The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on March 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, 1 N. E. 6^th Street, Coupeville, Wa. Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman, William J. Byrd, Member, and Mike Shelton, Member, were present. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance. By unanimous motion, the Board approved the minutes from regular meeting held on February 27, 2006.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved the payroll dated February 28, 2006, and the following

vouchers/warrants: Voucher (War.) #233429-233719 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . $795,977.51.

As presented by Terry Cheuvront, Assistant Director, Human Resources, the Board by unanimous motion approved the following personnel action authorizations, all with an effective date of 3/6/06:

Two special occasion liquor license applications, reviewed and approved by the appropriate County departments, were approved by unanimous motion of the Board as follows:

to be held at the Freeland Hall, March 10, 2006 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. [subject to

additional insured endorsement per GSA/Risk Management]

Pursuant to R.C.W. 36.32.210, the Board by unanimous motion adopted Resolution #C-19-06 in the matter of the Certification of the Island County Personal Property Inventory for 2005. [Resolution #C-19-06 and copy of County Inventory placed on file with the Clerk of the Board]

Having been discussed with the Facilities Director at a Staff Session, the Board by unanimous motion approved Addendum to Letter of Agreement with Bank & Office Interiors for services at Camano Annex, the Addendum in the amount of $1,050.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Interagency Agreement, Contract WSP #C060818FED (RM-DES-06-0005) with Washington State Patrol for Department of Homeland Security 2005-2007 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program funds in the amount of $97,124.

The Board considered Resolution #C-20-06 Establishing an Island County Veterans’ Advisory Board to advise the Board of County Commissioners on the needs of local indigent veterans, the resources available to local indigent veterans, and programs that could benefit the needs of local indigent veterans and their families.

Don Mason, Program Coordinator VAF/GSA, recalled that a proposed resolution was discussed with the Board at the March 1 Staff Session, with a number of veterans in attendance. A wording question that came about as a result of discussion at that Staff Session has been reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and the word "chosen" replaced by the words "appointed from veteran volunteers". Mr. Mason confirmed that it was clear from verbal communication with those veterans who attended the Staff Session there desire is to move forward with resolution adoption today. Written confirmation is being provided from the Veterans and should be received this week.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Resolution #C-20-06 in the matter of establishing an Island County Veterans’ Advisory Board. [Resolution #C-20-06 on file with the Clerk of the Board]

As presented and recommended for approval by Don Mason, GSA, the Board by unanimous motion approved two Vacant Land Purchase and Sale Agreements with Westgate Homes as follows:

The Board by unanimous motion approved an Addendum to the professional services operating agreement between Island County and CFM dated August 9, 2001, provide food services for Juvenile Detention Center [RM-SHER-01-0059).

The Board by unanimous motion approved Resolution #C-21-06, Waiver of Competitive Bidding for Installation and Purchase of a Radio System through Day Wireless, for the installation and maintenance of a radio system and related communication for the Island County Juvenile Detention Center. [Resolution #C-21-06 on file with the Clerk of the Board].

Lou Malzone, Freeland, Wa. read the following "An Open Letter to Commissioner Mike Shelton" into the record:

As presented and recommended by Randy Brackett, Assistant County Engineer, the Board by unanimous motion approved the following Construction Easement and Quit Claim Deed associated with the Bayview Road Improvements under CRP 98-17, Work Order 229:

Following bid award on February 27, 2006, as presented by Mr. Brackett, the Board by unanimous motion approved the Contract and Contract Bond #PW-0620-12 between the County and Nordic Construction, Inc., for the Utsalady Road Outfall (CDP 05-01) and Wall Improvements (CRP 05-05) in the amount of $194,160.00.

