The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on October 27, 1997 at 1:30 p.m., Island County Courthouse Annex Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa. Mike Shelton, Chairman, Wm. L. McDowell, Member, and Tom Shaughnessy, Member, were present. Also in attendance were Margaret Rosenkranz, Auditor/Clerk of the Board, and E. Meyer, Secy. to the Board. Minutes from the meetings of October 6 and 13, 1997, were approved and signed.

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board: Voucher (War.) #13467- #13726.......................................................$350,510.10.

The Board approved for distribution the Staff Session schedule for November, 1997, outlining sessions for November 5 and 19 as follows:

9:00 a.m. Public Works

3:20 p.m. Chairman’s Agenda: (to be determined}

9:00 a.m. Public Works

3:40 p.m. Chairman’s Agenda: {to be determined}

Claim for Damages #97-046 by Traci D. Pederson was continued from the meeting of October 20, 1997.

Betty Kemp, Director, GSA/Risk Management, reported that prior to Board meeting on October 20, she met with Roy Allen, County Engineer, and Marv Koorn, Oak Harbor Road Shop Supervisor, to discuss three claims, of which the Pederson claim was one. She also met separately with Lew Legat, Assistant County Engineer, and in another meeting, met with Lew Legat and Matt Nash, Planning Department. It was at that meeting she was provided a copy of the grading permit and the plot plan showing Mr. Nash’s hand-written comments. Based on all data and interviews, she concurred with the Engineer that the claim should be denied. After the Board’s action on October 20 to continue decision on the claim until today, she reviewed the additional information Mr. Pederson provided, a June 3, 1996 letter from Mr. Pederson to Mr. Legat and Mr. Koorn, and an approved plot plan signed off by the Building Department; the Engineering Department did not have a copy of that signed off plot plan and therefore she did not have a copy of same to provide to the Board previously. She then reviewed the transcript from the meeting of October 20, 1997, and Mr. Pederson’s testimony.

Mrs. Kemp provided to the Board for today’s meeting a copy of the conversations she had last week with Mr. Pederson, Mr. Legat and Mr. Koorn [memorandum dated October 23, 1997, copy placed on file]. She believes there was a misunderstanding between Marv Koorn and Mr. Pederson from the beginning. When she asked Mr. Pederson why he continued to wait for Mr. Koorn and for what purpose, and Mr. Pederson said he was waiting for the culvert (she thinks he meant catch basin), and that told her that Mr. Pederson thought it was the County’s responsibility to put in the catch basin. Mr. Koorn states he did not make that commitment, and would not commit County resources in that would be up to his supervisor. Mr. Legat is the supervisor who agreed the County would install the catch basin but that was during a visit to the area after the heavy rains. Many people had water damage during those heavy rains in 1995, but no slope problems, plugged culverts, or improper drainage, but the ground could not handle the runoff. She did not think that Mr. Koorn promised a catch basin and then ignored the promise, but she also believes that the claimant is truthfully reporting what he believes he heard regarding the culvert/catch basin. Mrs. Kemp did not believe the County responsible for the damage her recommendation to deny the claim is unchanged.

Commissioner McDowell addressed Mr. Koorn about when he told Mr. Pederson a permit to work within right of way was necessary, which was before the storm event, what did that refer to, i.e. what did Mr. Koorn anticipate him doing in the right of way that needed a permit.

Mr. Koorn replied that when Mr. Pederson originally talked to him it was about doing something with the drainage and Mr. Koorn would have told him that to connect on to that culvert he would need a permit to work in the County right-of-way because the culvert ends in the County right-of-way; if he was planning to tie on or do any work there he needed a permit. Mr. Koorn did not recall the specific conversation but was sure he would have talked about how it would need to be connected because there is no way Mr. Pederson could make a 90 degree turn without setting a catch basin there. Mr. Koorn did not recall committing to anything, and to do so would have first checked with Mr. Legat or Mr. Allen before committing to do something such as that.

