing up new beds. So this has been a very large process statewide over the last several months.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Walsh. Commissioner Walsh. Okay. OK, well usually anything over the amount of $1,000,000. We have a live presentation so everybody understands how this money is being presented to us or awarded to us, and then we distribute that out to the Tri County area. And I think it's very important that you know it's Commissioner Walters question that these are not any new services. It's just maintaining going forward the crisis and the administrative services that we offer. So thank you very much. Appreciate presentation today.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Any other discussion? Do I have a motion?

I'm happy to make that motion. I move to approve the revenue contract between Kitsap County as the administrative entity for the Salish Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization and Whale Point Washington Inc. KC-348-26 to provide funding for behavioral health crisis services in Kitsap. Callum and Jefferson counties. Second.

Okay. We have a motion to second any further discussion. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I was opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Jolene.

All right. Next up is 11 T revenue contract with Washington, Washington state department of social and health services, developmental disability administration to provide funding for services to approximately 730 Kitsap County residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Thank you. Hi, Heidi. Welcome. On the right one. Right side. There you go. There you go.

It looked so easy when I was back in the room. Farther back in the room. So good morning. My name is Heidi Scheibner, and I'm the supervisor for our developmental disability program. And I'm here this morning to talk with you about four contracts. The first being our revenue contract, KC312-26. It's between Kitsap County and the Developmental Disability Administration for $5,255,750. This is an existing contract that we've held. And so I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row. It will serve about 730 clients across Kitsap County. The services will be supported employment, community inclusion, child development services, and also school to work. This is a contract that allows our local agencies to provide the direct service. So it's a revenue contract.

OK. We had the brief on the school to work, which was great to see. So thank you for that. OK. Any other questions?

Looking to see what the specific contract is.

I did forget to mention the contract period is July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027.

All right, I'll move to approve the revenue contract with Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, DDA, to provide funding for services to approximately 730 Kitsap County residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Second?

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

Thank you for coming today. We had, what, 29, 30 contracts related to behavioral health and DDA just as part of the way we do business, and it helps to sort through this by having it laid out this way. So thanks for joining us, Heidi.

And thank you to our many community partners who provide the services to our community as well.

All right. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? No? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Another year to go.

Next on the agenda is item 12A, contract amendment with Forterra for acquisition of timber rights at Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park in Commissioner District 1.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Alex, Parks Director. Good morning. All right. And I understand we have a presentation.

Yes. Okay. Just a moment to set up, please. No problem. No problem. All right. Good morning, commissioners. I have three contracts to present to you today. The first one is with Forterra Northwest. This is really an exciting opportunity for Kitsap County to acquire more trees, timber rights, in Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park than we were able to acquire when we initially purchased the land. So when the land was acquired, and this happened over a three-year period from 2014 to 2017, granted that is on the backs of over a decade's worth of work from the Kitsap community to raise awareness, hold public meetings, and do fundraising to turn this land into a park. The land and the trees were too expensive to purchase 100% of both outright. So only the land was purchased at the time and not the trees. This left the ownership of the trees with Pope Resources, now Rainier, to harvest or clear cut one more time until the year 2042. But they have allowed Kitsap County to buy the timber rights back to save these trees before they are cut. In 2022, Kitsap County contracted with Forterra to negotiate the purchase of 750 acres of trees. This was funded with Conservation Futures and local fundraising. Earlier this year, our forest fund, a local nonprofit, raised over a million dollars to buy trees at Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park from Rainier before they are clear-cut for commercial timber harvest. This is an effort to continue this work to buy trees back before they are harvested in the park. So the contract amendment before you is to re-contract with Forterra Northwest to facilitate additional fundraising and negotiate the acquisition by the use of this million dollars plus new fundraising opportunities to acquire more trees in the park. The cost of this contract is really based on the amount that we will be able to acquire. The way that the current contract is set up For Terra Northwest, we'll receive 7% of the purchase price of the trees, and that 7% is intended to be funded by Conservation Futures so that all of the fundraising efforts can go towards the trees themselves.

Any questions?

Any questions first, right? No questions? Okay. And do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion. I move that we approve the contract amendment with Fortera Northwest for acquisition of timber rights at Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park. The fiscal impact is 7% of the purchase price that will be coming out of the conservation futures tax fund. Okay. Second.

