The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session 5 April 1999, at 9:30 a.m. , in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Mike Shelton, Chairman, Wm. L. McDowell, Member, and Wm. F. Thorn, Member, present.

Vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board:

In conjunction with Resolution #C-23-99 dated March 8, 1999, specifications and authorizing call for bids for Title Reports, Maxine Sauter, Island County Treasurer, appeared before the Board to recommend award of bid. Based on the two bids received, Mrs. Sauter recommended the Board award bid to Island Title, the low bidder.

By unanimous motion, the Board awarded bid to Island Title as low bidder in support of Resolution #C-23-99.

On March 29^th, the Board opened Request for Proposals for designation of Official Newspaper for Island County in which to run official legal ads, and scheduled this date and time to make the award. The three bids received were:

Commissioner McDowell pointed out the considerable amount of difference in the cost per column inch, Whidbey Reporter in Coupeville being the lower cost. In discussing the matter with Dave Jamieson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, he was provided the appropriate section from RCW 36.72.075:

"The county legislative authority shall let the contract to the best and lowest

responsible bidder, giving consideration to the question of circulation in

awarding the contract, with a view to giving publication of notices the wisest

publicity."

The Chairman made note of the fact that the reason that Stanwood-Camano News did not submit a bid was because it is not located in Island County as required; however, the circulation of the Stanwood-Camano News on Camano Island is absolutely critically important for the availability of advertising from Island County. He agreed with the comments of Commissioner McDowell insofar as awarding bid based on circulation rather than cost.

By unanimous motion, the Board accepted Whidbey News Times as the official county legal newspaper, with the proviso that where there are specific geographical issues, the County utilize supplemental advertising in either the South Whidbey Record, Stanwood-Camano News or Whidbey Reporter as appropriate.

On the review and summary provided by Dick Toft, Human Resources Director, the Board by unanimous motion, approved PAA #035/99, replacement action for Licensing/Camano .4 FTE., Position #620.01, effective 4/5/99.

By unanimous motion, the Board appointed Sue Roundy, Coupeville, to serve as a member on the Central Whidbey Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, for a term to 8/13/2003.

Steve Gulliford, Executive Director, Housing Authority of Island County, asked that in addition to a resolution in the matter of promoting affordable housing in Island County, the Board provide a letter to fulfill the requirement for the Authority’s tax credit application for proposed Bayview Greens LLC, low income housing tax credit project.

Chairman Shelton believed that removed from the letter should be any mention of that project believing it inappropriate for the Board to endorse a project which at some point in the future may well come before the Board. Apart from that, he believed it was inappropriate for the Board to offer some major support for a specific project, but believed the Board could endorse the concept of promoting affordable housing and the location of affordable housing in rural centers without endorsing any specific project.

Mr. Gulliford explained there were two issues. The first a Resolution supporting what the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan already states, essentially re-enforcing the Comprehensive Plan designation of those areas for that purpose, and provides for the Authority a local targeting opportunity for folks who build subsidized or low income apartment complexes or multi-family, if they meet infrastructure requirements and building permit process requirements. The second issue was the proposed letter from the Board with regard to the proposed Bayview Greens Low Income Housing Tax Credit Project. The low income tax credit process requires a letter from the local governmental indicating that any project proposed meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and affordable housing needs of the community.

The Chairman maintained that it was inappropriate for the Board to endorse a project out of hand. He was willing to say in a letter that the location of affordable housing should occur in rural centers.

Commissioner Thorn agreed with the Chairman, noting there was insufficient information today to characterize this as affordable housing. He suggested the County probably needed to have a little more formal process for screening what affordable housing is. He supported the idea that the Board should not endorse individual projects. Rural Centers are discrete sites in the county, a fixed item in the zoning code. This is all new enough with the new Comprehensive Plan and there really should be some sort of a screening process or certification of some kind - something that can come from Public Works/Community Development.

Commissioner McDowell agreed with Commissioners Shelton and Thorn, and expressed his view that the Board not prejudge an application.

Mr. Gulliford did not believe this really was an endorsement, merely a statement that a proposed project is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In this particular case, the Authority is applying for low income housing tax credits from the Washington State Housing and Finance Commission which carries with it some specific restrictions regarding rent over the life of the project; it does not restrict ownership.

