ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
- MINUTES OF MEETING
The Board of Island County Commissioners (including
Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on February 3, 2003, at
9:30 a.m. in the Law &
Justice Facility, Department III (Courtroom 3), 101 N.E. 6th Street,
Coupeville, Wa. Wm. L. McDowell,
Chairman, William J. Byrd, Member, and Mike Shelton, Member, were present. By unanimous motion, the Board approved the
minutes from the meeting of January 27, 2003.
VOUCHERS
AND PAYMENT OF BILLS
The
following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of
the Board:
Voucher
(War.) # 158582-158724 ……………………………………………..$217,445.73
December 31, 2009;
Forwarded under cover memorandum dated 1/30/03 from
Lee McFarland, GSA/Parks & Recreation Division, the Board by unanimous
approved and signed Declaration of Covenants for Four Springs Lake Preserve
property for a 100’ sanitary radius around what will become a public water system.
Contract
#EM 03009 Amendment B Interlocal Agreement - Washington State Department of Military,
Emergency Management Division
By unanimous motion the Board approved Contract #EM 03009 Amendment B [RM-BOC-02-0070] Interlocal Agreement between the Washington State Department of Military, Emergency Management Division, and Island County, for E-911 Operations Contract FY2003, the amendment representing an increase of $53,270.00 for new total contract amount of $168,170.00.
Agreement to Complete Improvements Required for Subdivision
of Land – Mary G. Boock & Lynn Mizono; Short Plat 139-02
AND Trust Established for Benefit of Island County
By unanimous motion, the Board approved Agreement to complete improvements required for subdivision of land (RM-PW0220103), with Mary G. Boock and Lynn Mizono, under Short Plat 139-02, Parcel 277-5310; Sec. 2, Twp 29N., R 3E, and approved a trust established for the benefit of Island County (RM-PW0220103) from Mary G. Boock & Lynn Mizono, in the amount of $8,437.00 under Short Plat 139-02, Parcel 277-5310; Sec. 2, Twp 29N., R 3E., as presented and recommended for approval by Dick Snyder, County Engineer.
Resolution
#C-07-03 (PLG-001-03) - Findings of Fact - Camp Casey Conference Center Master Plan and
Special Review District
As a follow-on from the
Board’s decision at public meeting
on December 16, 2002, Resolution
#C-07-03 (PLG-001-03) in the matter of adopting Findings of Fact
related to the adoption of CPA 031/02, PLG-015-02, C-92-02 approving the Camp Casey Conference Center Master Plan
and Special Review District was
presented to the Board for approval by Phil Bakke, Planning &
Community Development Director, and Jeff Tate, Assistant Planning & Community
Development Director.
At the time of presentation,
members of the public attending included:
Steve Erickson, WEAN; Marianne Edain, WEAN; Roger Purdue, Coupeville;
Nathan Whalen, Whidbey News Times Reporter;
Diane Painter, Oak Harbor; and
two others in the audience who were not identified.
Chairman McDowell announced
for the record that the Board received early this morning written comments from
Steve Erickson, WEAN. [GMA record
#_________]
Mr. Tate confirmed having had an opportunity to read
a copy of Mr. Erickson’s transmittal
prior to the meeting. He responded to comment 14 on page 3 of the letter regarding finding
of fact #22 that states: “ …no one
spoke in favor of the development proposal
except for representatives of SPU, County staff, and the County
Commissioners. All members of the public who testified opposed the
development”.
Mr. Tate countered
that statement was really not true; in
fact, people who spoke raised
concerns, and there were a number of folks who said they had nothing against SPU and their plans,
rather were raising some issues.
Commissioner Shelton took
issue with Mr. Erickson’s comment too in that he clearly recalled that Marshall Bronson representing the National Parks/Ebey’s
Landing Historic Reserve Board specifically supported the proposal.
