Island Guardian

Friday, March 31st

What The Hell is Going On !!

First. Why is our County Council even considering an advisory ballot on anything? After completely ignoring 73% of the voters, and in some cases insulting them by saying, "They didn't fully understand what they were voting on" (I guess if you don't agree with their view you don't understand what you are doing) why waste our time and money?

Second. Why is our County Council even considering issues, at the taxpayers expense, that they can not have any effect on? Out of one side of their face they are complaining about long hours and not having enough time in a day to do their jobs, and then out of the other they spend time discussing national issues that they have no control over. The good news is that Councilmen Myhr & Ranker both understand this, the bad news is they failed to quash the issue.

Third. How can our County Council bemoan the loss of Wick Dufford as one of the best Hearing Examiners the County could hope to have had, and then pass over the opportunity to retain him, and chose Bill Nielsen instead? Maybe we should just give the keys to the County Council to the President of the "Friends" and we can all go home.

Fourth. In a last day attempt to retain future increases in the Capron Funds for San Juan County, the County Council sent a letter to Governor Gregoire asking her to line-veto parts of a bill that is due to be signed by her. If the bill is signed as presented, the County is expected to loose as much as one to two million dollars a year in future revenue from the fund. Why didn't our County Council (then County Commissioners) use the money as was intended, for roads and road maintenance? They were warned by the Director of Public Works, Jon Shannon, that losing this money was a possibility if they continued to divert these funds.

Fifth. Why do we have a County Prosecutor waste his valuable time advising the County Council when time and again they ignore his counsel? It would seem to me that a trained and experienced attorney would have far more knowledge regarding legal matters than do our elected County Council members. Councilmen Ranker and Lichter both promised that they would keep us out of, or at least reduce the number of, lawsuits against the County. Ignoring your attorney is not how one should go about accomplishing this. Maybe an intern is all they need.

Just a simple taxpayer and voter wondering what the hell is going on,

Ray Bigler
San Juan Island

[more..]

Minority Report Of Planning Commission

On March 9th the Planning Commission voted 6 to 3 to recommend that San Juan County ban the construction of guest houses (AKA- Accessory Dwelling Units -ADUs) on all rural and resource lands- unless attached to the main house. We are the three Planning Commissioners who voted against this restrictive ban and this is why we oppose the Planning Commission's final recommendation and draft ordinance.

Growth Board decisions reference three categories of ADUs for San Juan County and other Washington counties.

● Type #1 "Freestanding" detached ADUs are not connected in any way to the main house or to any other structure.

● Type #2 Attached ADUs which are physically connected to the main house.

● Type #3 Attached ADUs which are only connected to accessory structures, like a garage, shop or similar building which is already allowable.

Type #1 Freestanding ADUs will be prohibited. It is clear from the Growth Board decisions of April 2003 and July 2005 that Freestanding ADUs will not be allowed in San Juan County. They have been disallowed by the Growth Board in several other counties where challenges to ADU regulations have occurred. This is unlikely to change unless the county wins their pending court case regarding this issue. That is why the county should be asking for an immediate decision on their case rather than trying to delay a final court decision as they are doing now.

Type #2 ADUs connected to the main house are not at issue and would continue to be allowed in San Juan County. Our local regulations already allow these and were found valid by the Growth Board.

Type #3 ADUs attached to accessory structures (like a garage) would be prohibited in all rural areas. We disagree with our fellow Planning Commissioners on this prohibition and believe that they should be allowed in all residential land use designations. The Growth Board has not indicated that our local ordinance would be invalidated if we allow them locally.

Several State laws promote the construction of ADUs. The Growth Management Act requires development of an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of people of all income levels. The Washington Sate Housing Policy Act encourages the construction of ADUs. The State Department of Community Trade and Development (CTED) Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Study encourages local ordinances to allow ADUs for the purpose of providing homeowners rental income, companionship, security, services and to add affordable units to existing housing appropriate for people in a variety of stages in the life cycle. We believe that adding restrictions to the construction of ADUs beyond what the Growth Board requires, is counter productive to the spirit and intent of the law.