Okay. We have a motion second. Any further discussion?

I do have Alex. I want to thank you for bringing this forward. The, um, part of the funding that the, our forest fund received was through a legislative appropriation. So we have our legislators to think for about $750,000. Um, and then the group has raised another quarter of a million, um, over the last couple of years, the funding comes from the climate commitment act. So it's for the purchase of trees. And so, um, Alex's shop has done a analysis of what, what forest is left, what trees are left in the park that aren't under contract and that are available for purchase. They did a professional analysis of kind of where is our money best spent. Our forest fund also took a look at that, and there's really no right or wrong answer, right? You spend more on old trees, less on new on young trees. If you buy the young trees, you kind of end the logging earlier, probably because they're not going to be cleared in 20 years, et cetera. There's a lot of moving pieces, but there's no wrong answer. And I think we're estimating the average is $5,000 per acre of tree, roughly something in that ballpark. So they're still fundraising. And in the meantime, we're supporting that work that the private groups are doing with guaranteeing the administrative burden will be covered.

No, it's just a great private-public partnership to save our trees. Yeah, it's awesome. It's excellent.

I have to agree. $250,000 on private contributions, that's nothing to shake a stick at. So it's something that people are passionate about, obviously. All right. Um, so we have a motion and a second ready to vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right.

All right. Next on the agenda, um, Alex will do a combined presentation on both items 12 B and 12 C item 12 B contract with Fisher Boma to update and finalize the port gamble forest heritage park framework. Master Plan in Commissioner District 1 and Item 12C, Contract Amendment A with AECOM adding additional scope for support of Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park framework updates.

Thank you. Commissioners, apologies for combining the two contracts together. I know that's a little challenging. But both contracts really work towards the same project. So my little presentation here is about the project and then both contracts lead into that. So this is for contract KC36626 with Fisher-Balma Partnership and an amendment to an existing contract with AECOM which is KC34425. From 2020 to 2022, if you've heard from some of the comments this morning, Kitsap County Parks contracted with the Fisher-Bauma Partnership to develop a park master plan called the Framework, which would guide the future of Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park. The master plans are high-level planning documents that help determine future park development aspirations and are used to guide management decisions and practices. They are built on environmental analysis, evaluation of existing conditions, and use public input to determine how a park is currently used as well as how it is desired to be used in the future. As it currently stands, the Port Gamble framework proposes recommendations to the trail network improvements to park access, future park development for event and education spaces, and management protocols for a spectrum of conservation practices. Kitsap County Parks now is interested in finalizing the framework, the plan, and move it forward to approval and adoption. Fisher-Bauma partnership is as the lead, the former lead organization is desired to bring back because of their historic understanding and knowledge with the initial work that was done on the park framework. The update is not a full reopening of the framework in its entirety. We are proposing a limited scope to focus on the integration of the wildlife habitat utilization study that's currently underway. And nearing conclusion so good opportunity for the start of this Looking at user conflicts on trails the user conflicts on trails was generated as a scope item based on comments our department as well as commissioners office has received over the years and especially comments that we received during pros plan process as well as incorporating a park capacity component The park capacity, just to explain it a little bit, is really a methodology that is used to balance management of parks or open space areas where there is active use along with conservation desires. And this is not intended to be exclusionary, but is intended to look at The balance of these two activities to make sure that we are doing our best to manage the property for both, for conservation as well as open access for the Kitsap community. Both contracts, the Fisher-Bauma partnership contract comes in at $182,995. We're targeting the use of park impact fees to fund this contract. And the contract amendment with AECOM is $24,763, also to be funded with park impact fees. This is a representation on the screen of the consultant team. So the way that this works is Fischer-Baum partnership is the overarching lead on the effort, and there are three subcontractors that would help specific items in the proposed scope. Point North is a specialty organization that focuses on public engagement and communications and conflict resolution. We would look to them to manage those components of this process. Red Canoe is a consultant that is focusing on the capacity analysis methodology. And, of course, AECOM is currently doing the wildlife study, and they would come on as a subcontractor to help integrate the results of the wildlife study, as well as do updating to the GIS mapping component of the framework. that GIS mapping will include updated environmental analysis that includes the wetlands and the stream mapping and those items that are that are based on current, more relevant and newer information than what was used in the framework originally. The environmental analysis used in the framework originally was information from the National Wildlife, sorry, database and those aren't always kept up to date. So we are incorporating the new studies and information that we understand today based on other local information. Proposed timeline we don't know have this exactly down because we don't have the contracts approved and therefore have not met to create the specific timeline with the what the public engagement is going to look like but obviously we are proposing to start in mid 2026 here and we are anticipating a conclusion by mid 2027. We know that there are Three within the scope I think three proposed public engagement opportunities With the opportunity for two additional ones should we have the need and the desire? The exact schedule will be determined once we have the contracts approved And lastly, the approval process for the framework. There has been some interesting dialogue amongst the community as well as with internal to Kitsap County on Kitsap County Code Chapter 17.440 about master planning. And the findings from this is that park master plans DO NOT CONFORM TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, THAT IT IS MORE THERE FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL TYPE PLANNING AND PARK MASTER PLANS DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT CHAPTER'S APPROVAL PROCESS. Thus, we are reverting to kind of historic norms for Park Master Plan approval process. This includes a non-project SEPA determination once we're concluded. It will go to the Parks Advisory Board for a recommendation. They make recommendations to the county commissioners. And then ultimately it will end up with the Board of County Commissioners for your review and consideration. That's all I have on those two contracts. Okay. Any questions?

