ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  -  MINUTES OF MEETING

REGULAR SESSION  - APRIL 10, 2000 

 

The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on April  10, 2000,  at  9:30 a.m.,  Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with   Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman,   William F. Thorn, Member and Mike Shelton, Member, present.   

 

VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS

 

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board:    Voucher (War.) # 72056 – 72298 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .$490,834.89 .

 

Veterans Assistance Fund: [emergency financial assistance to certain eligible  veterans; the names and specific circumstances are maintained confidential] based on the recommendation of the  Veterans Assistance Review Committee  the Board approved Claim #V2K-5 in the amount of $1,951.23.

 

Appointment NAMED

 

By unanimous motion,  the Board appointed Ms. Heather Houlihan, Freeland, to serve as a Commissioner  for the Holmes Harbor Sewer District refilling Position #3 with existing term to December 31, 2001.

 

Sprint Pay Phone Service Agreement – Camano Multi-Purpose Center

 

On presentation by Lee McFarland, Assistant Director, GSA, the Board by unanimous motion approved Sprint Pay Phone Service  Agreement covering the installation of a pay telephone outside the Camano Multipurpose Center.

 

Employee Service Awards

 

DEPARTMENT                       EMPLOYEE                # YEARS

PUBLIC WORKS/ROAD          Henry Hilberdink                       20       

HEALTH                                  Kathleen Parvin                         10       

HEALTH                                  Dana Kelly                                5         

SHERIFF                                  Jay Wallace                               5         

 

EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – MARCH, 2000

 

Congratulations to Fred Noyes, Assessor's Office, selected as the Employee of the Month for March.  His dedication and caring efforts to the citizens of Island County  have been noteworthy, well  beyond normally-recognized responsibilities of his position.

 

Bid Award  Title Reports

 

Based on recommendation  of  Maxine Sauter, Treasurer, in a memorandum provided this date, the Board awarded bid by unanimous motion to  the low bidder, Land Title Company for the purchase of title reports required for tax foreclosures.

 

HEARING HELD: Ordinance #C-23-00 Adoption of Amendments - Procurement OF Electronic Data Processing,  Telecommunication Equipment, Software and Services

 

A Public Hearing was held for the purpose of considering Ordinance #C-23-00 Adoption of Amendments to Provide for Procurement of Electronic Data Processing and Telecommunication Equipment, Software and Services. 

 

Cathy Caryl, Director, Central Services, presented the ordinance which if adopted would  amend the County’s  procurement process to allow for competitive negotiation rather than competitive bidding for purchase of electronic data processing and telecommunication equipment and software, as well as contracting for services relating to electronic data processing.  Ms. Caryl worked with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to revise the information and changes as  provided under memorandum dated  March 7, 2000 from Dave Jamieson.

 

At the time the Chairman called for comments from the public, no one spoke either for or against the  proposal.   Suzanne Sinclair, Island County Auditor,  did comment that she believed  this would result in better acquisition practices for Island County. 

 

As far as adequately responding to the  finding Island County received from the State Auditor’s Office,

David L. Jamieson, Jr.,  Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, mentioned that he used the  statute the State Auditor referred to in making the proposed changes to the competitive solicitation process.  The County would be rolling  the competitive negotiation into its  competitive solicitation process.  This will require potentially some changes in the practice used  for acquiring other services through competitive solicitation, i.e.:  a procedure for publishing a notice soliciting requests at least 13 days prior to the deadline date for receiving; and the request for proposal must identify  the factors that are to be considered in the weighing process of what the County is going to procure and relative importance.  Therefore, this  would affect any county department that goes out for competitive solicitation for services.  The architects and engineers procedure is prescribed by State law in chapter 39.80 and this differs from that.   Any other services that are not under architects or engineers or some other special procedure for acquiring services would be required to go through the County’s competitive solicitation process. 

 

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Ordinance #C-23-00 in the matter of adoption of amendments to provide for procurement of electronic data processing and telecommunication equipment, software and services.

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION       )

OF AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE   )

FOR PROCUREMENT OF                   )

ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING )             ORDINANCE NO. C-23-00

AND TELECOMMUNICATION           )

EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE AND        )

SERVICES ______________________  )

 

          WHEREAS, state law adopted as RCW 39.04.270 provides for an alternative “competitive negotiation” process for County procurement of electronic data processing equipment, software and services and telecommunication equipment, software and services rather than utilizing standard competitive bidding; and

          WHEREAS, amendments to Island County Code are necessary to incorporate the state law provisions relating to procurement of such equipment, software and services;  NOW, THEREFORE,

 

          IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED that the amendments to Chapter 2.29 ICC and Chapter 2.30A ICC attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted.  Material lined through is deleted and material underlined is added.