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Resolution #C-38-99 In the Matter of Promoting Affordable Housing In Island County, and authorize the Planning Director to review the goals of specific affordable housing projects and draft a letter attesting this as the type of project that should be in a rural center and meets financial guidelines in the Island County Comprehensive Plan.

Ed Cohn, Cultus Bay Road, South Whidbey, owned the property since 1945, brought to the Board’s attention a concern with regard to Animal Control and the County’s noise ordinance, concerned with the potential to not have a watch dog, due to complaints of neighbors of dogs barking during curfew. It bothered him that the County ordinance used the word "frequently" as related to dogs barking.

Chairman Shelton committed to assist Mr. Cohn with the matter by setting up a meeting with Mr. Cohn and the folks from Animal Control to get the issue resolved. He confirmed that the ordinance was not designed to deal with a dog who barks on a very occasional basis or when someone comes on the property.

A Public Hearing was held at 10:20 a.m. for the purpose of considering Franchise #308 by Glenwood Beach Water Association, for an existing distribution system located in North Bluff Road, located in Sec. 28-31-2E (unrecorded plat of Glenwood Beach).

Lew Legat, County Engineer, reported by way of a Memorandum dated March 3, 1999 that all departments requested to comment had responded with no objection to the requested franchise. Further, he noted there were no archaeologically sensitive areas near the system. The Department of Fish and Wildlife approved the proposal as long as any work to be done during February 1 and June 15 is coordinated with the Department. The Franchise has been reviewed and approved as to form by the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Risk Management. Mr. Legat recommended the Board grant approval of the Franchise as submitted.

At the time when the Chairman called for public comments, no one spoke either for or against

the Franchise.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Franchise #308 by Glennwood Beach Water Association as recommended by the County Engineer.

A Public Hearing was held at 10:25 a.m. for the purpose of considering Franchise #304 by David R. Platter (Accrue, Inc./Camano Commons), for a sewer collection system in North Camano Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, in Sections 19/20/30-32-3E.

In this case, Mr. Legat reported, as provided in his letter to the Board dated March 16, 1999,

that he reviewed the franchise application for a sewer collection system that is to serve the proposed project referred to as "Camano Commons", to be placed in county rights-of-way known as north Camano Drive and Sunrise Boulevard. All departments requested to comment responded with no objection to the franchise request. The Island County Health Department requires a recorded operations and maintenance agreement and a third party management entity. The Planning Department and Community Development have no objections provided work is done in accordance with plans and specifications as approved with the preliminary approval of SPR 360/96 granted May 20 1997. The Franchise has been reviewed and approved as to form by the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Risk Management. Mr. Legat recommended the Board grant approval of the Franchise as submitted.

At the time when the Chairman called for public comments, no one spoke either for or against

the Franchise.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Franchise #304 by David R. Platter as recommended by the County Engineer.

As recommended by the County Engineer, based on low bid, the Board by unanimous motion awarded bid for the Madrona Way Slide Repair under CRP 98-13 to Jenkins, Incorporated, Arlington, in the amount of $119,707.00.

Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director, presented proposed Stormwater Mitigation Agreement submitted by T & S Quality Homes, Lot 8, Holmes Harbor Golf & Yacht Club #2, in fulfillment of the requirements of the recently-adopted Island County Zoning Ordinance for this specific rural area of more intense development. The mitigation agreement will go into the County’s records and department database. Concurrently with this process the Department has been involved in negotiating with the Holmes Harbor Sewer District in terms of taking a different path to achieve the same goal and working through interlocal agreements, and Mr. Kwarsick will discuss this issue during Wednesday’s staff session.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved the Stormwater Mitigation Agreement submitted by T & S Quality Homes, Lot 8, Holmes Harbor Golf & Yacht Club #2.

The Board, on unanimous motion, ratified action taken during the March 17, 1999 Staff Session on Local Agency Participating Agreement between Washington State Department of Transportation and Island County for Developer Mitigation Payments for Transfer to State.