No. Thank you. You ticked off all my boxes of the questions that were brought up in our e-mails and in earlier. So thank you. The one that I did was still outstanding that I had a question on is the involvement of the Port Gamble Sklalom tribe.

Yes. The meetings that were mentioned are new to me, but we are more than happy to involve both tribes, Suquamish and Port Gamble-Skallam, in the framework update, just as we did back in 2020 to 2022 when we did the initial framework.

All right. So it sounds like there will be a year-long process with opportunity for robust community involvement and engagement in this, including the tribes.

Absolutely, that's the intent.

And then it also sounds like you will then be adding in the new maps that we have, the new opportunities for mapping. Correct. We didn't have in the past. All right, great. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I was going to follow up on Marla's testimony, too. And that seems like Carmen and Marla could talk about what they need to do. And I'm happy to represent the board in those meetings if that's needed.

Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate that.

Yeah, I did see in the executive summary for the plan, it did say, like, further questions. cooperation and coordination with Port Gamble-Scalalem Tribe the responsibility was Board of Commissioners through the parks pros plan 2023 and that's when we had a complete turnover of our County Commission and a new DCD director and it does seem like we dropped the ball on finishing that so Happy to take take that on I do have a couple other comments We did get I'm gonna say seven or eight emails some of some of them were People and came and gave the similar testimony as written testimony, but I want to make sure get that to Clara So it's part of the record so I'll send you all the emails that we got um oh you did that already oh thank you chair the um other comment Mr lubasher came and gave us the wetlands concerns that he has and I heard what I heard Alex say was that will be part of that input was incorporated by AECOM and they'll be looking at it as part of their habitat inventory.

That's correct. Mr. Lubescher also shared that with the Parks Department. It's been converted into a GIS layer that is going to be part of the framework updating.

Okay. And I know there's, like, unfortunately it's part of why this framework has been in suspense for some time. There seems to be a lot of suspicion among people about how this update is going to be used, what's going to be happening with it. This park is big enough to have win-win-wins all the way around. There's room for record passive. There's room for bikes. There's room for horses. There's room for wildlife. And the goal is to have it work so that we don't inadvertently make a mistake in 2026 that we regret in 2036. And so, Alex, I really appreciate the kind of thoughtfulness you've put into this over the last year. I know it's been dragging on if you've been watching this. Part of that is the habitat work is being combined with Eglon and Banner as well, right?

That's correct. That was part of the original AECOM contract scope.