 

Reviewed this 20th  day of March, 2000, and set for public hearing on the 10th  day of

April , 2000 at 9:50 a.m.  in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room.  

 

                                                BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                            ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

            Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

ATTEST:                                              Mike Shelton, Member

Margaret Rosenkranz                             William F. Thorn, Member

Clerk of the Board

BICC  00-169

                                   

            Ordinance C-23-00 is adopted this 10th  day of April, 2000 following public hearing.

                                                           

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                            ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

                        Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

                                                            Mike Shelton, Member

                                                            William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:

Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

David L. Jamieson, Jr.

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and

Island County Code Reviser

 

[Exhibit “A” on file with the Clerk of the Board]

 

Supplemental Agreement #1 to Agreement No. RM-CENT-00-0021 to reflect the correct effective date of contract:  February 1, 2000

 

As presented and reviewed by Ms. Caryl, the Board by unanimous motion  approved Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Agreement #RM-CENT-00-0021 to reflect the correct effective date of contract to be  February 1, 2000   rather than March 20, 2000, the Chairman authorized to sign on receipt of original signed by contractor.

 

Claim for Damages #R00-004CD, Puget Sound Energy

 

Betty Kemp, Director, GSA/Risk Management, presented Claim for Damages  submitted by  Puget Sound Energy, Claim #R00-004CD, in the amount of $1,059.40 for an alleged incident resulting in damages to PSE utility pole.   The Company alleges the incident occurred on October 5, 1999 when an Island County Truck operator raised the truck bed to spread crushed rock.  Investigation determined that Public Works Department  operating procedures  address specific procedures to control claims of this nature; truck bed heights are measured periodically to ensure the height does not reach 18’.  The equipment was checked and measured at 17’ 9”, and the PSE wires were well below the required  18’ minimum height.  Recommendation of Risk Management and Public Works is that the  claim be denied.

 

By unanimous motion, the Board denied the Claim based on recommendation of County staff.

 

Supplemental Agreement #2 – Agreement #PW-992025; Datum Pacific; Inc.

 

As presented and recommended for approval by Lew Legat, Island County Engineer, the Board by

unanimous motion,  approved Supplemental Agreement No 2  to Agreement #PW-992025 with  Datum Pacific; Inc. for  Drainage Study, Holmes  Harbor Sewer District,  WO #281

 

Purchase Order 01190/Landscaping & Irrigation

 

The Board, on unanimous motion, approved and signed  Purchase Order #01190 for Landscaping & Irrigation  Installation for South Whidbey Family Resource Center, under work order  #350, purchased from  Windwood Landscape, in the amount of $9,943.56.

 

Special Inspection Services Contract – Agreement #PW-002013

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed Special Inspection Services Contract Agreement # PW-002013 with  Geo-Test Services related to the new  Law & Justice Facility, under work order  #301, in the amount of $12,200.00.

 

Stormwater Mitigation Agreement

 

Stormwater Mitigation Agreement was approved by unanimous motion of the Board, with  B & H Con-

struction of Washington, for  Lot 17, Block 3, Holmes Harbor Golf & Yacht Club, Division 7.

 

ADOPT-A-ROAD LITTER CONTROL PROGRAM AGREEMENTS APPROVED

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved the following Adopt-A-Road Litter Control Agreements and

renewal:

 

§        Historic Bayview Corner; Bayview Road from Highway 525 to Marshview Avenue

§        Central Whidbey Lions Club; renewal of agreement, Engle Road from town limits of Town of  Coupeville to Fort Casey Road

§        Windermere, Dan Garrison, Inc.; renewal of agreement, East Camano Drive from Lehman Road to Monticello                                    

§        Whidbey Island Flower & Seed; renewal of agreement, Bakken Road-Day Road from Highway 525 to Christianson Road             

§        Floralia Gardens; renewal of agreement, Wonn Road and North Bluff Road from Highway 525 (including all of Wonn Road) to North Bluff to shoreline

§        South Whidbey Centaurs (4-H Group); renewal of agreement, Langley Road from Island County Fair Grounds to one-half of Langley Road near Highway 525. 