Next, Mr. Kwarsick presented for Board action, a proposed Architectural & Engineering Services Contract with R.W. Beck, Inc. to provide phased infrastructure Planning in conjunction with the Clinton and Freeland Sub-areas Plans. Mr. Kwarsick talked with the District Engineer for Freeland [who is also the District Engineer for the Holmes Harbor Sewer District] and the proposed Consultant, and assured the Board there would be collaboration between the two in pursuit of providing infrastructure and support for Freeland and Clinton sub-area plans. Phase 2 and 3 require written amendment to the contract and at that time he felt there would be a clear path ahead in terms of what facilities are being discussed.

The Board, on unanimous motion approved Architectural & Engineering Services Contract with R.W. Beck, Inc. to provide phased infrastructure Planning in conjunction with the Clinton and Freeland Sub-areas Plans.

In follow-up to the Auditor’s proposal to raise payment for election poll workers to the new minimum wage standards as discussed during the March 17^th staff session, the Board considered proposed Resolution #C-39-99 (amending Resolution #C-56-97) in the matter of amending wages for precinct election officers.

Suzanne Sinclair, Island County Auditor, explained that the resolution came as a result of the initiative by Washington citizens increasing the minimum wage levels. The resolution is worded such that amending resolutions will not be required in the future since the language in the resolution stipulates that the pay shall be the current year’s state minimum wage level .

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Resolution #C-39-99 amending Resolution #C-56-97, in the matter of amending wages for precinct election officers, with correction in the last paragraph of the resolution for the year 2000 from $90.00 per day to $91.00 per day.

	Board of County Commissioners
	Island County, Washington
	Mike Shelton, Chairman
	Wm. L. McDowell, Member
	William F. Thorn, Member
ATTEST:
Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board

Information from the National Parks and Recreation Association and Mrs. Buchanan shows no

lawsuits having been filed related to dogs in an off-leash area. A substantial amount of correspondence has been received by letter, telephone and e-mail the majority in support of the proposal. On the signature page of the ordinance, Mr. McFarland recommended adding an effective date of June 7, 1999.

Mitchell Streicher, Freeland, supported the ordinance. He pointed out that at least 330 days out of the year he or his wife with their dog used Double Bluff, and never had a problem, and lately noticed that people with dogs put them on a leash when approaching someone. While he was aware that dog on leash if approach someone. There are some people who will not clean up after their dogs, which he did not feel was a reason to prevent others from walking dogs on the beach. Many carry plastic bags as does his wife who in addition to picking up after own dog will pick up after people. He characterized Double Bluff as a happy community and would like to see made legal for dogs to run on the beach off-leash. He inquired about where the proposed off leash area would start. Mr. McFarland indicated his plan was that it would begin just west of the developed area.

Linda Wilson, Bush Point, requested that Double Bluff be taken off the list as an off-leash dog because this is a tremendous beach for a family; the tide goes way out and forms tide pools perfect for children. If this becomes an off-leash area she was concerned about who would be responsible for policing to ensure that dogs do not harass children or other dogs and that owners would pick up after them. Now, even though the park is designated west of the road, people still come down to the private ownership and beaches for picnics and run their dogs off leash.

Eva Mae Gabelein, Clinton, said that she and her husband previously owned the 50 acres sold to the Brons. It is a beautiful piece of property and they had thought about other things the park could allow, such as 13 acres [where dog off-leash area is proposed] would have been an ideal place for a dry camp for travelers on the Island when the parks are full. She and her husband love dogs and have dogs, and allow pheasant and duck hunting on their property, which they enjoy. Their concerns with an off-leash parks relate to responsibility – is the County going to be responsible and have to hire someone to make sure dogs get along, do not bite and clean up is done. If someone does get hurt, will the County insurance cover that.

Judy Skoezen, Clinton, signed the petition in support of off-leash dog areas because she walks two little dogs. She noted that little dogs are magnets to big dogs who think they want to play. She and her husband are concerned that the off leash area for Double Bluff should be removed or fenced in. Though Double Bluff was termed as a "happy community", she and her husband gave up walking Double Bluff two years’ ago because they have not been able to walk there comfortably. Walking on and through the dogs off leash, she would feel threatened walking with her two little dogs on a leash, and children might feel the same way, if the front part of the beach if not fenced off in some way .