Yeah, so it's just a new element for a few of our really important habitat areas in the county. And I personally am a very... I'm glad that we're doing that final step in the parks planning. One final thing I'll say, Alex, is if you could get your consultants to watch the public comment, they would get a good sense of what the concerns are, and then that will help shape the process, I think.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Well said. Thank you. I have to say that being the newest member of the board, is looking back at the old study, the original study, and then to Commissioner Raffles' point of the whole board chain turning over. I am a big advocate of identifying paralysis through analysis, wasting time, bureaucratic process, more than what's required or necessary. But it seems like it's been laid out here that this is the... This is the route that we need to take and really get this going and get all that information so we can make a final decision. With that, with all the comments that were made today, everybody that came down from up north, which is a long drive, and I want to recognize that, and those folks that were online, all those comments are noted. They're not just ignored. We take that on board as a full package. And again, we will have plenty of time as we go through this process and get these results in to have that very important public engagement um from everybody so i want to thank you very much for all your work and everybody's work and the public being involved in that so thank you very much okay we're gonna go ahead and um we'll do this to b and c we'll do b first um do i have a motion

I'll move to approve the contract with Fisher-Bama to update and finalize the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park framework. Second. Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Contract with Fisher-Bama approved. Okay. Moving on to 12C. Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion. I move to approve Contract Amendment A with AECOM, adding additional scope for support of Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park framework updates. Second.

Okay, we motion a second. Any further discussion on C? Okay. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Contract Amendment with AECOM approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioners.

I'd like to say something to the people from the north that drove down to the south for this. I think the people that I see here have been deeply engaged in this for the last decade and we're hoping you can stay engaged for this last year and help us pull together all the different user groups so that we can come up with a final plan that Doesn't leave any cards on the table and also allows us to move forward with something that's affordable, achievable and successful.

Thank you.

OK. All right. And next up is the public hearing on 15 a resolution to adopt a second quarter budget amendment.

Hi, Amber.

Good morning.

Good morning. Amber is our director of administrative services. She will be briefing.

Okay, we got it, success. I am Amber Dunwoody, I'm the Director of Administrative Services and I'm here today to talk to you about the second quarter budget amendment. There's a lot of detail available online and behind this document and the board has received a much more detailed briefing on this in advance of today so I'm just going to sort of go through the highlights. and summarize a little bit. We use these quarterly budget amendments for a number of reasons. When we get new revenue from a grant that we weren't expecting, we have to go in and amend our budget to recognize that revenue and then authorize the spending of those dollars. Sometimes, I don't want to have to admit this publicly, but I must, we make mistakes and we have to correct things. Sometimes things get put in the wrong account or something. happens in an accounting way, and we need to use this process to go in and make a correction. So in the first line there, we group these by the general fund and then all other funds. So the top part is the general fund, and that first item involves a number of things. So we received a donation for some funding for a drone, so that's being changed in the budget to recognize that funding coming in and that expense. We did a deposit in the wrong account in the sheriff's office. That's that account correction, a fairly small amount of money. But the big change there is the reorganization of the county-wide communications staff. You'll see this down below as well. We moved some folks around and changed their funding around. It was a net savings revenue coming into the general fund, so this was a good thing from a financial perspective. It saved the county some money, but it involves a lot of behind-the-scenes moving around of funds from different accounts. For the park's seasonal help... That is reducing salaries and adding some funds for seasonal extra help for them. And then the community development, Silverdale's regional subarea plan, I can talk, I promise, is some carryover from last year's funding to finish out that work this year. And then that $5,000 is a family treatment court grant for juvenile. So those are all the changes in the general fund. Going down to the other funds, there is $53,000 for a limited term noxious weed position, and that was previously approved by the board on a resolution. The next line item is a couple of different things. A small amount for stormwater funding for roads projects. That's the stormwater piece of the road construction project. So we're just moving the money from stormwater to the road construction fund so that they can use the money for the appropriate project. And the big amount, about $7.5 million, is related to our sewer utility bonds that we sold previously. There again. We're just taking the bond proceeds out of the debt service fund and moving it over to the construction fund So they can spend the money With bonds we tend to have a fair amount of kind of after-the-fact Clean up and shifting things around we recognize the money in a debt service fund and then we move that money around to where it needs to be spent for the appropriate project fund and then conversely at the end of the year you'll see a A big cleanup where we're moving money from the repayment source over to backfill that bond proceeds fund. So it's a lot of moving around related to debt. The accounting adjustment in the jail medical contract billing is just an oopsie. We missed a transfer that should have been eliminated on the first quarter budget amendment. And then there's also some money coming out of Public Works Special Revenue Funds. They're paying less for those communications positions when we move them over, so another piece of that. And then the last item are some projects that were carried forward from the previous year. We didn't spend all the money, and we need to appropriate it this year to spend it. The information services projects are Agenda.net, Server Room, Power, some website funding, and some firewall projects, and then some parks maintenance projects, the Island Lake lift station rebuild, and then the parks portion of the CPI compliance consultant, as well as the parks impact fee study. And that's it. That's sort of the higher level overview.