 

Resolution #C-37-00 Proclaiming April 17, 2000 Volunteer Guardian

Ad Litem Day in Island County, Washington

 

Jane Koetje,  Public Defense Administrator, Guardian-ad Litem Program,  appeared in support of the Board proclaiming April 17, 2000 Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Day in Island County, Washington. Along with Mrs. Koetje, approximately 15 GALs were present, representing about two-thirds of the  volunteers.  She brought out a number of important points about the volunteer GALs:   

 

§        over 250,000 children in Washington State woke up this morning in foster care beds

§        the  majorty of these children are in foster care because of dependency actions

§        GALs are the ears and the eyes of a dependency action for the court; they  investigate,

             advocate, facilitate and monitor  a dependency action

§        Goal is to ensure that every child is in a permanent, safe   home where they can go to

        sleep each night not wondering where they will spend the next night

§        Every child has a right to live in a safe, loving and nurturing environment; a right they are

        born with and should not be something earned, but something that is normal.

§        From 1988 GALs have represented over 250 Island County abused and neglected children

           

Commissioners  McDowell, Thorn and Shelton personally thanked the volunteer Guardian ad-Litems and

acknowledged the services performed for the children who through no fault of their own find themselves in very difficult situations. 

 

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Resolution #C-37-00 Program,  proclaiming April 17, 2000 Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Day in Island County, Washington.

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF

ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

IN THE MATTER OF PROCLAIMING            }

APRIL 17, 2000 VOLUNTEER GUARDIAN     }

AD LITEM DAY IN ISLAND COUNTY,          }          RESOLUTION #C-37-00

WASHINGTON                                                }

 

            WHEREAS, the purpose of Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Day is to recognize the dedicated men and women in our county who serve as Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem.

 

            WHEREAS, the Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Program has established a distinguished record of public service through their work to enhance the quality of life for children; and

 

            WHEREAS, the court appoints Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem advocates to serve as officers of the court, helping to improve the quality of information presented to the court by acting as the courts eyes and ears in the child’s life; and

 

            WHEREAS, April, 2000, is named Child Abuse Prevention Month, an observance that reflects the purpose of Guardian Ad Litem Programs, to protect and defend children from harm and ensure that abused and neglected children are provided with the court-ordered services they need;

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of Island County Commissioners,  do hereby proclaim April 17, 2000, as

 

Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Day

 

in Island County, and we urge all citizens to join us in this special observance.

 

            SIGNED  this 10th  day of  April,  2000.                        

           

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ISLAND  COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

William F. Thorn, Member

Mike Shelton,   Member

ATTEST:  Margaret Rosenkranz,

Clerk of the Board       BICC 00-231

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

The Board met in Executive Session 11:15 a.m.  [Commissioners Office]  as allowed under  RCW  42.30.110 (1) (i)  to discuss pending/potential  litigation with legal counsel.  The session  lasted approximately one hour and no announcement was made on conclusion in open public session.

 

GMA PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

§        Ordinance #C-135-99, PLG-042-99, continued from 11/8/99, 11/22/99, 11/23/99, 1/10/00, 2/14/00, 3/13/00  Amending the Comp Plan and Developmental Regulations to Comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Relating to Rural Densities in the Rural Area

 

§        Ordinance #C-03-00, PLG-002-00, continued from 2/14/00, 3/13/00   Amending Chapter 17.02 ICC Relating to Certain Provisions of the County’s Critical Area Regulations

 

§        Ordinance #C-30-00, PLG-010-00, Amending Chapter 17.03 ICC, to Comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings board Relating to Residential Uses in the Rural Zone

  

Attendance:       Public:            5            [Attendance Sheet GMA doc. #5637]

                        Staff:               Keith Dearborn; Dave Jamieson; Jeff Tate; Phil Bakke                        

 

Hand-outs

§        Ordinance #C-135-99 introduced 10/18/99 [GMA doc. #4907]  scheduled for hearing  on 11/8/99

       and continued to:  11/22/99; 11/23/99; 1/10/00; 2/14/00; 3/13/00 and 4/10/00   in order to consider          

       amendments and further refinements 

 

§        Exhibit C Findings  and Legislative Intent – Rural Densities 4/10/00 Revised, for Ordinance C-135-99   GMA doc. #5629

 

§        “Review Rural Densities and Land Division; Planning Department April 10, 2000”  [GMA doc. #5630]

 

§        Ordinance #C-03-00 introduced        on 1/10/00 [GMA doc. #5267] and set for hearing 2/14/00, continued to 3/14/00 and 4/10/00 

 

§        Proposed Amendment No. 1  to C-03-00                   GMA doc. #5624

            Reduces size threshold for wetlands to provide greater protection to critical areas

            in the Rural Zone

 

§        Proposed Amendment No. 2  to C-03-00                   GMA doc. #5625

            Type 5 Stream Buffers and Category B Wetland buffer sizes should be

            linked to permitted density and not parcel size 

 