Planning & Community Development Director Phil Bakke, along with Carole Croft, Development Services Manager, presented for final approval PLP 416/04 by Autumn Village Investors LLC, Parcel R32902-329-3850 located on Wilkinson Road, South Whidbey, explained by cover memo to the Board dated March 3, 2006 from Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner. The application was originally submitted on December 1, 2004 for a proposal to create 7 new lots on an 8.17 acre parcel in the Rural Residential zone. Preliminary approval was received on June 29, 2005, subject to several conditions. The Island County Health Department and Public Works Department, along with all applicable agencies, reviewed the application for conformance with Code and have no objection to approval. Planning & Community Development has no objection and recommends the Board grant final approval of PLP 416/04.

By unanimous motion, the Board granted approval of PLP 416/04 by Autumn Village Investors LLC Final Long Plat, Parcel R32902-329-3850, located on Wilkinson Road, South Whidbey Island.

Chairman McDowell opened a public hearing at 2:30 p.m. as scheduled, to consider adoption of Resolution #C-149-05/R-58-05 Approving the Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Engineering Report/Facility Plan, the hearing continued from February 6, 2006. Minutes from the February 6^th hearing were available to anyone desiring a copy, having also been available on the County’s web site, so those who attended today’s hearing would have an opportunity to know what had gone on before.

Randy Brackett and Gary Hess represented the Public Works Department. Other County staff members and approximately 9 members of the public and press were present. Mr. Brackett entered the following correspondence for the record received since the prior hearing:

• Letter dated March 6, 2006 signed by David Voigt, P. E., Project Manager, CHS Engineers, LLC, Bellevue, Wa., responding to a question posed by Commissioner Shelton regarding the ability of Main Street Sewer District to provide long-term sewer service.
• Letter dated March 6, 2006 from Brian R. Paige, Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S., Bellevue, Wa., submitted as a supplement to their letter dated February 5, 2006 in opposition to Freeland Water District’s request for approval of its comprehensive plan pursuant to chapter 57.16 RCW and RCW 57.08.065.
• Letter dated March 6, 2006 from Steve Shapiro, Langley, long-time resident of South Whidbey and a business owner in Freeland, submitting written testimony to firmly establish his legal standing with regard to present and future issues regarding sewers and other development matters within the proposed Freeland NMUGA.

David Voigt, P. E., Project Manager, CHS Engineers, LLC, Bellevue, Wa., read his letter into the record:

Mr. Voigt clarified that MBR referred to Membrane biological reactor, a relatively new type of treatment process.

Commissioner Shelton noted that the Freeland Water District plan envisions a Phase I sewer treatment facility which would handle the commercial core of Freeland, and subsequent to that if need arises, additional phases to add capacity to handle additional commercial or residential areas that chose to annex to the district. If with the Main Street plan in 2015 reaches capacity and all of the commercial core is hooked to up to Main Street as is proposed, assuming the first option under Mr. Voigt’s two proposed options, Commissioner Shelton asked if we would not have to start at the same place with this new facility as if we started there originally, and would that not be duplicating Phase I? If go with Main Street and spend the 6.2 million required and that reaches capacity, does that mean then having to spend 7+ million to get started on the second one?

Mr. Voigt could not speak with specificity about the dollar numbers. He did indicate that the 6.+ million for Main Street’s sewer district plan included some collection system which may also be in the other dollar amount. He suspected there may be double-counting of some facility costs. In a more general sense he stated that the waste water treatment plant that might be built [referred to as the large new Freeland waste water treatment plant], the plant itself would be identical or very much like what is shown in the Island County Sewer Plan. What would be anticipated is if the Maple Ridge WWTP is kept on line permanently then the facilities could be scaled back in size and would not have to be expanded to the full ultimate sizing currently outlined in that plan. There would have to be some significant design and engineering costs to put that facility in the ground and hook it up. Alternatively, there is the opportunity for a smaller decentralized WWTP positioned elsewhere in the community.