Okay, great. Thank you, Amber. Any questions? I have a couple comments. First and foremost, Amber, I appreciate identifying when we do make a mistake or mistakes, because it happens everywhere, and I appreciate the further comment on what we did to correct that mistake. And we learn from it and grow and try to make it again. So thank you for being transparent about that. Also, the net savings through this whole budget cycle, last budget cycle, this budget cycle, and I'm sure the near future budget cycles, we're looking at every way to consolidate, reorganize, combine departments to really try to save money. And according to the net savings that we did by moving communications, consolidating in another department, has shown that. So I think we're doing that in every department, and we're going to continue to look at ways we can make it more efficient to govern, but also for the taxpayers. So thank you for that.

I appreciate that comment. I mean, we have thousands of accounts and hundreds of millions of dollars moving around and we are just human. And so sometimes things get deposited in the wrong account or, you know, there's a typo on an input or something. And so we have this opportunity through these quarterly budget amendments to do some of that housekeeping cleanup if we see something that didn't. work exactly the way we wanted it to. So it happens.

Absolutely. Absolutely. So thank you for acknowledging that.

Yep.

Okay. All right. Um, and no other questions. Good. Right now we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing.

Okay.

Do we have anyone online or in person that would like to speak?

Yeah, so this is for 15A. This is the resolution. I know you already read it, but I want to read it again. The resolution is to adopt the second quarter budget amendment. The fiscal impact is going to be $2,908,304. And do we have anybody signed up, anybody online? I have nobody signed up in person. Anybody online that would like to?

If you are online, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak at this time. Okay. I do not see any hands up online.

Okay. All right. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. All right. And do I have a motion?

Yeah, I'm comfortable doing this. I move to adopt the second quarter budget amendment. Second. Okay.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Okay. We're now on item 16. This is the opportunity for the public to address the board on general interests.

Okay. I have two people signed up. We'll just go down the line here. Looks like Mr. Ed Quarch. Good to see you. Are you going to, Joe? Okay.

Good morning. Appreciate the time. My name is Ed Korch. I live in Port Orchard. I just got a quick update to the DCD permit requirements letter dated September 19, 2025, regarding Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club's range operational permit request. On June 12th, Soundview consultants did a site visit of the club. They inspected the critical areas, they performed a wetlands delineation, and they filled out a wetlands rating form to be used for report preparation. On July 3rd, survey crews came out to the range again, and they marked the wetlands specifically as identified by the Soundview consultants. And that's going to be information that will be factored into the club's SDAP2 application as we move forward. So additionally, the club is actively working on the remaining items on that list. So this is just a quick update for you. And I appreciate your attention on this as we move forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ed. All right, Mr. David Peterson.

You gave me orange. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is David Peterson. I emailed several attachments to you, two of which I provided today. The first is from Newsday.com, July 21st, 2026, where Mr. Romaine, a Suffolk County executive in New York, wants the best facility shut down because it contaminated wells from a 2023 thermal runaway fire. The other is from July 2nd, 2026, Cowboy State Daily, where the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities announced it has suspended taking water associated with with data cover systems, data center systems, because it's wastewater contaminated the municipal reuse water system. If the best or data center projects are allowed by DCD to be built, no private and public wellheads, and the water becomes contaminated, as I've been told, KPUD has no choice but to walk away while property and house values drop to the bottom of the barrel. This would be a catastrophe for Kistap County, just like the ones Suffolk County and Cheyenne, Wyoming are experiencing at the present time. On July 23rd, 2026, I sent via email seven attachments to the KPUD Board of Commissioners, along with my comment for the electric service public listening session they held for public comment only. The attachment I sent clearly showed many best failures and consequences. I respectfully request that DZD, along with its policy administration, adopt for resolution a motion that prohibits any best or data center to be allowed in any Washington State Department of Health Category 1, 2, and 3 wellhead critical aquifer recharge areas. The reason for my request is the community of effect that both those types of facilities are proving to be major contaminating forces to the number one resource, water. These facilities create major environmental issues ranging from noise pollution to returning hot contaminated water to the groundwater recharge areas, and yet the energy companies that own them have no prudence when telling customers their mitigation policies will resolve the issues stated above.

