Commissioners Present: Benye Weber, Bruce Bryson

Others Present: Jim Patton (Executive Director), Molly MacLeod-Roberts (Edwards & Associates), Tom Baenen (GFMG President), Michael Stansbury (GFMG Treasurer) and Donna Keeler (Coastline Planning).

Call to Order: The Workshop meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Commissioner Weber in Conference Room B at Whidbey General Hospital in Coupeville, WA, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:

The purpose of the Workshop was to determine the process for developing the Master Site Plan for the Greenbank Farm. The Comprehensive Plan 2007-2026, adopted by the Board on May 9, 2007, identified the Master Site Plan as one of the Port's most important projects for the immediate future. This Plan is expected to take more than one year to complete and will incorporate the input of the public to the maximum extent possible.

The public was invited to this workshop, but public input was limited to suggestions for the planning process. Weber invited the representatives of the Greenbank Farm Management Group to participate in the Board's discussion.

Weber said public notice of the workshop was published in the Whidbey News-Times, the Coupeville Examiner and the South Whidbey Record.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING:

Weber stated that the Minutes for the first special workshop meeting on the Master Site Plan of September 5, 2007, were available for approval and signatures.

ACTION: A motion was made by Bryson and seconded by McDonald to approve the September 5, 2007, special meeting Minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.

Presentation of the planning guidelines established by the Comprehensive Plan (Patton): Patton said the Master Site Plan (MSP) for the Greenbank Farm was the most elaborate and complicated of the 13 initiatives in the Comprehensive Plan. The Port seeks a coherent plan that includes the voice of the public. The Comprehensive Plan laid out the MSP as a plan of plans with planning components for environment protection, agriculture, recreation and commercial activities. There are also component plans for marketing and emergencies. The Board previously determined that a Coordinator would be hired for all of the MSP activity, with the exception of the marketing and emergency components which would be staff function functions. Selection of Master Site Plan Coordinator: Patton reported the search for applicants and requests for proposals resulted in two viable proposals. After review and discussion of the proposals, the Board agreed that Donna Keeler's proposal offered the best value and Baenen and Stansbury said that they were pleased with that selection.

ACTION: A motion was made by Bryson and seconded by McDonald to accept the proposal from Donna Keeler of Coastline Planning and approve a contract with her for the position of Master Site Plan Coordinator for the MSP. Keeler would also conduct the asset inventory of the Farm. The motion passed unanimously.

The Board thanked Keeler for her interest and her excellent proposal. Bryson said they were very excited about having her work with them and getting the MSP rolling. Baenen said the GFMG shared in that excitement. The Board and Keeler signed the contract. Baenen welcomed Keeler on behalf of the GFMG. He said it would be a collaborative and cooperative effort and the GFMG staff would be ready, willing and able to help Keeler. Keeler thanked him and said she would be in touch.