Considering that only one sewer agency is overseeing the jurisdiction [either MS or FWD as the sewer agency] Mr. Voigt said that for the 3-1/2 million dollar figure difference there are a number of factors that make up that number; extrapolated out even further it compounds to become about 4 million. A key item for the largest amount is in a scenario where Main Street Sewer District Maple Ridge plant performs the initial sewer service and in 10 years it is necessary to build another treatment plant. It is possible to build the treatment plant such as Phase III is defined in the Island County plan rather than Phase I. There is an opportunity to benefit from economy of scale; building a bigger treatment plant when it is time to build the second treatment plant; not having to go through a Phase I and Phase II staged-sequence.

Gary Hess indicated that Phase I construction costs of the Freeland Water District Plan was 6.4 million dollars; add in the capital costs comes to 8.4 million. Phase II for the treatment plant, including 20 years operation and maintenance 14.5 million. Phase I twenty years operation would be 11.2 million.

Phase I is included in Phase II; all the property for all the phases are purchased up front required for the treatment plant and most of the larger diameter pipelines in place; therefore subsequent phases are smaller increments. Included in Phase II was the capital costs, present worth totals to 14.5 including O&M.

Mr. Voigt clarified that figures for Main Street include O&M; the plan put forward in that manner in order to have a side by side comparison [see Chapter 7]. Phase I cost is: 6.1 million plus $600,000

capital costs = 6.7 million at the year 2015. As far as additional land for the effluent, they have included the same land and same cost that has been put into Island County’s plan up front in Phase I.

Chapter 7 in the MSSD report is a graphic illustrating each plan side by side, broken down into capital, O&M and totals the two. Looking at the lines representing the two plans, Main Street plan consistently has lower costs at any given time in the future planning horizon. The Main Street report was submitted and received by the County 9-1-05.

Mitchell Streicher, Freeland, thought the big picture was being overlooked along with the fact there would not be a Phase II for a very long time. He has been involved with Freeland Subarea Planning committee for about five years. The report listed 20 or 30 names of people who were thanked for their input and thus he assumed those were the people who helped make decisions, but found that the greatest majority of those were not interested in sewers. If the core business area wants sewers and are willing to pay for it, then they should have it. He suggested the reason phasing was included in the first place was because of knowing that if it was not done in that manner, sewers would never pass muster. He saw several items all tied together: the sewer plan, surface water plan, NMUGA and Freeland Subarea Plan, and has been trying to find out why nothing has been done about the Freeland Subarea Plan. The surface water plan was provided to the County in May, 2005, and the Freeland Subarea Plan provided May, 2004; neither has been presented for any kind of hearing.

Commissioner Shelton explained that the NMUGA designation as opposed to the existing Rural Area of More Intensive Development designation means nothing until the urban services are in place to implement the land use plan proposed as a NMUGA. It is a matter of pulling the three plans together and when all in place, at that point the designation for the NMUGA can go into effect. Then, assuming people are willing to pay for the cost of the sewer, at that point once urban services are provided, the land use plan under the Freeland Subsarea plan can be implemented.

Mr. Streicher submitted that it should be a one-phase plan. Commissioner Shelton assumed that the phases would happen when capacity of the existing system is reached and there is a demand for more capacity. He mentioned a major effort under way in the State of Washington around the cleanliness of Puget Sound. In relation to Holmes Harbor, a somewhat similar kind of a situation with regard to Hood Canal. The State of Washington funded lines for a sewer and the plant to service Belfair because of what is believed to be the environmental impact of that community on Hood Canal. There are other forces in play and it may not be an option of whether people want to go on a sewer or not around the marine shoreline.

Based on a number of issues heard today and the fact there is need for more clarity around the costs of the competing sewer plans, Commissioner Shelton moved that the Public Hearing be continued until March 20, 2006 at 10:15 a.m. for the Board’s decision; public testimony is closed with the exception that the Board requests receipt of written comments from David Voigt, CHS Engineers, LLC by close of business next Monday in clarification to questions asked in this hearing. Motion, seconded by Commissioner Byrd, carried unanimously. [Notice of Continuance on file with the Clerk of the Board]

Two preliminary matters were brought up by Keith Dearborn.

