January 23, 2017

The Okanogan County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on January 23, 2017 with, Commissioner Jim DeTro, Commissioner Chris Branch, Commissioner Andy Hover, and LaleŮa Johns, Clerk of the Board present.

Commissioner convened at 9:00 AM.

Member of the public George Thornton arrived at 9:04 a.m. to take notes.

Commissioner DeTro arrived at 9:06 AM.

Executive Session RCW 42.30.110 (1)(g) Performance of a Public Employee-HR
Commissioner Hover moved to go into executive session at 9:02 AM for 15 minutes inviting HR Director Tanya Craig, Juv. Administrator Dennis Rabidou, and Detention Manager Mikal Ward to discuss the performance of a public employee. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Executive session ended at 9:17 AM, no decisions were made.

Motion Resolution 14-2017 Budget Transfer Non-Departmental
Commissioner Branch moved to approve resolution 14-2017 a budget transfer within Non-Departmental for EDD dues and Human Resource training program in the amount $1,838. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Conference Call Lobbyist Jim Potts, Zach Kennedy
Lobbyists Jim Potts, Zach Kennedy called in today rather than tomorrow as indicated on the agenda due to the Clerk scheduling error. The following HB were discussed.
HB 1092 would allow for anyone to produce cannabis at their home if it was not for sale.
HB 1260 would redefine misdemeanors pertaining to marijuana.
HB 1094 would prevent a medical marijuana patient from being discriminated against during the hiring process and also an employee would not be subject to marijuana testing while employed.

Commissioner Branch asked whether the state had made any changes to the amount of tax revenue the counties receive for marijuana operations. Mr. Kennedy stated that the state would be looking at the production of the crop to determine a better allocation. Portions of Sales Tax coming back to the county was discussed, but for counties that had a moratorium it is said that t both marijuana and liquor operations revenue would be docked. The rural areas are the areas that need more monitoring, not the retail stores. As the county is responsible for rural areas it appears to be an unfunded mandate and doesnít favor rural jurisdictions.
HB 1376 is Paint Stewardship and it looks just like it has in the past. The concerns are still the same for counties, this program could be expensive for many counties.
SB 5228 concerns Hydraulic Projects as ďat or below the ordinary high water line.
HB 1156 Changes the population criteria, from fifteen thousand to three hundred thousand, for allowing wheeled all-terrain vehicles on county roadways.

The group discussed several water bills on the docket this week, these are all contentious and will be watched closely because the water issues will likely have the greatest impact on counties this year and into the future. The lobbyists suggested watching TVW as a good way to get a feel for the environment regarding the issue. Mr. Kennedy explained the difference between wheeled ATVís which indicated counties with populations of 15,000 or fewer can be allowed on county roads of 35 mph or less, but that may change to allow those agencies with populations of 300,000 or less. Commissioner Hover thought that wheeled ATVs were those that had blinkers, lights, and licenses. But Mr. Kennedy clarified that it could mean several different things.

There are many more bills out there and more every day, as the path of these bills becomes clearer the Lobbyists will keep everyone updated. The bills to tighten the reigns on regulatory agencies, especially Ecology, have been introduced but none have been scheduled for hearings as of yet.

Commissioner Branch asked about the Whatcom/Hirst decision and asked what might be addressed at the state level. Mr. Kennedy replied that some streams were not meeting the instream flow rules so they are looking at that as well as a rule that would allow the county government to overrule among other things. They are coming at it from several points and it is not determined yet exactly how that will be addressed. Something must be worked out as the current rule isnít working.

Ann Fagerlie arrived at 9:45 AM to see if she could discuss a personal matter with the board.

Mr. Potts asked which commissioner would be attending the LSC meeting. Commissioner Branch stated he was selected to or nominated to attend. Anyone can go stated Commissioner DeTro and the decision that he would go was made prior to the New Year. Mr. Potts replied that if there was a session particularly interesting to a commissioner just let him know and he can make some arrangements ahead of time.