Mr. Tate addressed Mr. Erickson’s comment #3 regarding Finding
of Fact #7 recounting the meeting between representatives of SPU, NPS
and ELNHR saying that “no
representative of Island County is
listed as having been present at these meetings. If there was no County
representative present, the source of these
‘facts’ is presumably second hand information from SUP. Hence, this
cannot be a factual finding by the County Commissioners unless it is prefaced
with a statement attributing this information, such as ‘According
to SPU…’.”. He confirmed it was true that no Island County staff were present, but he talked to NPS and EBLHR and knew they were not there; he also knew they had been invited, and believed it
more than just second hand information; it is easily documented information
that indicated that the meetings did
occur and representatives were not there.
Commissioner Shelton moved
that the Board approve Resolution #C-07-03/PLG-001-03 in the matter of
adopting Findings of Fact related to
the adoption of CPA 031/02, PLG-015-02, C-92-02 which approved the Camp Casey
Conference Center Master Plan and Special Review District. Motion, seconded by Commissioner Byrd,
carried unanimously.
In response to a request from audience members, the public was given
an opportunity to comment, each two minutes if desired.
Steve Erickson, WEAN,
believed that some of the proposed
findings were factually erroneous and that some incredibly important facts in
numerous places were omitted, and
appeared to be an attempt to provide
legal justification for what had
been done, something he said would be
shaken out later in front of the Hearings Board. He noted concern because the
development could be placed outside of the forest in areas not as sensitive
environmentally, but no attempt
was made to mitigate those impacts by avoiding those impacts. In his opinion the development is
clearly urban development. He
referred to Page 4 of his comments regarding findings #19. He noted that one claim for justification
for the development or master planned resort was that without it there are no
limitations on scale in the existing ordinance if it remains in the
rural zone. Reviewing the County’s
ordinance he thought that to a certain extent it is true, and found the wording
somewhat ambiguous. If the interpretation is correct, i.e. there are no limitations in terms of expansion of existing
non conforming uses other than
height, setbacks and parking provisions, he suggested it was a serious loophole
in the ordinance, one that goes beyond this application, and that emergency action should be taken to close that loop hole.
Roger Purdue called attention to the finding #32. Scanning the dictionary in review of rural,
country, etc. those seemed to relate to
animals, livestock, agriculture,
sparsely populated, etc. and therefore
thought the SPU project did not fit the
category and was being placed in the rural zone only because the that zone provided for various uses that
are uncommon and difficult to site. He suggested that the County needed to design a new category or spell out better
what rural zones are. He said that Camp Casey was a good
neighbor but contended the project did not fit
rural classification.
Commissioner Shelton agreed it
did not fit the rural zone which was exactly what the County was
addressing: the provision in the County’s Comprehensive Plan
for special review districts such as previous SRDs like Greenbank Farm and Au
Sable. SPU was required to submit a comprehensive plan for future development of Camp Casey. When this matter originally came before
the Planning Commission the Planning Commission deemed it premature until SPU
submitted a comprehensive plan. There
has been a lot of input in terms of how
that plan was put together, and SPU went the
extra mile to formulate their comprehensive plan for that specific piece
of property. The comprehensive plan by
SPU does not translate into the ability
of SPU to go out and start building new buildings.
Marianne Edain, WEAN,
quoted Commissioner Shelton from an article in The Falcon, the Seattle Pacific University student
newspaper, [Issue 10 published 1-15-03]
saying: “There is a piece of property
that will require some special attention” …”the winds there are pretty
legendary, and some people are concerned about blowdown” . . “SPU is certainly
cognizant of this issue…there are ways that they can hopefully minimize this
destruction.”. She stated that it was
obvious the Commissioners were aware of the potential for damage. She asserted there were alternatives, and questioned with the awareness of the potential for damage why SPU was
granted in effect a blanket
approval with the rezone
rather than imposition of specific conditions to protect critical areas
and the natural heritage site.
Donna Painter posed a
question: “Why do we have national heritage sites if they are not protected?”.