Presentation of issues for Board decisions: (Patton) Patton noted the inter-relationship between the Master Site Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Conservation Easement. He had previously defined them as a three-legged stool because they are so interrelated. The Comprehensive Plan stated, The Master Site Plan will be consistent with the current Greenbank Farm's special review district zoning (Island County Ordinance 17.03.062), and any amendments the Port seeks in order to be consistent with the use and development restrictions of the Conservation Easement adopted by the Port. Patton said that sentence describes the three-legged stool. Sequencing action on the MSP, Zoning Ordinance and the Conservation Easement: He said that at the 10^th anniversary celebration at the Greenbank Farm, Stansbury had described very well the sequencing of which leg of the stool you pick up first. If the MSP is done first and the Board, the GFMG and the public identify the items that need to be done on the Farm, that information will determine whether or not any amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are required. After those two legs have been dealt with, then the Board will know what portions of the Farm it wants to put into a Conservation Easement. While the MSP is setting all of that in motion, Patton and Stansbury will be working together on the Conservation Easement package to determine first of all whether or not the Port has the legal authority to surrender its development rights to any part of the Farm and to understand the modalities of who would become the conservator and the associated costs, if any. Asset inventory: Patton explained the Board had originally considered hiring two individuals - one to conduct the Asset Inventory and the other to coordinate the MSP. Keeler has an extensive planning background, and her proposal said that the same individual should do both duties because the coordinator needs to know everything that is in the inventory in order to do the rest of the work. Patton noted the Asset Inventory document would become the working tool for all of the focus groups. Approach for Environmental Resources Protection Plan (ERPP): Patton noted that the Comprehensive Plan said the ERPP would be done first. After the first workshop on the MSP, the Board realized that doing an ERPP in a vacuum without any agricultural, commercial or recreational input could possibly be a mistake. Patton said he was concerned that if the ERPP was completed first, it could effectively paralyze the focus groups by overly restricting their proposed ideas, and he sought Keeler's suggestions regarding how to handle it. Stansbury requested a little background on the discussion that went into that portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Patton read aloud from page 44 of the Comprehensive Plan: Environmental Resources Protection Plan: to include but not be limited to, identification of measures to protect, restore and enhance inventoried critical habitat and important wildlife areas and to control noxious and invasive plants. Protection planning shall be in cooperation with landowners who own critical habitat adjacent to the Greenbank Farm, at minimum, Island County, U.S. Navy, Greenbank Beach and Boat Club, The Nature Conservancy, and any private landowners that choose to participate. This plan shall identify environmentally appropriate improvements that will facilitate public enjoyment of critical habitat and important wildlife areas without adversely impacting these resources. The Environmental Resources Protection Plan shall be developed in association with the Agriculture Plan to ensure a proper balance between environmental protection and agricultural use. The development and implementation of a Noxious and Invasive Plan Control Plan will receive immediate priority in planning to facilitate rapid implementation of control measures. Planning sequence: Patton then read aloud the second paragraph on page 50 of the Comprehensive Plan, The Port will take the following steps to develop a Master Site Plan with the goal of adopting all plan components within eighteen (18) months of the commencement of planning. a) Engage a Master Site Plan Coordinator… and b) Approve a work plan and initiate a master site planning process. Patton read further ii. The planning process for the Environmental Resources Protection Plan and the Noxious/Invasive Plant Control Plan will be initiated concurrently, following completion of the inventories. iii. The planning process for the Agricultural Plan, the Recreation Plan and the Commercial Plan will be initiated concurrently, following adoption of the Environmental Resources Protection Plan. Patton suggested an alternative to that sequencing. Simultaneous focus groups: He said they could initiate focus groups on Environment, Agriculture, Commerce and Recreation simultaneously and have a watchdog for the environment in each one of the groups. Stansbury said Patton's thoughts were well taken and it made sense to try to blend the consideration of the environmental factors with the other use factors. He agreed with Patton that an integrated approach would be preferred over a sequential approach. Bryson asked if the asset inventory process would help identify what areas needed to be considered in each of the focus groups as they proceed. Baenen said the assemblage of the asset information would address a large number of issues that lead themselves to being worked on simultaneously. Bryson agreed. All the areas are related. As an example of that, Stansbury referred to the expansion and blacktopping of the commercial area of the Farm and the subsequent runoff that impacted the wetlands. Coordinator's view: Weber asked for Keeler's thoughts on the matter. Keeler said she agreed with all the previous statements. If the process is done sequentially as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, she said it would end up being done concurrently anyway. She said if the ERPP was done first, and then the other focus groups began, many questions would be raised and the ERPP process would have to be revisited. Keeler said by running the process concurrently, it provides the opportunity for focus group members to educate each other about their areas. She said she would proceed in whatever manner the Board instructed, but her gut feeling is that all the focus groups should be run concurrently. Keeler said that method worked well when developing the Shoreline Master Plan and Bryson agreed. Baenen said if the Environmental group completed their work first, they would have a sense of proprietary ownership and be reluctant to change. He said the process would function better if the groups ran concurrently and were all inclusive. Weber pointed out that the Board had discussed the matter at the first workshop and agreed the groups should work concurrently. Patton asked the Board to entertain a motion to that effect, since the procedure differed from the Comprehensive Plan.

ACTION: Having determined the best course of action is to conduct the focus groups concurrently, a motion was made by Weber and seconded by Bryson to have all of the Master Site Plan focus groups begin work concurrently and share information during the plan development phase. The motion passed unanimously.