In three workshops and two hearings the Planning Commission heard testimony of approximately 39 citizens. The vast majority of them expressed a strong desire and need for detached guest houses in San Juan County. In the November 2004 ballot measure voters were asked to vote on this question: "Do you support local land use provisions for San Juan County that retain the right to allow one guest house (detached, accessory dwelling unit) on any parcel with a single family residence, subject to restrictions on size, location, ownership, occupancy and proximity to the main house? Some Planning Commissioners asserted that the public did not understand what they were voting for when 73.55% answered "yes" to the ballot question. They claim that the vote results don't really matter. We find that argument absurd at best.

Because of this clear mandate the citizens of San Juan County should have the right to locate and design their home and a small guest unit on their property without having the county micromanage their decisions. Arbitrary rules imposed by county government are a poor substitute for the many thoughtful design decisions that a property owner or their design professional must make in the process of creating the owner's dream. Simple and reasonable requirements for building screening and setbacks could be required to mitigate any adverse impacts on neighboring property owners from an ADU.

We believe that the County Council should adopt regulations which honor the wishes of the voters to the maximum extent possible and allow guest houses to be attached to either the main house or a garage or similar building. This would leave the property owner with flexibility in designing their home in a way that best suits the site and their needs. It would adequately provide for the many property owners who for economic reasons want to build a garage with a guest house to live in until they can afford to eventually build their dream home.

The Planning Commission and the County Council have a responsibility to be respectful advocates of the wishes of the clear majority of the citizens of San Juan County. They should adopt changes that will allow the maximum freedom of choice that the Growth Board will permit. Our County Council should be willing and active in their support to achieve this goal.

The Growth Board will not force the county to ban the construction of ADUs attached to a single family house or garage. If the County Council decides to ban the construction of ADUs attached to a garage it would be a voluntary choice on their part to adopt the most restrictive rules possible. The Growth Management Act does not mandate that they take this approach.

We believe that such a restrictive outcome would dishonor the will of 73.55% of the voters who clearly expressed their will in the 2004 election. They believed that their vote mattered. We also believe strongly in protecting the rights and desires of property owners in San Juan County. To ignore the majority and proceed to enact legislation which fails to reflect the will of the people is a complete failure to recognize the true role that government is intended to serve.

Sincerely,

Ri Warren, Planning Commissioner
Jim Nelson, Planning Commissioner
Teri Williams, Planning Commissioner

[more..]

Thursday, March 16th

"He Has A Fool For A Client"

By Richard Fralick

If you are not a County Council watcher, you missed the recent machinations of the Council surrounding the Charter-mandated appointment process of candidates for the Citizens' Salary Commission, the official body that will, for the first time, establish salaries for all elected officials in San Juan County.

Some background: state law allows the Salary Commission to be appointed by resolution or by ordinance but the Charter requires that legislative processes be established by ordinance. This is important because ordinances must be published before and after their passage and are subject to referendum once passed. Resolutions can be created and passed the same day and are not subject to referendum. State law dictates that the Citizens' Salary Commission is made up of ten members. Of the ten, the County Administrator appoints four based on their experience and background and the remaining six from a list of candidates chosen by lot by the Auditor's Office. According to law, the County Administrator appoints all ten. The appointments of the County Administrator are subject to approval by the Council.

Interestingly, the Council tried to do two things: first, establish the Citizens' Salary Commission by resolution rather than by ordinance as required by the Charter, and to nominate members to this Commission by a "collaborative process" between themselves and the County Administrator, meaning that they, the Council, would appoint and approve the people who are going to establish their salaries.

Of course, the Charter writers had something completely different in mind and, in a comprehensive legal memorandum presented to the Council on February 6, 2006, the San Juan County's Prosecuting Attorney's Office concurred. County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord said to the Council, "your proposal to use the form of a resolution is not appropriate. Moreover, the appointment procedure you establish is not consistent with state law." The memorandum further amplified that on the first point the establishment of the Citizens' Salary Commission is a legislative act and as such it must be accomplished by ordinance, not by resolution. On the second point, the separation of powers mandated by the Charter and state law requires that the County Administrator alone appoint the members to the Salary Commission. In a separate action, the Council would then approve these appointments.