Thank you for your time.

Any questions?

Very comprehensive, always, Mr. Peterson.

Yeah, I just want to point out the two different things, different but related. One is a battery storage, and one was data center. And we're working on both of those right now, so timely input.

It's kind of why we decided it's better to give this information out now, because we are seeing contamination. And once the water is contaminated, there's nothing more to do with that.

Yep. the common denominator to all living things. So thank you. All right, Mr. Gelubacher.

Okay. Thank you. I'll try to be brief here. Alex kind of threw us a curveball today in his scope of work for the contract 12B. I wanted to make sure you understood that when I was talking about not eight WANs, not eight wetlands, more than 20, more than 30. The point, the real underlying point is we don't know how many wetlands there are at Port Gamble. I have not seen, you know, I haven't been tromping that park. And all the wetland specialists will tell you in our environment you've got to do field work to find them. And some of those small upland wetlands are really important for amphibians even though they're distributed and don't fall into category one and category two ratings. They're still really vital ecologically. Point number two is you'll recall that the update does not include the vegetation study. As I understand it, Ms. Weber's plan is that the vegetation and wildlife studies are integrated. So when she dropped the vegetation study for Port Namble, you're only getting half a wildlife study, right? And there is no money for doing that vegetation study. And I'm not sure where Alex is planning to get the money to even integrate the wetland maps I showed you earlier. On the buffers that Mr. Heyman talked about, the fact that they're not being mapped. So the way the GMA and the CAO has written, the wetlands, the streams, both have buffers. And both of those are, you need both the specific critical area and the buffer to make up the ecosystem. And that's what you're trying to protect. And last point, you need that information if you're going to comply with the law. Thank you, Mr. Lipscher.

I appreciate that. Thank you. And Joe, I have to thank you. Your dedication is, thank you very much. Okay. I have nobody else signed up. Would anybody like to address the board? Anybody online?

We do have a few hands up online. Okay. First up is Marla Powers.

Okay, Marla.

You're ready to speak.

Good morning again. This is Marla Powers, staff for the Port Gamble Sklalom Tribe. And I just wanted to follow up a little bit on Mr. Lubasher's comment that the other part of my job is to work on polar injunction projects. And the Port Gamble Forest Heritage Park has three fish passage barriers under SR 104. that drain from the park into the Gamble Bay. And I just wanted to put on the table the potential in the next few years to leverage the state correcting those fish passage barriers as an opportunity to also restore the stream riparian area and the habitat upstream of those fish passage barriers to make them more appealing to the salmon that are going to move up there. So I just wanted to put that on the table and as another partnership opportunity. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, Marla.

Okay.

And then we have Michelle Connor online. All right. It's ready for you to speak.

Thank you. Can everybody hear me?

Loud and clear. Yes, Michelle.

Um, well, chairman route commissioner Walters in commissioner office. Thank you for your leadership on the port gamble forest heritage park. I am Michelle Connor, president and CEO at for Tara. And since 2010 for Tara has had the honor of working with kids up county. The land owner, the community, the tribes and. The broader recreational user groups and habitat advocates to realize the conservation and balance. recreational access and restoration of what had been an industrial timberland for more than a generation. And how fortunate we are that everyone came together to create a shared vision for a generational legacy. I appreciated today hearing the community's engagement and the struggle for how now to realize that vision on the ground. What a wonderful challenge to have in an era where the default so often is divisiveness. This heritage park is the result of folks coming together to amplify what we share in common. And I look forward to continuing that tradition in coordination with all of you. And I just wanted to say to those of you who have attended with concern and interest in the park that if anyone wants to reach me, my email is mconnor, C-O-N-N-O-R, at forterra.org, or you can get that contact from Alex. Everyone has brought such great ideas to the table today, and I really appreciate the county's leadership and the tribe's leadership and creativity. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michelle. Yeah, absolutely.