On February 1st there is a legislative roundtable and on the 2nd is when LSC will happen and will be across the street from the county building. Just let them know so an extra agenda can be available. Commissioner Branch stated he is most interested in the hearings regarding the Hirst Whatcom water decision and anything to do with marijuana operations tax revenue.

The commissioners thanked Mr. Potts and Mr. Kennedy and closed the call.

Ms. Fagerlie reported that Sherry Bodkins, Extension office secretary, turned in her resignation last week and will be leaving next week so the office is without support staff support. Ms. Fagerlie stated the job can be posted with closing date on February 10 in order to fill the position quickly. The position is a part time position at 32 hours a week.

Mr. George Thornton, member of the public, talked about the Mountain Caribou issue and extended an invitation to the board for the discussion. He said there is a $7 fee for dinner/fundraiser for the CCT and that will take place on the first Friday of the month with dinner at 5:30 p.m. and meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tonasket CCT with a man named David Muskovits who will be speaking.

Briefing Among Commissioners
The commissioners discussed the application of RCW 67.28.1815 regarding Lodging Tax Revenue The Clerk of the Board provided some history of the Fairgrounds LTAC funding allocations over the years and the need for clarification of that section of code in RCW 67.28.1815 and how it might apply to the countyís ability to directly use the funds. Commissioner Hover stated an LTAC member had approached him regarding his desire not to fund any Capital Improvements on the Fairgrounds such as the bathroom and grandstand projects. The LTAC approved about $55,000 for the grandstands for 2017 but the LTAC member wished the county to withdraw its already approved allocation. Both projects are eligible under the law for funding, however the Bathroom project was not funded for 2017.

The Whistler Canyon trailhead was discussed. Commissioner Branch inquired how that property was acquired by the county. Commissioner DeTro explained the history of the property and stated there still remains a separate strip of land the county owns that does not have water.

Discussion Conference Call RE: Planning Permit Refund-Pete Gorboski
Mr. Gorboski explained an application for a site plan he has through the planning department. He wrote a letter requesting a land use fee refunded back to him. He didnít see an expiration date on the approval process for completing the project. He purchased the materials a long time ago and was not able to build anything until last year. He is unemployed and would like to save money where he can and so he is requesting the fee refund of $135 and another fee of $140. Director Huston reminded him that he spoke to the old commissioners before and he was denied. Mr. Goboski stated new information is that the site analysis approval didnít have any time restrictions or indicate that an additional fee would be needed if not completed within a certain timeframe. He did not receive anything in the mail to warn him it was about to expire. Director Huston stated he had a different building proposal in 2010 then what he has now. Mr. Gobroski stated yes, but he scaled it back with less impact from his original proposal. Commissioner Branch stated the 2010 proposal was to install a mobile home which he apparently did. Mr. Gobroski said his new proposal was for an out building which then required another site analysis. Mr. Gobroski stated he built a smaller building and the second was a steel shed. Director Huston stated there is a process to amend a proposal within a year but this is a different proposal entirely. He explained what triggered the site analysis for the new building, but Mr. Gobroski stated he thought because the proposal was not so different from his original proposal that he wouldnít have to pay another fee. Director Huston asked if the building size was changed, he said no it is still under 200 square feet. The issue is he wants to build something different now as the original was for a pole barn in 2010. Commissioner Branch stated the site analysis is a service he has to pay for and what he is trying to do today is different than what he applied to do then. After seven years he would be required to have an additional site analysis and that work was done. That is most likely why the previous commissioners denied the request before. Director Huston stated if a site analysis is approved then it can be amended within the year as it is only good for one year. Mr. Gobroski stated because he is having a hardship right now and he did not see an expiration date that he is now requesting a refund. Director Huston said Mr. Goboski still needs to pay for a set up permit for a mobile home. It is not certain whether he wants to apply for something else and have that fee waived or whether he is asking for a refund of a fee he already paid. He said he wants a refund. Mr. Goboski stated he is putting out a lot of money for the mobile home such as for the well septic and cost of moving the mobile to the home site and he will be losing money as the home is only worth $1500. Director Huston stated the commissioners will discuss this and get back to him in writing. Mr. Gobroski said that would be fine. Director Huston will look in the file and double check the current paperwork on file and then go from there.