Margaret Keen, Langley, suggested that the FETCH organization was the answer to quite a few objections and concerns because FETCH would be responsible and have volunteers at each off-leash area to ensure there were no problems. People who cannot control dogs would not be permitted to go in those areas. Many people cannot walk their dogs enough but sill need dogs for protection and companionship, and in order to keep a dog healthy, it must have exercise and she saw off leash areas as providing the means to do that.

R. T. Steltz, Clinton, was a dog owner very much in favor of off leash areas. He did agree that Double Bluff should be eliminated entirely as an area because it seemed to "press too many hot buttons". He too thought dog owners associated with trying to get this promoted were extremely responsible, and that dogs need an area to run and mingle. He picks up after his dog and thought people would find that most dog owners are that way. If an area is established it could be within a park and fenced with a gate, and thought the size should be 2 acres at the very least, preferably more. He said that dogs need other dogs, need the companionship and play.

Julie Wineman, Clinton, who was originally from Oregon, had an opportunity to work next to about a 1-acre off-leash area and her observation was that it was kept clean, dogs and owners followed the rules. She thought that having these areas would tend to make those who love dogs not break the law. As far as liability goes, she pointed out that things will happen even if dogs are on a leash. Most dog owners love and truly care about their dogs, and as a taxpayer, she wanted to be able to take her dog to the beach and see others do the same, and let them tromp and get their feet wet in the surf.

Jane Pulsifer, Freeland, has private land on which she walks her dogs and does not go to the beach anymore. She misses going to the beach but cannot handle the beach without cane, and cannot handle beach with a cane and the dog on a leash all at the same time. She didn’t care whether it was Double Bluff, but did want a beach where she could walk her dog. Ms. Pulsifer’s opinion was that Double Bluff was the flattest, easiest to walk beach on South Whidbey and as a disabled person, she felt she had the right to use the beach too; the fun of going to the beach without her dog was just not there.

Ray Gabelein, Sr., Clinton, residing just opposite of the Brons property , he along with his wife having previously owned the Brons property, stated that it was a beautiful view piece of property which he did not believe the dogs would enjoy. His thought was that it should be a park or playground, or as his wife mentioned, camp sites, but too good a piece of property to "go to the dogs".

Dawn Walters, Greenbank, made the observation that in today’s world there is a new breed of dog owners. She and her husband have two dogs, one a large golden retriever who loves the water. While her husband exercises the dogs she can sit on a log and enjoy the beach and view. The Seattle Dog Companion lists all the different parks around the Northwest, and they appreciate the book and use the different parks. Dogs are their children and they do a lot with them i.e. spend a day of their weekend taking the dogs someplace interesting, and they have missed Double Bluff greatly.

Karen Newman, Clinton, came from another place where there were dog parks and her experience in terms of dogs behavior was that dogs socialize much better off leash. She understand concerns of people about keeping the area clean and believed those who are serious about having off-leash areas for dogs would spend a little extra time cleaning up after those who do not. Hearing some opposition to Double Bluff as one of the areas, she suggested the Board give a trial period to make sure FETCH and others do make sure the areas are policed and that there are no problems with aggression. Some of the other concerns about Double Bluff could be addressed she thought by better signing in the area and fencing.

Mary Margaret Sterm, Freeland, stated that parks should be for everyone, and noted that right now, there is no place for dog owners; that constituency is part of the community, and she urged the Board’s support for off-leash park areas.

John Farrens, Clinton, inquired about fencing in dog areas, and asked about rules requiring dogs stay in that fenced-in area. He noted that his big Irish Setter loves to run and without a fence he thought it would be an impossible situation.

Mr. McFarland explained that fencing was not planned for all of the areas, nor fencing completely. No fencing is planned at Double Bluff ; the area from the park west includes over 2 miles of public beach and the tide goes out so far there would be no way of fencing. There are plans for some fencing at the Brons property. The Ala Spit property is a spit surrounded by water on three sides, very narrow opening and envisioned fencing that area at the approach. Patmore is a very large site almost completely surrounded by woods and only one open area; unless the Public Works Director provided to the contrary, he planned to leave the whole area open.