As far as when he first became aware of the need for this connection, Mr. Legat recalled that he was called by Marv Koorn sometime after the storm event and he went to the site. At that time there were mud flows around the house and down the driveway, and he met with Mrs. Pederson and Marv Koorn and talked about the situation, and Mr. Legat had made the statement that why didn’t the County install the catch basin within the County right-of-way and then the Pedersons could hook their culvert into that.

From a time frame aspect Mr. Pederson had a different memory of those events, and his contention was that prior to the storm he was in touch with Mr. Koorn because of his understanding he would be the one tight lining this system to the catch basin and at that point had no idea he needed a permit. He had, however, foreseen this could be a problem, that the culvert was there for a reason and he thought he needed to hook his line into it somehow which is why he was in touch with Mr. Koorn many months before the storm event. He assumed this was going to be taken care of because his culvert was already there ready to be put into the County’s culvert. Even though it was a sharp 90, he could have positioned the culvert and put it in. When he was told he could not tight line his culvert to the County culvert, he left it alone. Although someone may have told him he needed a permit, he said that he did not recall it. He agreed he was trying to place the blame on the County, but it was because his hands were tied and he was not permitted to put his culvert into the County culvert. Again, Mr. Pederson confirmed his understanding that he had been told, before the storm event took place, that he could not tight line his culvert to the County’s culvert.

Marv Koorn explained that standard practice when talking to someone who will be working on the right-of-way is to tell them they need a permit, and what ever else would be needed on the permit, i.e. if could not connect to a 90 degree, he would advise that a catch basin is needed and that needed to be on the permit.

With respect to the grading permit, Chairman Shelton asked if the approved plot plan was a plot plan in relation to the building permit for the house.

Mr. Pederson explained that it basically was the same plot plan for his building permit; Mr. Nash had wanted to see what drain system was proposed so he drew another one up on the plot plan.

He used the plot plan to show the Commissioners where on the plot plan the culvert is located at the corner of his property when in fact it actually is in another area. He confirmed that he drew that culvert with the purpose of that culvert to hook into the County culvert to divert the drainage from the culvert around his house - someone in Engineering Department had required he do that drawing.

Roy Allen reviewed the permit and signed it in March of 1995 [Grading Permit #G-2220] containing, among other conditions, the following:

The Chairman saw that the plot plan was something clearly everyone can understand; there was

a culvert coming across the road that would impact that. It appeared that everything got started in the right direction but never got completed. To hook this pipe into a County culvert there would have needed to be a catch basin, which after the fact the County apparently agreed to set. He was not saying that it was the County’s responsibility to go out and do all those things, but that somehow the whole process did not get drawn together.

The Plan Mr. Allen had was the plot plan that was annotated by Matt Nash [not the approved plot plan from the Building Department] and on the plan can be seen that it is not as complete as the one with the building permit. It is reviewed to make sure the drainage is addressed and who has the responsibility. Individuals are not always told exactly what they have to do. Mr. Allen stated that Mr. Pederson did not put in a smooth pipe, rather a flex pipe that was corrugated.

Mr. Pederson stated he put in smooth bored on the inside, ABS smooth bored, corrugated on the outside but has a liner.

Commissioner Shaughnessy, from review of the grading permit conditions, stated that the burden was on the applicant in terms of meeting those conditions.

Mr. Pederson agreed, but stated his problem with the entire matter was that he was told to draw up a drainage plan which he did, and everything was in place to complete that drainage system, all that was left to do was to be connected up by the County.

Chairman Shelton did not think anything in the grading permit assumed the County would hook up for Mr. Pederson. He did think perhaps the County had a responsibility to tell Mr. Pederson that if he wanted to pick up and divert the flow of water out of the County’s culvert, how to accomplish that, but that it was Mr. Pederson’s responsibility to (1) obtain a permit to work in County right-of-way; (2) set a catch basin; (3) and hook his line up to the catch basin. The County does not go on private property to do that. While it was not County responsibility, he thought perhaps the County may have had some sort of a moral responsibility to tell Mr. Pederson what he had to do to finish his drainage system.