§        Proposed  Amendment  No. 3  to C-03-00                 GMA doc. #5626

            Change in wetland threshold sizes effective on determination that no

            change to Rural Zone 5-acre minimum lot size is needed

 

§        Proposed  Amendment  No. 4  to C-03-00                 GMA doc. #5627

            Reduces the size threshold for wetlands to provide greater protection to critical areas

            in the Rural Zone but excludes existing and on-going agriculture in the Rural Zone

 

§        Exhibit C – Revised 4/10/00 to  C-03-00                    GMA doc. #5628

 

Amendments #1 through #3 were prepared based upon testimony received on January 10th, and sent out via e-mail, mail and fax to all participants at the January 10th hearing.    Amendment #4 was also prepared in response to public testimony but was not sent out to  those who testified on January 10th until  today.   Exhibit C Findings are revised to addressed the proposed amendments.  Amendment #4 would substitute for Amendment #1 [both #1 and #4 will not be adopted].

 

§        Ordinance #C-30-00 introduced    3/22/00 [GMA doc. # 5616] and set for hearing 4/10/00

 

Mr. Dearborn confirmed that everything today was  in response to the June 2nd Order of the Growth Board; these   three ordinances are the  actions relating to that decision.  Once adopted, the ordinances will be forwarded to the Growth Board requesting confirmation that the County complies with GMA.  As required  by the Growth Board, the County adopted and has at this time interim regulations for the rural zone that changed the minimum lot size from 5 acres to 10 acres, and extended the interim regulations twice.  The ordinances if adopted would replace the ten acre  interim ordinance and restore five acre zoning in the rural zone.  If not found valid, the ten acre zone will be retained.  Two compliance actions  are pending before the Growth Board   [this will be the third].  The Growth Board  advised they would  consider at one time all final compliance determinations and are waiting for this action to be completed  before they schedule final compliance proceedings. Two items have to be addressed to respond to decisions  after June 2nd:  one relates to Freeland and Clinton; the other relates to  Shoreline Buffer Reductions.

 

Mr. Dearborn  advised that for the  second “Be It Hereby Ordained ” paragraph in Ordinance #C-135-99 he would recommend wording  identical to what is now the second “Be It Further Ordained” in Ordinance #C-30-00.

 

Jeff Tate,  Planning Manager, completed his research with regard to subdivision in the rural area and how it relates to the rural area, and put together a document for hand-out today, and took the time to review each page by  overhead projector of his report   [GMA doc. #5630].  In summary:

 

            Protecting Rural Character – GMA Requirements

            Protecting Rural Character-Island County Comprehensive  Plan

                        Protection  of Rural Character-goal since   1977 Phase  II Plan

                        1984 Is. Co. down-zoned  entire Rural Residential  Zone from 1 du/2.5 acres to 1                                      du/5 acres

                        Is. Co. adopted and began implementation  the 1984 Is. Co. Zoning Ordinance

                        Rural Forest Land Use Designation

                                    14,000 acres or 10.5% of the County

                        Rural Agriculture Land Use Designation

                                    6,000 acres or 4.5% of the County

                        Rural Land Use Designation

                                    73,500 acres or 55% of the County zoned Rural outside of JPA’s & Mineral                                              Lands

                                    45,110 acres are less than 10 acres and not subdividable

                                    28,390 acres or 1,811 parcels located outside JPA’s & Mineral Lands are 9

                                                acres or larger and could be subdivided into smaller lots

                                    [those parcels are shown on the Map posted on the wall, GMA doc. #5298]

                                      showing in light gold color the dispersed pattern of those lots 9  acres to 19.99                                            acres, and 20 acres and larger shown in darker brown]

            [correction: Protecting Rural Character – Rural Land Use Designation, the last                                      sentence of this graphic should read:  “Hearings Board has declared that non-residential                       rural uses are GMA compliant”]

 

                         Rural Areas of More Intensive Development

                                    9.000 acres or 8% of the County

                        How Figures and Location of Lands Were  Determined

                        Rural Zone Acreage chart

                        [table break-down corresponds with the map posted on the wall – only

                                                1 parcel of about 80 acres]        

                        Rural Land Issues

                                    Do 5 acre lots pose a threat to critical areas

                                    Do 5 acre lots pose a threat to resource lands

                                    Do 5 acre lots pose a threat to UGAs

                                    Is there a variety of densities within Is. Co.