Mr. Thornton recommended an informal discussion happen first with people about the process so they clearly know what it is.

Update-Planning-Perry Huston
Angie Hubbard, Perry Huston, Dan Beardslee, George Thornton

OCC 20 Omnibus Hearing
Director Huston explained the task is to determine physical and legal water withdrawal from an exempt well. The hearing is to generate as much info to hearing examiner with final work product being the findings. Mr. Mackie had recommended that we bring in the services of Mr. Flynn with Aspect Consulting who was involved with the instream flow rules and would have the hands on expertise on what it was meant to be. The proposed service agreement was provided for commissionersí consideration. (draft)

Director Hustonís suggestion is to essentially have three hearings depending on how much stuff we get. Director Huston explained that both WRIA 48 and 49 would be discussed. Staff would make their presentation at an open public meeting that would not generate testimony then continue that hearing into two separate hearings one for 48 and one for 49 where testimony would be collected. It would be a total of three hearings total. These would not be tied to a specific application.

The interpretation of Whatcom Hirst instream flows and senior water rights have to be determined and our decision should not exacerbate instream flows or senior water rights. RCW 58.17

Commissioner Branch stated the county must show its science. Commissioner Hover asked why the info is in title 20 instead of our comp plan. Director Huston explained why in that we looked at everything we could lay our hands on. Through all of that there is no appealable decision as the Commissioners do not approve anything that informs to the regulations. Subsequent specific regulations that are adopted can be appealable.

Commissioner Branch asked about critical areas and that process perhaps being used. Director Huston explained the one on the books was adopted in 1994. Best available science was mentioned in that document, Commissioner Branch explained, and the public hearing was identified but was not as focused on the water issue. We are establishing the science that we base the water adequacy law on. He would like people to know what the objective is. They are calling us out on the process and whether or not the considerations have a hierarchy. Dan Beardslee explained he has what he has to work with and tryís to go by the best information provided, but it really depends on who is looking at it. It isnít that cut and dry there is a lot of professional judgement that goes into it. Commissioner Branch stated that if you are trying to determine whether it is junk science or not based on the professional science and is really important to making the decision.

Commissioner Hover explained that Mr. Flynn does know his water. There are reports available to him to use that are realistic. He thinks Mr. Flynnís testimony would carry a lot of weight. Commissioner Hover believes both sides respect his science as there was no political gain involved. He explained the issue Mr. Flynn was involved in. Commissioner Branch stated if we bring someone in to testify because we like what they are saying how would that appear to someone who disagrees. Commissioner Hover replied that his science is respected on both sides and not a matter of liking the science as it is what it is.

The funding for Aspect would come from the Planning Professional Services budget. There may be enough funding for this and other obligations, but if there are a bunch of new stuff, then there would need to be additional budget consideration. Cash flow could still be an issue; Director Huston wanted to ensure there is enough cash on hand. If the board would like a more specific budget one could be established for this process.

DPA Albert Lin arrived at 2:15 p.m. Mr. Lin stated we are in an odd situation because we are in current litigation with the Yakima Nation. He stated we are laying the ground work to establish whether there is available water. Mr. Lin conveyed it is ultimately up to the board. Mr. Lin stated he would not provide a legal opinion in open public meeting at this time. Commissioner Branch questioned whether that has to do with the potential for negotiations and when the county would do that.

Director Huston further stated the proposal was to bring the 1.48 cfs of the 2 cfs Early Winters allocation down to supply water to Twisp and Winthrop and allow consideration of water storage. DOE wontí look at them because the basin is closed. But, if we bring the water down during high water flows and store it, that might help. I would not be for development purposes. Commissioner Hover stated one person he spoke to was concerned that there isnít enough private land to utilize the water if not to develop. Director Huston replied that Yakima Nation had asked and there was no support to simply move the water. WDFW is not satisfied with the way in stream flows were set anyway. They do not want it based on the amount of water flowing but rather what is best to support the fish. Commissioner Hover stated it is impossible to mitigate for five different species of fish that require five different flow rates. Bull Trout need low flow during certain times of the year and salmon needs high flow. Director Huston stated the conversation evolved and what it came down to if we took if from a reach that it will never be used to somewhere where it will be how do we mitigate that loss. The line is brightly drawn unless there is some enhancement somewhere. Commissioner Hover stated the 2cfs is senior to instream flows. Director Huston stated F&W thinks it is already being utilized.