Commissioner McDowell stressed that the Board must base its action on the record. There are two different ideas of time frames when the catch basin was discussed and maybe even promised, but he knew that Mr. Koorn did not take the responsibility to begin projects on his own, rather would have first obtained approval from his supervisor, although Mr. Koorn may have discussed the need for a catch basin and Mr. Pederson may have interpreted that as somehow the County would do that. The Commissioner agreed there probably was some miscommunication, but clearly as stated in the Grading Permit, the responsibility falls on Mr. Pederson. Although he did not believe the Engineering Department reviewed the approved plot plan from the Building Department, but even if Engineering had reviewed it there would have been nothing there to indicate that there was intent to hook on to that culvert because clearly the culvert is in County right of way and Mr. Pederson’s pipe stops well before County right of way.

Commissioner Shaughnessy agreed, and noted with the conditions contained in the grading permit, he moved that the Board deny Claim #97-046. Motion, seconded by Commissioner McDowell, carried unanimously.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Liquor License Application for the Camano Plaza Market, having received favorable reports back from the Sheriff and Health Department.

A Public Hearing was held at 2:15 p.m. to consider Ordinance #R-57-97, renaming miscellaneous County roads on Whidbey Island. Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director, explained this matter came at the request of I-COM, (Island County Emergency Services Communications Center). The intent to conform with prior actions in terms of eliminating confusion and duplication of road names within Island County to promote effective emergency responses. The proposal is as follows:

Keystone Road to Keystone Hill Road

Doris Musielak, 369 W. Keystone Avenue, spoke in opposition to inserting "hill" in the road name. The road has been name for almost 100 years and she saw no reason to change it, and viewed the proposal as stupid and ridiculous.

E. J. Millenbach, 1023 S. Keystone Road, objected to the proposed change and saw no reason to add the word "hill" to the road name, and agreed the proposal ridiculous.

Rich Murphy, Address Data Coordinator, I-COM, commented that changing the name to Keystone Hill was not the issue, that the word "Hill" had been inserted to retain the word Keystone. The main thing is to reduce similarity between Keystone Road and Keystone Avenue. County ordinance adopted 1-1/2 years ago requires there be no similar sounding or duplicate road names within a 19 mile radius of each other, discounting classification or type i.e. road or avenue, because people calling emergency get confused and drop that classification altogether. He saw no problem with another road name if the residents came up with an alternative name that was unique and still met intent of the ordinance.

David Moffatt, 642 E. Windmill Drive, President of a board of 5 individuals who handle business for Windmill Heights, pointed out this is a very unique area, with only one road going in. There is a potential of 37 homes, right now about 27. The group is a cohesive unit and people feel great about living in Windmill Heights. In 1986, Windmill Heights did not want to be part of the problem with duplicate or similar sounding road names and changed road names, changed from Admiral’s Drive to Windmill Drive and changed Olympic Lane to Windmill Lane (only 7 houses), and made everything cohesive to Windmill community. He showed the Commissioners a copy of County Resolution #R-32-87 adopted May 4, 1987 by the then Board of County Commissioners, who at that time had been very appreciative to the community for having taken the initiative to change the names to avoid redundancy. The community has had no problems with emergency vehicles, Windmill Heights is a known area, the name Argosy has no connection with the community, and the community is against the proposed change. He introduced members of the community present today 100% in opposition to the proposed change.

Roger Sheridan, 5495 S. Windmill Lane, pointed out that the people Mr. Moffat introduced were residents of Windmill Lane opposed to the change. He did not believe intent of the ordinance was to change names such as Windmill Lane, only 1/2 block and the only road into the subdivision. Never been a problem with emergency vehicles finding the area. Address change would be a hardship for Mr. Sheridan who has a mail order type business cost well over $1,000 to effect the kind of change proposed.

Art Hyde, 5482 Windmill Lane, protested the name change; the name Windmill Lane should be retained.

Dennis Lane, 5478 Windmill Lane, a resident of 17 years, strongly objected to the proposed name change, supported the comments of Mr. Moffat, Sheridan and Hyde.

Bill Todd, 5492 Windmill Lane, strongly objected to the road name change.

Dorothy Moffat, 642 E. Windmill Drive, commented that opposition was not so much a concern just for a few individuals who live on Windmill Lane but applied to all residents in that area including those on Windmill Road. The area is identifiable as the Windmill area and goes back to the history of Whidbey Island and she would hate to see that changed.