Since we have Michelle at our meeting, the creation of this park took so many people. to pull it off. And Michelle, the participation of Forterra was integral to having the park that we have today. So I am thrilled that you took us up on our request to continue to help us buy the trees with the money that we have. It will go a lot more smoothly and successfully with Forterra engaged. I really appreciate your continued dedication to this project.

Thank you so much, and thank you to everybody. Couldn't have done it without any of you. Everybody had a role. Thank you, Michelle. OK. Next.

All right. I do not see any other hands up online.

OK. All right.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak who is online at this time? Please raise your hand. All right. No hands up. Thanks.

All right. Moving on.

And the last item on our agenda is Item 17, Board of Commissioners' Comments.

All right. Who would like to start?

I have one. Well, a couple things. First, I want to thank everyone for a really great whaling days. The fireworks Friday were fantastic, and it was a fun theme. had a great time, so that. But then I also want to invite everyone to join us for our Stormwater Open House this Thursday at the Silverdale Waterfront Park from 6 to 8 p.m. And the event's going to highlight two important stormwater planning initiatives. that are currently underway and then also then to provide the community opportunity to learn more and ask questions and share their feedback. One is our stormwater management action plan update. So we'll be reviewing the draft plan for East Dyes Basin and provide input that will help shape that final version. And then the second part of it will be the stormwater parks planning study to explore concept designs for potential stormwater parks, which I find so exciting. There's such a great way to combine stormwater as well as parks. So you can learn a little bit more about that planning process and share feedback with the project team. So please join me. I'll be out there on Thursday, this Thursday from 6 to 8 at the Silverdale Waterfront Park.

Great.

Thanks, Commissioner Walters.

Nothing?

Okay. I just have a couple things. I have to say there's been a lot of news about the SIOP project and the approval with the U.S. Navy. Not only is that going to... really enhance our economic development in the area, but it's also going to enhance our national security, making sure that one of the only West Coast locations to do what they're going to do is right here in Bremerton, Washington, and our workforce that's going to be supporting that. Also, I want to acknowledge KEDA for a really Really putting this out and really working on the economic piece of this. I think it's very important as a county government, working closely with the Navy, working closely with KEDA and all our economic partners to make sure that we're taking full advantage of any type of growth or development we can. So that's moving forward. We'll keep you informed of where we're at with that. ALSO, IN DISTRICT 2 HERE, HARPER BRIDGE IS MOVING RIGHT ALONG. AND I WAS KIND OF I WAS KIND OF IMPRESSED WHEN I WENT DOWN THERE AND LOOKED AT IT. I WAS LIKE, WHOA, THEY'VE GONE QUITE A WAYS IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. SO THAT'S JUST I THINK THAT'S A TESTAMENT TO OUR DCD DEPARTMENT, THE CONTRACTOR THAT'S INVOLVED, LOCALS THAT ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. So it's looking good, and hopefully we'll have an opening on time and continuing being under budget, which is very important. But other than that, it's been very busy with us. But anything else? Anything? Okay.

I'll just say, um, since that, since it was the port gamble heritage park day, I will, um, report that Alex and I spent the morning on Friday, um, filming for B cat, uh, interview of port gamble heritage park, talking a little bit about the next steps in the process for planning that park. And also the, um, force, uh, our force fund project. and just trying to keep the public up to date. And I'm hoping that it will go viral as people share it for all of the ways they can stay involved.

Great. Thank you. And that just triggered something else in my mind that I want to announce is that WSDOT is putting together three different town halls. I think they're town halls, question and answer, or information sessions on the Pell study for the Gorst interchange. And They're on my newsletter. I think they're on our website. They're on WSDOT's website. They've been really trying to get public involvement with that. Anything to support that would be grateful. A lot of support for the C2 option, full access bridge, as we move forward. But that's going to be yet to be seen. So please look for that and attend if you want more information on that. But yeah, that's about it. Any other triggers? Okay. Meeting adjourned.