August 24, 2023 Shelton Mason County Journal | ![]() |
©
Shelton Mason County Journal. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 14 (14 of 40 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
August 24, 2023 |
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader ![]() |
Page 14 — Shelton-Mason Journal Thursday, Aug. 24, 2023
Budget: Back to School Festival Saturday at Olympic MS
continued from page
for maintenance and operations,
$1,763,525 for utilities and insur—
ance, $900,670 for other services,
and $86,230 for public activities.
The district’s 2022—23 budget was
$7 8 million.
The district projects enrollment
of 4,150 students this school year
at its three elementary schools (Ev—
ergreen, Mountain View and Bor—
deaux), Olympic Middle School,
Oakland Bay Junior High School,
and three high schools: Shelton,
HOPE and Cedar.
The school year begins Sept. 6.
A Back to School Festival is hosted
from 10 am. to 1 pm. Saturday at
Olympic Middle School.
Everyone is invited to attend an
Open House Tailgate Party to help
kick off the school year at 5:30 pm.
Sept. 8 in the courtyard behind the
A building at Shelton High School.
The event includes music by DJ
Tye, food, and information about
clubs, athletics, teachers, classes,
district services and strategic plans.
At 7 p.m., the Highclimbers football
team plays Bremerton High School
at Jack Stark Field at Highclimber
Stadium.
This summer, Evergreen Elementary School received new fencing along
Franklin Street to help prevent students
from running into the street. Mountain View Elementary School received the
same. The Shelton School Board on
Tuesday passed a $78.3 million budget for the 2023-24 school year. Journal
photo by Gordon Weeks
PermitzPresentation says aquaculture ‘apermitted use’
continued from page
comments in support of the project and many com—
ments against the project. He said those comments
prioritize aesthetic and residential interests over
shellfish aquaculture.
“As one commenter put it, they envision Oakland
Bay as having an opportunity to being Seattle’s nic—
est bedroom or summer community and are con—
cerned this project could compromise that poten—
tial,” DeNike said during the hearing. “That’s not
the vision Mason County has adopted for Oakland
Bay, nor has the Legislature or the Department of
Ecology. Collectively, they’ve stated in the Shoreline
Management Act and implementing regulations at
WAC {Washington Administrative Code), and in the
shoreline master program for Mason County that
floating aquacultures is permitted use of' Oakland
Bay, that shellfish aquaculture is a preferred use
of the water. It’s in the statewide interest (and) can
result in long-term or short—term benelit that can
protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
They’ve also said priority should be given to aqua—
culture uses in areas that have a high potential for
it, given potential locations for shellfish farming are
relatively restricted.”
Ewald gave a presentation, stating there are 328
farms in the state that are 9.1 acres or larger. One—
hundred and 78 oi'the projects are :36 acres or larger
and 148 are 50 acres are larger. South Puget Sound
has the second highest amount of these larger farms
on a regional scale, and five farms are bigger than
the proposed project in Oakland Bay, three more
than :36 acres and two more than 50 acres, includ-
ing Taylor Shellfish’s Chapman Cove farm, which is
90 acres.
Chris Cziesla, CEO and senior principal marine
and fisheries biologist at Confluence Environmental
Company, gave another presentation in response to
public comments. He stated the project is not large
or of unprecedented scale when considering oyster
culture, with 45,000 acres of shellfish cultured in the
state and 5,000 acres of shellfish cultured in South
Puget Sound. He talked about the floating culture
operation approved for Willapa Bay, which has 15-
foot spacing as opposed to the 30—foot spacing in the
proposed 'llaylor Slielliish project and a maximum oi”
452,000 versus 33,000 cages in the proposed
Taylor project.
Olbrechts questioned both Ewald and Czies—
la on some of the aspects of the project and
both answered questions from the public.
There were only four public comments, two in favor
ol'the project and two against the project.