Commissioner McDowell
commented that the idea there is a
blanket approval to do anything
was not correct; if or when SPU decided to do something there is a permit process they must go through, just as
anyone else would be required to
do. There are sideboards on what SPU can do and the statement that this
approval is a blanket approval is simply
not true. [GMA Record #_________ Adopted Findings ]
BEFORE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
|
IN THE
MATTER OF ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF CPA 031/02,
PLG-015-02, C-92-02 WHICH APPROVED THE CAMP CASEY CONFERENCE CENTER MASTER
PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT |
) ) RESOLUTION C-07-03 ) PLG-001-03 ) ) ) |
WHEREAS, the Board of Island County Commissioners held a
public meeting on December 16, 2002 for the purposes of adopting the Island
County Planning Commission recommendations related to amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations and Zoning Atlas; and
WHEREAS, by majority vote, the Island County Planning
Commission recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 031/02
which proposed adoption of the Camp Casey Conference Center Master Plan,
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, amendments to Chapter 17.03 ICC and
amendments to the Zoning Atlas; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance C-92-02, PLG-015-02 was approved by
unanimous vote by the Board of Island County Commissioners and which accepted
the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT
RESOLVED by the Board of Island
County Commissioners that Findings of Fact for Ordinance C-92-02, PLG-015-02,
attached hereto as Exhibit A, are hereby adopted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3 day of February, 2003.
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman
William J. Byrd, Member
Mike Shelton, Member
ATTEST: Elaine
Marlow
Clerk of the Board
Exhibit A
FINDINGS OF
FACT AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT
CPA 031/02
Camp Casey Conference Center Special Review District and Master Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 708/00 was accepted
as a complete application in January 2000.
The application requested a rezone of the 270 acre Camp Casey Conference
Center from Rural to Special Review District.
The proposal was added to the Island County Planning Commission Annual
Review Docket. The Planning Commission
advertised public hearings for May 28, June 6 and June 20 of 2000. SPU presented its request to the Planning
Commission, which did not include a Master Plan or accompanying development
regulations. Because the rezone request
did not include a Master Plan, SPU agreed with the Planning Commission that it
was appropriate to prepare a Master Plan, which defines the structures, uses
and activities that would be allowed in conjunction with the Special Review
District Zoning designation. The proposal
was tabled and SPU began preparation of a Master Plan for the Conference
Center.
2.
CPA 031/02 was
accepted by Island County as a complete application on January 29, 2002. The application requested rezone of the Camp
Casey Conference Center from Rural to Special Review District, adoption of a
Master Plan and the amendment of Chapter 17.03 ICC (the Island County Zoning
Ordinance) to incorporate zoning and land use standards applicable to the new
zoning district. The proposal was added
to the Island County Planning Commission Annual Review Docket.
3.
The Whidbey News
Times ran an article on April 10, 2002 titled Camp Casey to Expand. The article provided detailed information on
the proposal, including existing and proposed figures related to the occupancy
rates, the number of beds and the types and sizes of structures that would be
allowed if the proposal were to be approved.
The article included an artist’s rendering of the proposed site
plan. The article ended by stating that
the Planning Commission was expected to hold a public hearing on the matter
sometime in June or July.
4.
The South Whidbey
Record ran an article on April 20, 2002 titled University Proposes Expansion
of Camp Casey. The article provided
detailed information on the proposal, including existing and proposed figures
related to occupancy rates, the number of beds and the types and sizes of
structures that would be allowed if the proposal were approved. The article ended by stating that the
Planning Commission was expected to hold a public hearing on the matter
sometime in June or July.
5.
The Everett Herald
ran an article on April 29, 2002 titled Revamping Casey. The article provided detailed information on
the proposal, including existing and proposed figures related to occupancy
rates, the number of beds and the types and sizes of structures that would be
allowed if the proposal were approved.
The article ended by stating that the Planning Commission was expected
to hold a public hearing on the matter sometime in June or July.
6.
Island County
Planning and Community Development prepared a staff report with a
recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission. The staff report was transmitted to the
Planning Commission on April 30, 2002.
7.
Several meetings
were conducted between SPU and the National Park Service (NPS) including a
January 29, 2002 meeting between SPU representatives and Rob Harbour (Ebey’s
Landing National Historic Reserve Manager), Keith Dunbar (NPS) and Rick Wagner
(NPS). During this meeting SPU
representatives and consultants provided a detailed presentation of the
proposed Master Plan and how it related to the interests of the Ebey’s
Reserve. Additional meetings have been
conducted between SPU and the NPS following application submittal.