                                                Chart:  Zone; Base Density; Acres; % of Rural Area        

                                                Do 5 acre lots pose a threat to rural character      

                                    [break down of each of the zones; what base density is; how

                                     many acres n that zone; and what percent of rural area it

                                    refers to – Map record #5298]

                                    Lot Size Distribution – Rural Lands – Ultimate Parcelization Chart

                        Rural Character

                                    PRDs

                                    Non-Residential development

                                                Example #1   Henderson Dry Storage, South Whidbey

                                                Example #2   Church just south of Coupeville                 

                                                Example #3   Mini storage by OLF Coupeville

                        Rural 5  Subdivisions

                                    5 acre subdivision

                                    Critical Areas Regulations

                                    Example of a Typical Subdivision-protection of critical areas-post 1984

                                                [a copy  off the face of a plat – restrictions]

                                    Example of a Typical Subdivision-protection of critical areas-post 1984

                                                [protection of critical areas]

                                    Example of a Typical Subdivision-protection of critical areas-pre 1984

                                                [Highland Meadows plat created in 1969)

                                    Drainage Regulations

                                    Rural 5 Acre Subdivisions – Examples

                                                Winterhawk Lane      [including aerial  photograph; and plat map]

                                                 Wildlife Haven/Wildwood  [aerial photograph included and  plat map ]

                                    Protecting Rural Character-Do 5 acre lots pose a threat to rural character?

                                        [copy of three photographs  as examples showing the impact has pretty

                                           much been felt] 

                        Rural 10 vs. Rural 5 – Ultimate Parcelization [chart]

                        Actions Taken – Providing Additional Protection to Rural Character

                                                Signs and Lighting Ordinance

                                                Cell Tower Ordinance

                                                Amendments to standards and review  criteria for Non-residential

                                                            uses in the Rural Zone

                                                Amendments  to standards for PRDs

                                                Amendments to PRD provisions and Non-residential uses have

                                                     both been found to be in compliance with GMA

                                                AG BMPs including seasonal restrictions on live-stocking rates

                                                            and fencing requirements for existing AG operations

                                                Standards for protection of Heron & Osprey

                                                Standards for protection of DNR designated Natural Heritage Lands

                                                Standards for designation of species of local importance

                                                Restrictions on use of functionally isolated buffers and requirement of a

                                                            BSA

                                                All estuarine wetlands are designated as a Category A wetland                                                                   providing more stringent  protective standards

                                                County authorization [note:  corrected to notification] required for site                                                     investigate work

                        Recommended Actions  

1.      Threat:  location of structures close to highways, arterials and collectors creates the appearance of suburban sprawl

                                          Solution:  increased setbacks of residential structures from the road

2.      Threat:  narrow lots cause increased clearing in order to accommodate more accesses.

                                          Solution:  crate minimum lot width along highways and arterials.

3.     Threat:   uncontrolled development of a site can lead to increased bulk and  structures on a single parcel

                                          Solution:  Limit the building site coverage allowed.

 

At this point in the presentation, Mr. Tate  drew attention to the maps posted on the wall, and pointed out the following:

 

            Map [GMA Doc. #5299] is the same as #5298  in that it shows the  same rural parcels 9 acres to 19.99 acres and those above 20, but  shows them in relation to Rural Forest, Rural AG and Commercial AG lands.  When looking at this staff tried to  figure out if there was a  reason to down zone parcels in the rural zone to protect the resource lands, but on review found that  most of the lands around resource lands are less than 5 acres already and there does not seem to be much of a pattern to show  big buffers or  expanses of land around resource lands that could be down zoned to provide protection to those  resource lands. 

            Map [GMA doc. # 4860]  showing parcels  9 acres to 19.99 acres and 20+ acres adjacent to resource lands  of long term commercial significance,  mineral lands and commercial AG lands, which

Mr. Tate noted again showed there are not many [shown in red color].

            Staff looked at four streams and several major wetland systems to see where the parcels are

larger than 9 acres  in relation to those critical areas.  The acreage shown in green color is already  10 acre or 20 acre zone [RF and RAG]; the gold color shows the parcels zoned rural that are along stream corridors identified in the shaded area [stream itself and the buffer].    On review to see if those parcels [gold color]  were down zoned to 10 acres would  provide additional protection to the critical area, as noted there are not that many  [GMA doc. #4859]. 

            Another map [GMA doc. #4727]  showed the three cities identified in dark blue with UGAs in lighter blue, with a red marker outline showing the joint planning area.  The parcels noted in yellow within the JPA are those parcels 9 acres and larger.    Staff unanimously agreed that regardless of location  the protective standards addressed in the interlocal agreement not precluding urban development in the joint planning area was addressed  and saw no need to do any down zoning there.