Engagement of professional services and budget concerns: Patton referred to paragraph 2c on page 50 of the Comprehensive Plan that indicates the Port would Engage professional services, with appropriate subject matter expertise, to complete the asset inventories and participate in the development of the individual plan components. In light of the Port's budget problems, Patton wanted to flag the paragraph for the Commissioners, noting that the budget allowed only for the Master Site Plan Coordinator and no other professionals. He said Keeler needed to be cautioned that there is no money available for consultants. Weber said all present are aware of the budget restraints, but Patton's point was well taken. Keeler added the Port is fortunate to have a lot of access to great talent on a voluntary basis. Solicitation of focus group members as individuals or representatives: Patton referred to paragraphs 2d and 2e that referred to seeking focus group members and public comment from a diverse, representative mix of citizens. Patton asked the Board to consider whether they should invite participants as individuals but not specifically as representatives of their respective organizations. Weber noted that some agencies pick up the tab for their representatives to participate. She said when the need comes up, then that would be the time to define how it would be handled regarding whether the invitation would be offered to an agency to send a representative or whether it would be sent to an individual with specific skills. Patton said that approach would apply where an individual would only be attending one meeting as a guest with special knowledge or information, but his question related instead to the focus group members who would be attending the monthly meetings, and whether their parent organizations (if they had any) would be endorsing the final product. Baenen suggested the way to avoid that would be to solicit individuals only during the selection process and not the agencies or organizations they represent. He also recommended publishing only the names of the individuals and not their affiliations. All present agreed. Method of establishing conclusions: Stansbury asked about the outcome of the focus groups: Would the individual members be asked to formally endorse their section of the MSP or are they just to provide input? Will there be written conclusions from the focus groups submitted to the Port for consideration? What would the process be if one of the focus group members strongly disagreed with the others' conclusion? Patton explained that while writing the Comprehensive Plan, a test had been established for which ideas would go into the plan. The test was that an idea or suggestion had to survive as a group consensus, and the consensus then went into the draft that was presented to the public. If consensus is the test used by the focus groups to prepare the MSP the ultimate test will be the public's reaction. Criteria for selection of focus group members: Stansbury asked about the criteria for selection and how their service would be characterized. Are they general representatives of the community who have an interest in the area, individuals with specific expertise or perhaps a mix of both? Does the Port want to leverage off of any of their affiliations in terms of public credibility? Patton suggested tackling that issue in a third workshop, because Keeler needs time to consider the situation. Keeler's observations: Weber asked Keeler to share her thoughts. Keeler said 7 people per focus group would be a good number. That way, if 2 or 3 don't attend a meeting can still be held. If there are too many people in a group, there is too much time spent talking and nothing gets done. Keeler said they can't be too choosy, but the focus group members should be representative of the public (as individuals), they should have some passion and love for the Greenbank Farm and they should be willing to commit for the whole year. The Port and the GFMG Board can work together to come up with criteria so they don't end up with 3 people from the same family serving and so the groups are balanced with individuals with specific related expertise in each group. Keeler said the groups could approach their final recommendations by consensus or by a vote. Problems with consensus: Keeler said the consensus approach could be problematic if 1 or 2 people strongly disagree and want their opinions heard. Weber said she has seen a Minority Report come out of a committee in that instance, and it was attached to the findings of the group. Stansbury noted the criticism of the consensus approach is that it tends to soften the edges of the recommendations and sometimes results in the output being less definitive due to compromise. Keeler said that with the consensus approach, it attempts to work with everybody. She noted that when working with the Central/South Whidbey Watershed Plan, there were 2 people who didn't agree with the consensus, were quite vocal about it, and at the end the plan's appearance to the public and the Island County Commissioners was not cohesive and was not a recommendation from the group, so the whole plan fell apart. Keeler said sometimes it is easier to simply do the up and down vote and move on. She said the Board would have to decide which process to utilize. Voting alternative: Weber said that having viewed what happened with the watershed plan and knowing that the majority of all the work was lost as a result, she said the up and down vote would be the best method. Stansbury said the groups would need to know ahead of time which method would be used. Baenen said in the end it comes down to the Board, and the Board would need to adopt one method or the other and follow it consistently. Patton asked if the Board would agree to asking Keeler to consider and present a proposition to the Board regarding: 1. which method she would like the focus groups to use in reaching conclusions/ recommendations, 2. how to select individuals for the focus groups, and 3. what sort of running rules she'd like to have in place. He added it would not require a special meeting because it could be handled via e-mail. Stansbury and Baenen agreed that was a reasonable approach. Stansbury added that it is important that the Board feel comfortable with the method chosen and instruct Keeler accordingly, and Baenen pointed out that the Board has the ultimate responsibility for the Plan. Stansbury said one benefit of conducting the straight vote and offering the opportunity for a minority report is that individuals who feel suppressed by the consensus have an outlet for their views. Patton said it is important to note that the product, with or without minority reports, will be presented to the public in draft form. Patton suggested informing the public of any minority report type views at the same time the public is briefed with the recommendations of the focus groups. Selection of committee members: Weber noted that at the first workshop, the general consensus was that a sign up sheet would be available at the public briefing for potential focus group members. It was also agreed that there would be separate sheets for each of the focus groups, and it is anticipated that the result will be more people will sign up than will actually be needed for the committees.