8.
Island County
Planning and Community Development provided public notice in all local
newspapers that the Planning Commission would be conducting a public hearing on
May 28, 2002 for the purpose of gathering public input on the Camp Casey
Conference Center proposal. Less than
five members of the public attended this public hearing. Members of the public
who testified expressed support for this proposal. No written comment was
received from members of the public in connection with this proposal. This
hearing was not attended by representatives
of the National Park Service or the Ebey's Reserve, and no written
comments were received from NPS or the Ebey's Reserve. Likewise, no
representative of any Washington State agency attended the hearing or submitted
written comments.
9.
Island County
Planning and Community Development provided public notice in all local
newspapers that the Planning Commission would conduct a public meeting to
deliberate on the SPU proposal on June 11, 2002. The public meeting was attended by the applicant’s representatives;
however, there was no public attendance.
During the public meeting, a majority of the total members of the
Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a recommendation to the Board
of Island County Commissioners to approve CPA 031/02.
SEPA AND STATE AGENCY REVIEW
10.
Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.106, on July 25, 2002 Planning and Community Development forwarded the
Planning Commission recommendation, Master Plan and CPA 031/02 to all state
agencies.
11.
One of the state
agencies that the proposal was forwarded to was the Department of Natural
Resources, which administers the Natural Heritage Program.
12.
Planning and
Community Development received no comments from any of the state agencies that
the application was forwarded to, including DNR.
13.
Pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (RCW Chapter 43.21C), a revised environmental
checklist was submitted by SPU on January 29, 2002 with the application for
this proposal. On November 4, 2002, Planning and Community Development issued
an environmental threshold determination of nonsignificance (DNS) and notice of adoption of the existing
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Island County Comprehensive Plan
(that was previously adopted on September 18, 1998). Environmental review has been conducted using the phased review
provisions of WAC 197-11-060(5).
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-060(5)(c)(ii), phased review is appropriate when
the sequence is from an environmental document on a specific proposal at an
early stage (such as need and site selection) to a subsequent environmental
document at a later stage (such as sensitive design impacts).
14.
Public notice of the
determination of nonsignificance (DNS)
was published in local newspapers, stating that comments regarding this
proposal must be submitted by November 22, 2002. During the public comment
period, 19 letters were received by Planning and Community Development.
15.
The majority of
issues raised in the comment letters were related to the provision of potable
water and potential impacts to the forest land that is designated as a Natural
Heritage area.
16.
Planning and
Community Development reviewed the SEPA comments that were submitted. On December 2, 2002, in response to public
comments received, staff forwarded a request to SPU to provide clarification
and additional information on some of the matters that were raised, as well as
any information that SPU wished to provide in response to the comments
received.
17.
On December 10,
2002, SPU provided its written response to staff’s request.
18.
On December 12,
2002, Planning and Community Development mailed a written response to all 19
members of the public who commented during the SEPA comment period. In the 27 page response, staff addressed
each of the issues raised in each of the letters. The response identified each of the respondents, described
generally each issue raised, and responded in detail to each issue.
BOARD_OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC
MEETING
19.
On December 16, 2002
the Board of Island County Commissioners held a public meeting to consider
adoption of the recommendations of the Island County Planning Commission, as
they pertain to the 2002 Island County Annual Review Docket. Ordinance C-92-02, PLG-015-02 was one of
five amendment items before the Board, and included the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment, rezoning of the 270 acre Camp Casey Conference Center from
Rural to Special Review District, adoption of a Master Plan, and adoption of
amendments to Chapter 17.03 ICC, (the
Island County Zoning Ordinance).
20.
The Board advertised
the public meeting in the South Whidbey Record, the Whidbey News Times, the
Coupeville Examiner and the Stanwood/Camano News.
21.