The area on Camano is a beach area with a fairly narrow area entering the property, isolated on a beach. Regulations require dogs be under voice control. As far as tidelands, he confirmed that all areas proposed were public-owned tidelands, not private.

Patricia Buchanan, President and Co-Founder of FETCH, Langley, pointed out that when she initiated the project about eight months’ ago she was able to collect 800 signatures in support in no time, places for dogs to be off leash in a legal and safe manner. A lot of concerns she believed would be easily answered by visiting an off leash park. This type park is so well used and so well loved, the success due to user groups. Off leash parks allow dogs to get out and socialize, and realized it would not be for everyone. As far as the purpose of the park, she said it was really for people, creating a unique environment where responsible pet owners and their dogs interact, promoting important socialization skills for the dogs and for people to enjoy the view. FETCH has been working to get volunteers, and plan to have park stewards and people to help promote licensing and responsible dog ownership issues. As far as liability, these parks have proven to be so safe liability is virtually a non-issue.

Mark Gaggia, Freeland, offered the suggestion that with the public owning a 550 acre berry farm in Greenbank, about 95% unused, it would be simple to fence off the northwest corner of that property and use as off leash dog area.

Ron Carrigan, Clinton, made the point that people were already running dogs off-leash at Double Bluff. He thought that if the County provided off-leash areas it would free up animal control from dealing with off-leash complaints and concentrate on other issues of concern.

John Blondin, Oak Harbor, was interested to know the purpose of the dog parks and what monitoring would be provided; and whether or not dogs registered for use of the park and the matter of release of liability for use of the parks. He did not see the purpose in having the dog park areas on the beaches. For example, Ala Spit is used for claming, crabbing, fishing and picnics, etc. and he really wondered about how that would work with dogs running loose. His suggestion was that the off-leash dog areas be other than beaches, such as Patmore, Rhododendron Park, etc. and three places on Whidbey Island – South, Central and North Whidbey but not on beaches. He thought that beaches were a bad place for dogs to be running loose. Mr. Blondin thought that the beach was no place for a dog running loose, too many people and family-oriented activities with small children. He strongly suggested keeping off leash areas away from the beaches.

Mr. McFarland stated that the parks would give people a place to exercise animals off leash. He hoped that organizations such as FETCH and the users would be stewards of the parks; the parks are now visited by park personnel between one and three times a week. There is no staff available to be able to register dogs for use of the park and no special liability other than the county maintains at this time.

Linda Fauth, Clinton, described her experience with off-leash dog parks in Hawaii – 7 years and never had a problem, in fact, was the cleanest section of Waikiki Beach and provided live entertainment for people watching the dogs swimming and running. She was in favor of the off-leash dog park areas but did suggest that attack dogs not be allowed to run.

Howard Smith, Freeland, residing just down the Bluff, did note that quite a few people love to walk on the beach, he and his wife included, but his wife is afraid to any longer because of the dogs that are running loose on the beach. There are other people who would like to have picnics and enjoy the beach but cannot do so because the dogs running around bother them.

Don Stewart, resident of Greenbank and member of the Coupeville Port Commission, advised that the Port Commission is responsible for part of the Greenbank Berry Farm and leased same out to the Greenbank Farm Management Group. As pointed out there is a large acreage and thought it consider using that property. A part of the farm is being cultivated for loganberries and other purposes and there could be some lease arrangement with the Port for off leash area.

Mr. McFarland was aware that Patricia Buchanan had been talking to the Manager of the farm to see if an area could be utilized as off-leash park for dogs.

The Chairman apprised everyone that what generally is considered to be the Greenbank Berry Farm, the cleared area where loganberries were grown, is all under the control the Coupeville Port District, not Island County. The property Island County owns is all in the wooded area. He thought it would be a fine idea to work with the Port District and get an off-leash dog area at the farm.

Mr. McFarland acknowledged a letter from the City of Eugene, Oregon, Parks and Recreation Department, who went through the same process, with the exception of the beach portion, who started with one park area in a 26 acre park and set a trial period. During the trial period, the City opened up four other areas. As time went on it all worked out very satisfactorily. The City had sworn testimonials that people had in fact moved into neighborhoods and bought property because of the existence of the dog park. It was a successful program at the end of trial period and the City adopted and ordinance to continue it. He confirmed too that all the research he did found no evidence of a lawsuit ever being filed because of off leash dog areas. He suggested that the County perhaps set some kind of a trial period.