ACTION: A motion was made by Weber and seconded by Bryson for the Board to assign Donna Keeler, Master Site Plan Coordinator, with the task of preparing and presenting a proposal on how the product will be developed. The motion passed unanimously.

Initial briefings to the public: Patton referred to page 50, paragraph 2e: Seek and consider public comment, prior to final adoption of any plan component. He said the Board would expect the Coordinator to provide a draft document after a year of focus group meetings that could then be morphed into a 40-60 minute briefing that would go on the road throughout the Port District to get public reaction. First public briefing: Patton explained that, at the last workshop, it was agreed the public briefings for the MSP would begin on Saturday, November 10^th at the Greenbank Progressive Club at 10 a.m. It was also agreed that it would be heavily advertised in order to get as many people to attend as possible. Patton said he would circulate his Power Point presentation to all present at this evening's meeting (and to Commissioner McDonald) so additional comments can be added as needed prior to November 10^th. In addition to introducing Keeler as the Master Site Plan Coordinator, the briefing will also serve to solicit the public's participation and inform the public as to what the focus groups are, how often they will meet, who will be in charge, what the procedures will be, what will happen with the final product, etc. Patton's and Keeler's presentations will be followed by a Q & A session, after which the public will have the opportunity to sign up for the focus groups. Patton said since Keeler was not present at the first workshop, he wanted to make sure she was aware of previous discussions and decisions. He also wanted Keeler to have the opportunity to provide her input. Functions of the first briefing: Stansbury said there are 3 functions of the first public briefing: 1. to lay out the ground rules and inform the public what the MSP planning process is and what the objective is. 2. to solicit substantive ideas from the public regarding the future uses of the Farm and 3. to invite public participation and obtain valuable members for the focus groups. Stansbury emphasized that by openly inviting the public to participate at the very beginning of the process, the Board is making a strong point for public credibility. Weber, Patton and Baenen voiced their agreement with Stansbury's comment. Board's role at the public briefing: Patton asked what role the Board would take at the public briefing on November 10^th. He noted that at the Comprehensive Plan briefings, the Commissioners were present but were not there to debate or defend the draft plan They were there simply to listen to the public. Weber and Bryson said they felt the objective of the meeting was to give the public the opportunity to speak and provide input and the Board would attend in order to listen and would not need to interact. Getting input at the meeting: Keeler explained there are other ways to go about getting public input than just having people stand up and speak. One would be to set up small, round tables, each with a different concept to discuss. A Commissioner could sit at each table and write down the comments. Alternatively, rather than have a Commissioner at the table, small cards could be placed and the public could simply write down their comments and place the cards visibly on a wall of the room. Keeler would subsequently compile all of the comments and share them with the respective focus groups in addition to providing copies of the asset inventory. Weber said many people do not like public speaking and therefore she recommended the use of small cards for public comment. Stansbury asked if both public speaking and the use of small cards could be used to gather public comments. Keeler recommended that she, the Board and the GFMG Board members simply mill around during that time period. Weber asked if the round table method was do-able at the facility, considering the size of the Greenbank Progressive Club. Patton suggested just having one table with 4 sign up sheets (one per focus group) with Patton and Keeler standing behind available for explanations. Stansbury suggested rather than just Patton and Keeler, at the beginning of the meeting it could be announced that they and the Board and the GFMG Board members present would be available after the Power Point presentation. Patton voiced concern that some individuals might think that by signing up, they are absolutely on a committee. Stansbury suggested making the point at the beginning of the meeting that the Board is there to solicit views and invite participation, but make it clear that the Board cannot commit to anyone that that their views will survive or that they will be on a committee. There will probably be more volunteers than can be accommodated within the focus groups, and no one should assume that because they have spoken, their views will be adopted or that because they signed up, they will be selected as a member of a focus group. All present agreed. Baenen suggested providing the public with a form to complete that is pre-structured and asks for specific details such as special interest or expertise. All present agreed with that method.

Discussions and decisions by the Board: Weber asked if there was any discussion required regarding the possibility of an additional workshop meeting. Patton suggested that since the Board has already tasked Keeler to present her thoughts and a lot of the Master Site Plan process has already been captured at the two workshops, the Board table the decision regarding a 3^rd workshop until Keeler's proposal has been reviewed. Weber agreed and asked Keeler to submit her comments to Patton for circulation to the Board and the GFMG.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Weber adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.