At the public
meeting before the Board on December 16, 2002, Planning and Community
Development staff provided an overview of the annual review process; a history
of the dates of public hearings, newspaper articles, and decisions rendered by
the Planning Commission; an overview of the Master Plan; and a description of
the differences between the current Rural zoning and the proposed Special
Review District zoning.
22.
Although there is no
requirement for the Board to accept public testimony at a public meeting, the
Board permitted those in attendance to comment, and to ask questions of the
applicant’s representatives and the Planning and Community Development staff.
BOARD OF ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS OF FACT
23.
Seattle Pacific
University has been a valued presence in Island County for nearly 50 years. SPU
has demonstrated that it is a good steward of land and the Camp Casey
Conference Center through: its ongoing efforts to preserve the historic character
of the World War I and World War II era Fort Casey military facilities; its
on-going efforts to preserve and protect the environmental quality of this 270
acre area; its ongoing efforts to preserve and protect the rural character of
Central Whidbey Island; its ongoing efforts to provide a valued facility for
the tens of thousands of children who have attended athletic and youth camps;
the numerous educational opportunities that SPU has provided for environmental
organizations, church groups and non-profit organizations; its continuing
efforts to cooperate with the goals and objectives of the Ebey’s Landing
National Historic Reserve and National Park Service; and its positive impact on
the rural economy of Whidbey Island.
24.
It is essential that
SPU remain financially solvent in order to continue operating the Camp Casey
Conference Center and not be forced to sell these facilities. It is recognized
that revenues generated from tuition at SPU’s Seattle campus are not available
to subsidize maintenance and operation costs incurred at the Conference Center.
25.
Adoption of the
rezone (from Rural to Special Review District), the Master Plan, and
implemental land use and zoning standards will provide the opportunity for SPU
to continue its presence in Central Whidbey, by creating a predictable land use
scenario which permits SPU to make adjustments to its existing Conference
Center operation, and thereby remain financially viable..
26.
Adoption of the
rezone from Rural to Special Review District, the Master Plan, and implemental
land use and zoning standards provides residents of Central Whidbey with
definite and predictable limitations on the uses, activities and structures
allowed on this site. Current zoning
does not provide such predictability or limitations on permissible
expansion. Casey Conference Center
facilities are classified as “Existing Uses” pursuant to ICC 17.03.230, which
allows for the expansion of uses and structures that were lawfully established,
but no longer conform to the standards or regulations of the zone in which they
are located. ICC 17.03.230 establishes no limit on the amount of permissible
expansion. Therefore, by submitting its Master Plan, SPU is agreeing to
establish limitations and additional land use requirements that currently do
not exist.
27.
ICC 17.03.160, which
establishes the Special Review District zoning classification, provides that
this classification shall be applied to property “in single public Ownership or
owned and/or managed by a non-profit organization.” If the Casey Conference
Center remains in the Rural zoning designation, SPU could sell the facility to
a for-profit organization, which could then develop these 270 acres in
accordance with the provisions of the Rural zone. Those uses include
residential development, and non-residential development such as a golf course,
mini-storage, country inns, and cell towers. In contrast, if the Casey
Conference Center property is classified as a Special Review District for
zoning purposes, unless this property is rezoned to the Rural classification,
it may only be owned in single public ownership, or owned and/or managed by a
non-profit organization, and its use must conform to the standards established
for this Special Review District in the Master Plan.
28.
On September 29, 1998 the Board of Island County Commissioner adopted
the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. During public hearings held in the years prior to their adoption,
the BICC clearly stated that it did not want to incorporate standards to allow
Master Planned Resorts, using the provisions of RCW 36.70A.360, because the
Board did not feel that the residents of Island County wanted Master Planned
Resorts in Island County. The Planning
Commission and Board were aware of the
Camp Casey Conference Center when the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and
approved. The Planning Commission and Board chose not to designate the Camp
Casey Conference Center as a Master Planned Resort pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362,
because of the Board’s position that the Camp Casey Conference Center does not
constitute a Master Planned Resort. The Board maintains its position that
Master Planned Resorts are not a desired use in Island County, and that the
Camp Casey Conference Center does not constitute a Master Planned Resort.