Commissioner Thorn was very supportive of having separated areas for dogs to run off leash. He did think it important to consider off leash areas for a trial period, noting that it is easy to be driven by fears. The County needs to actualize what the experience is and not guess at what might happen. He proposed a 12 month trial period, with the ordinance revisited at the end of that time to see what problems there had been, if any, and what the benefits were.

Commissioner McDowell agreed that with more increased urbanization there is a new breed of dog owner, much more responsible, and observing his daughters and their dogs, there is a lot of concern about socializing their dogs. A lot of the concerns about off-leash parks may be overstated, with one exception. His concerns were about two waterfront areas: Ala Spit and Double Bluff, and suggested deleting those areas as off leash parks and try the other three areas and see how it works for a year.

Chairman Shelton heard no negative testimony at all about the fact that there should be off leash dog areas, only comments with regard to concern about location. Part of the issue on Double Bluff he thought was in reference to public ownership, and noted that was not necessarily county ownership.

Mr. McFarland advised that the County owned approximately 900 front feet; the tidelands from there west for another 1-¾ to 2 miles belongs to State DNR. That does not have to be designated as an off leash park but the County does have the right to authorize that as an off-leash area. His plan initially was that the off leash area start at the end of the seawall need to go further than that

Chairman Shelton in terms of Ala Spit would not be in favor of any fence at the beginning of the spit. As far as Double Bluff, the off leash area should start further than Mr. McFarland suggested.

Commissioner Thorn observed this as just designating a part of a public area where dogs can be off leash legally.

Commissioner McDowell reiterated his preference that the two beach areas, Ala Spit and Double Bluff, not be included; however, Double Bluff is a huge area compared to Ala Spit, and definitely thought Ala Spit should not be included.

Commissioner Thorn moved adoption of Ordinance #C-28-99 in the matter of amending Island County Code Sections 6.08.090 and 9.40.280 to establish authorized dog off-leash areas in County Parks, with the proviso the ordinance become effective June 7, 1999, and re-evaluated in twelve months to asses the problems, if any, and the benefits that have arisen; and remove Ala Spit from the list of authorized dog off leash areas in County parks. Motion, seconded by Commissioner McDowell, carried unanimously.

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING )

Island County Code Reviser

A. Control Off Premises. Except as provided in B., below, Iit is unlawful for the owner, keeper, or person having custody or control of any dog:

In accordance with the Board’s approved projects and activities February 22, 1999, funded by 2% tax revenues, the Board now approved, on unanimous motion, follow-on contracts with various organizations [those contracts that have been signed by the various organizations at this point; remainder to follow next week]:

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Amendment D to Contract EM007062 with the State of Washington Military Department for E-911 implementation, the changes include that the time has been extended to June 30, 1999 to complete non-recurring network and MSAG work designated in Island County’s Implementation contract.

The Board, on unanimous motion, approved and signed State of Washington County Road Administration Board Rural Arterial Program Certification of Road Fund Expenditures for Traffic Law Enforcement, showing the amount spent for traffic law enforcement during calendar year 1998 to be $502,395.00.

Betty Kemp, Director, GSA, presented a revised contract with Restoration Acres Farm, described as a name change only, from Restoration Acres Foundation to Restoration Acres Farm. By unanimous motion, the Board approved the Revised contract with Restoration Acres Farm.

The Chairman announced that the Board would meet in Executive Session at 1:45 p.m. in the Office of the County Commissioners (1) as allowed under Rc.w. 42.30.110 (1) (i) to discuss with legal council potential litigation expected to last approximately ½ hour; and (2) beginning directly thereafter as provided in r.c.w. 42.30.110 (1) (i) to discuss with legal counsel pending Litigation and last about 1 or 1-1/2 hours. No announcement was anticipated on conclusion of either Executive Session today.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. on conclusion of Executive Session. The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 12, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

ATTEST: By: Ellen Meyer, Deputy

Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board