Under this compelling argument, the Council backed down and decided to establish the Salary Commission by ordinance as advised. That might have been the end of it, had not Council member Bob Myhr, during the Council meeting of March 7, 2006, taken the extraordinary step of reading into the record a prepared statement which substantially said that, having been forced into the ordinance process this time, it did not represent a "precedent" for the Council in interpreting the Charter, since there was "ambiguity" on the question of ordinance versus resolution. He also opined that despite his own Prosecuting Attorney's legal memorandum to the contrary, the Council could still appoint the membership of the Citizens' Salary Commission itself if it so chose.

Why is it important for voters to be aware of this? Because in the past, ignoring the advice of the County's duly elected, professionally trained lawyer, the Prosecuting Attorney, has cost San Juan County taxpayer's lawsuits and painful financial settlements. The voters passed the Charter in a landslide, and one of their clear messages was that they wanted the business of the County handled differently. Bob Myhr's insistence of asserting an opinion, contrary to that of the County's legal authority just a month after it was rendered was an embarrassing revelation of how little he has absorbed of the Charter's import or intentions. Hopefully, next time, he will take the legal advice he is given and withhold his frustration from the public record. Public records, like public decisions, are permanent.

(Richard Fralick is the Chairman of the Citizens for Responsive County Government)

[more..]

Tuesday, March 14th

Councilmen Put In 60+ Hrs a Week

By Alan Lichter

In an Opinion Piece last week, Greg Hertel suggests a salary for incoming Council Members. (Hertel Editorial) Based on what he assumes are the working hours for the Council, he suggests remuneration of $12,000 per year – this, for the highest-ranking elected policy-makers in County Government!

Unfortunately, Mr. Hertel's formula is sadly uninformed by any knowledge of what a Councilman actually does, about the wide scope of county issues and citizen concerns that must be addressed by Council Members, about the sheer amount of time and energy a committed Council Member expends.

Perhaps Mr. Hertel will note my schedule, as a limited example, for Monday, March 13th:

• 9 a.m. – an appointment on the Interisland ferry to Friday Harbor with a couple concerned about their home and guest house. The appointment may have to be rescheduled in favor of a 9 a.m. emergency meeting with the Prosecuting Attorney concerning a court-case settlement.
• 10 a.m. – 1 p.m. – take part in an important area-wide Marine Resources Conference at the Friday Harbor Marine Labs.
• 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. – back at the Courthouse for the regular Monday staff meeting/workshop session to prepare for our all-day public Tuesday session.
• 4 – 5 p.m. – participate in a screening committee meeting with the PA, our Administrator, and Human Resources Manager to evaluate applicants for our Hearing Examiner position.
• Somewhere during the day, check telephone messages, connect with office staff re in-house issues and questions.
• 5:15 p.m. – ferry back to home on Orcas – a quick dinner, then a couple of hours for emails and some preparations for the next days' public session.

Other days are filled with citizen and area meetings, normal legislative and policy matters, telephone calls, staying current with numerous county issues, contacts with several organizations and committees, Council liaison assignments, emails (about 50 each day), contacts with state legislators, and on and on.

I can assure Mr. Hertel that current Council Members generally average 60+ hours each week. Sometime after our permanent Administrative Officer is functioning efficiently, it may be possible to reduce those hours to straightforward, full-time work, maybe 40 hours each week. But that will depend upon how effective Home Rule really is, and how efficiently a six-member Council functions. County Council Members will have smaller districts to represent, but their County-Wide responsibilities will remain constant. A 40-hour work week for Council Members may or may not be possible; we'll see.

Right now, people in County Government are working long and hard to effect an efficient transition to Charter Government, and it would be helpful to have interested citizens like Mr. Hertel inform themselves about what's happening "on the ground" before they promote scenarios that have little connection with reality.

(Alan Lichter is the Chair and a Member of the San Juan County Council)

[more..]