Likewise, it is the Board’s determination that the uses and structures provided
for in the Master Plan do not constitute a Master Planned Resort.
29.
The Camp Casey Conference Center is an existing facility that may be
permitted to expand in conformance with the Master Plan goals, policies,
objectives and implementing regulations.
While expansion of the current facility may be permitted in the future,
the Board finds that the use of the site as a conference center is not
changing. The facility has functioned
as a conference center since its acquisition in 1956, and will continue to be a
conference center under the Master Plan.
The adopted rezone and Master Plan do not change the nature of the use
of the site.
30.
The adopted amendments create a new set of land use standards that
restrict the allowed uses, activities and structures within the Special Review
District. Additional provisions have
been adopted that provide clarity and limitations that did not exist prior to
the adoption of the Special Review District, rezone and Master Plan. The Board finds that these provisions are not
inconsistent with other land use regulations, and that adherence to those
regulations will be required for all development proposals and land use
activities which may be proposed in the future. For example, adherence to critical area regulations, clearing and
grading regulations, sewage disposal regulations, potable water requirements,
fireflow standards, traffic concurrency requirements, shoreline master program
requirements, environmental review requirements, and all other land use
regulations will be required. The
adoption of this Master Plan and rezone shall not be construed as an attempt to
override or undermine any other land use standards. The adoption of this Master Plan shall not be construed as a “pre-approval”
under other applicable laws for any of the structures, uses or activities that
may be permitted within the Special Review District. Development permits shall be obtained for all new or modified
structures, and shall be reviewed for conformance with all pertinent rules and
regulations in effect at that time.
Uses, activities and structures allowed in this Special Review District
will be permitted only if they satisfy all of the other applicable regulations
then in effect. For example, if potable water cannot be obtained, no new
habitable building will be permitted. Likewise, any development must satisfy
applicable requirements of the critical areas ordinance. Additional
environmental review in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act will
be required for future phases of this proposal. For example, additional
environmental review will be required when application is made for any specific
construction project.
31.
The adoption of the Master Plan and rezone do not constitute approval
of a source of potable water for new construction, and such approval is not
appropriate at this time. The adopted
amendments establish site specific goals, policies, objectives and implementing
regulations. The adopted amendments do
not constitute a development proposal at this time. SPU may pursue various options in order to obtain adequate
potable water. The requirement to demonstrate an adequate source of potable
water is not appropriate for review at this stage of comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone. However, prior to issuance of a building permit for any
building requiring potable water, evidence of an adequate water supply must be
provided by SPU to the Island County Building Department.
32.
The Board of Island County Commissioners finds that the Casey Conference
Center comprises uses which do not fit into any of the existing zoning
classifications. It is not a commercial
use, and therefore was not placed in a commercial zoning classification. It is not a resource use, and therefore was
not placed in a forest, agriculture or mineral classification. It is not a residential use, and it is
therefore appropriate to change its current designation as Rural, which is
primarily a residential zone. It is not an urban use, and was not designated as
an urban growth area. It was placed in
the Rural Zone only because the Rural zone provides for various uses in Island
County which are uncommon, or difficult to site. Considering the uses and
structures existing at the Casey Conference Center, the Board finds that the character
of the Casey Conference Center is rural, and that the development provided for
in the Master Plan is rural development. The Casey Conference Center is clearly
rural in appearance, in its feel, and in its setting. These qualities would not
be changed by the new uses and structures provided for in the Master Plan. The
Board finds that the existing uses and structures at the Casey Conference
Center, and those proposed in the Master Plan, are rural, not urban, in
character, within the meaning of the Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter
36.70A). The Board further finds that the existing uses and structures at the
Casey Conference Center, together with those uses and structures proposed in
the Master Plan, constitute rural development, not urban growth, within the
meaning of the Growth Management Act.
There being no further
business to come before the Board at this
time, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. the next regular meeting of the Board will be held on February
10, 2003 beginning at 9:30 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______________________________
Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman
_____________________________
William J. Byrd, Member
_____________________________
Mike Shelton, Member
ATTEST:
_______________________
Elaine Marlow, Clerk of the Board