1. Due to an appeal brought by WEAN, staff discovered that Ordinance #C-150-05 (PLG-021-05), the AG BMP Ordinance, advertised and for which the Board has held hearings, contained a clerical error; some existing language in the penalties and enforcement section some how got deleted. For some reason the Board received the 12/20/05 version when the correct version was the 12/23/05 version, the version recommended by the Planning Commission. That version is the correct version staff will present to the Board Monday as a substitution which will then need to be advertised before the next hearing scheduled April 3, 2006. The only person that has identified the discrepancy is WEAN and staff will make sure WEAN knows that discrepancy was not intended.

Mr. Dearborn went through his presentation "Water Quality Monitoring and Adaptive Management", his approach as proposed in the Water quality Monitoring ordinance.

Adaptive Management. Adaptive Management is used scientifically; an "umbrella" term that includes monitoring and actions that come from monitoring; this is the action portion. It is common sense, do it every day; if something is not working, change it; a structured process of learning by doing. AG BMPs are measures believed to be best available science, the best methods for protecting the environment from existing agricultural practices. In the course of implementation there will be tracking of water quality to see if it is working or not, then making adjustments through adaptive management if not. The adaptive management proposal involves six-steps. Any adaptive management action is triggered by an exceedence in adopted standards, guided by adopted principles. The ordinance defines exceedence.

For a water quality monitoring program where there is no human impact, Dr. Adamus would expect some samples to show exceedences, would not be violations because Washington State Code contains an allowance for natural conditions with demonstration what natural conditions are. Demonstrating natural conditions in a built environment would be done by using a reference watershed approach.

And Mr. Dearborn pointed out that the baseline is proposed to look at both relatively undeveloped watersheds and developed watersheds to do exactly that. The adopted standards proposed are the State adopted standards, but if in the course of five years of baseline monitoring the County finds natural conditions are exceeding State standards, that will provide information to be able to judge whether that can be treated as a violation or an exceedence that requires enforcement.

Keith Higman made note that the "million dollar" answer was the ability to differentiate the natural condition from the human influence, which in many cases hard to do. Finding a reference watershed also is not an easy task in terms of comparison and in many cases source identification differentiating source is a very complex endeavor.

Mr. Dearborn referred to the recent memo from the Public Works Department, a comparison of fecal coliform data between Island County and neighboring counties [2/28/06 memo GMA #8648] showing that every county they looked at has fecal exceedences, and in the case of Skagit County, 100%, every sampling site. The fact that there may be fecal exceedences has not caused Island County’s Health Department or Public Works Department to come to the Board and request something be done. This proposal addresses the need for five years of baseline before treating any exceedence as a source-determining issue.

The program by Code is a county wide program for all departments. Other departments have been assisting in the development of the WQMP. For surface water this is the only WQMP on-going in the County. Everything else should feed off of this, build on it, reinforce it – the County’s organizing structure for water quality planing and management. The County Public Works Department has been

included in every step of development of the program, included as members of the water quality working groups, and as recently as last week, sent e-mails with comments on the WQMP. There will be a peer review group meeting of the State agencies to review final comments mid-month on the water quality program; also asking for review of the AG program for final comments. Comment letters were received on water quality from WEAN [GMA # 8637] and the Department of Fish & Wildlife [GMA #8644]. The Fish & Wildlife letter had some technical comments and raised no policy issues.

Kirsten Harma, Wetlands/Critical Areas, Island County Planning & Community Development, went through a power point presentation: Water Monitoring and Management: What Other Counties Are Doing.

Frequency of sampling: monthly or bi-monthly

Staff will come back to the Board with discussion of potential revisions in the program once the 60-day review has been completed. The ordinance will be presented Monday to schedule for public hearing on April 3, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

William J. Byrd, Member

Mike Shelton, Member

 ATTEST: Elaine Marlow, Clerk of the Board