Marilyn Moody, 3714 S. Steelhead Drive, Lagoon Point, representing Lagoon Point Community Club, who owns a piece of common property located on Mountain View Road, did not object to a name change, but objected to the name Buccaneer Drive which is not in character with the rest of the names in the community, i.e. Oceanside; Shorewood; Steelhead; Salmon Drive; Seashore and Shell. Mountain View Road is the primary entrance to Lagoon Point, the street abutting Smuggler’s Cove Road. She submitted a list of other suggestions in keeping with the theme, the two favorite are Cliffside Drive; Westcliff Road, with Westcliff preferred (also submitted six others). Lagoon Point Community Club (7 or 8 lots directly on Mountain View Road) received letters from several people and phone calls from a poll taken, and there is only one who wants no change at all.

Mr. Murphy stated that of the names submitted three are in use; I-COM would have no objection to the name Westcliff, however. The choice of Buccaneer resulted from the original letter to everyone on that street, and 3 people responded with the name Buccaneer.

Duck Doughtery, Patton’s Hide-a-Way, commented that the people on Marie Way organized and sent a petition back with signatures opposed to name change. They are not opposed to renaming, but want to rename the entire stretch Marie Way instead of Martha Way, the reason for Marie Way is that has the greatest longevity - the oldest folks in the development live on Marie Way. He read from the petition: "This one street beginning at Hastie Lake Road has five names in less than one-half mile: Marge; Mary; Martha; Marie; Bertha. It would appear that a sensible approach would be to give the entire street one name, preferably Marie Way."

Bryan Wise, 2348 Marie Way, provided some background on the road names in Patton’s Hide-A-Way. The area was developed by Lloyd Patton, and his three girls were named Martha, Marie and Mary. Mr. Wise said that he and his wife are not opposed to change but when there is change they want to get something better than present. As far as 911 people are concerned, they believe they already have the best. One thing he mentioned was that in an emergency calling 911 people under stress would not get a long-time address out of their head likely to give a confusing answer.

Barbara Hertsler, 2398 Marie Way, stated that of the five streets, there are more homes with the Marie Way address.

Mr. Murphy explained that the count of homes according to his information is there are 11 people on Marie Way; 10 on Martha Way and 1 on Mary, and I-COM viewed this as 11 versus 11. To use Marie for the loop, 11 people would still be affected. The name of Marge and Bertha are not affected with this proposal; Marge is a T-type street off Hastie Lake, and Bertha is at the end of Marie and is a right angle turn and fairly easy to sign.

Mr. Kwarsick confirmed that proper legal notice in the newspaper had not taken place, apparently not all pages of the proposal had been advertised, although I-COM sent individual notices, the hearing should be continued to allow proper legal notice.

By unanimous motion, the Board continued the hearing to December 8, 1997, at 10:15 a.m. allowing for proper legal notice to consider the road name changes as stated originally and with the following changes to be considered:

Existing Name Proposed Name

Keystone Road Keystone Hill Road

Windmill Lane Argosy Way Windmill Lane

Mountain View Road Buccaneer Drive Westcliff Drive

Mary Way no change

Marie Way no change

Mr. Kwarsick advised the Board that tonight in Coupeville would be the last community workshop held on the draft Comprehensive Stormwater & Flood Hazard Management Plan, and following that, Mr. Kwarsick requested a Public Hearing be held on November 17. Mr. Allen added that during a meeting on Camano Island, some asked if the Board would hold a hearing on Camano Island for adopting the Plan.

Commissioner Shaughnessy asked that rather than a public hearing scheduled at this point, the matter be reviewed in staff session. Commissioner McDowell agreed. He received a note back that his comments had not been reflected in this draft because comments had not been received in time. Review at a staff session and then scheduling a public hearing would allow time to reflect those comments. The other point to consider is the figure stated to implement this: 1/4 of a million dollars, and then $135,000 per year afterwards.

Julie Buktenica, Surface Water Manager, hoped that after tonight’s meeting, comments could be incorporated, and another draft prepared for the public hearing.