Motion Tonasket EMS District
Commissioner Branch moved to adjourn as the BOCC and convene as the Tonasket EMS District. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Director Huston requested the board approve the expenses of the Tonasket EMS District in the amount of $22,504.22. Director Huston stated additional contract negotiations with Life Line continue to identify the numbers to be figured out if that is acceptable to the board. He is still trying to resolve ADP issues with reports and W-2ís..

Commissioner Branch moved to approve the voucher expenses of Tonasket EMS District in the amount of $22,504.22. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Commissioner Hover moved to adjourn as the Tonasket EMS District and reconvene as the BOCC. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Commissioner Hover continued to discuss the direction the board the wished to go with Shoreline Master Plan. Director Huston explained the past boardís request that WDFW come in to coordinate with the commissioners on things. If they believe they can get away with just sending an email to one of the commissioners to satisfy their coordination requirement, which is not coordination. The commissioners would like to know up front what is going on like prior to scoping on their projects. The current board would like face to face coordination. Director Huston will draft a letter to that affect. Commissioner Branch would like the tone of the letter not to be too stern. A draft will be sent for commissioner review.

Director Huston reported that the Lake Osoyoos homeowners association would like to create an assessment to use to pay for aquatic issues. They had a grant that ran out and met with favor from the rest of the residents that they thought an association could be created so an assessment could be collected continue providing funds. Once the parcels are identified and public hearing held a mailer would go out to notify the residents. A petition would be needed from the association to the board of commissioners first.

Director Huston reported that the new Fairgrounds Coordinator/Manager will be starting soon and would need to be oriented to the fairgrounds. There is no policy handbook in place there that outlines all the tasks involved. However, staff will work with him to help him learn the ropes. There should be created a process for the water system tests, Director Huston stated a sample must be taken every month by someone other than staff and it strikes him as a cleaner process. He will put together something for the commissioners to review. Commissioner DeTro stated that would be a good idea.

A Summary of the bids received was handed out on the bathroom project with the lowest one still out far from the engineer estimates. Director Huston will discover why. Commissioner Hover asked if precast structure information was received. Director Huston would revisit that.

Whistler Canyon trail area was discussed again as the adjacent land owner that had purchased the orchard portion would like an additional sliver of land the county retained. There was some language attached to the original sale that Director Huston will research. Commissioner Branch discussed the desire to keep the rock climbing area open to the public.

The discussion of the other agenda items will be presented another day.

Public Hearing Road Vacations Road Log Reconciliations- Public Works
Commissioner DeTro announced the time for the hearing is upon us. The recorder was started at 3:58 p.m.

Commissioner DeTro stated the hearing rules and provided 3 minutes for testimony.

Josh Thomson provided his staff report and explained RCW 36.87.010. The notice of hearing shall be published for two consecutive weeks tin the county newspaper of record. He clarified that section due to comments received that those notices be published for two weeks prior to the date set for hearing. He further read from his report.

1955 established a road log and a county road system which helped in the distribution of gas tax. PW has been going through the process to reconcile what is currently on our system by a proper process and which were not. The 11 roads considered today we do not have rights to. 1968 there was a revise road log done and none of these roads were identified there. There is a WAC that requires CRAB be submitted the information for the control fields with data sets annually.

The commissioners would like the roads done individually.

Road Number 08
Verlene Hughes provided and read her staff report for road #08. The Engineer followed with his engineer report. Attached. Vacating the road will not affect anyoneís access. He is not able to find the road on the ground and doesnít physical exist. This road has no name.

There was a resolution that stated the county did not have claim to the road. Unless there is a legal concern to a road we do not have. Commissioner Branch asked about the final order. Ms. Hughes stated the Final Order does not override any easements over the road. Commissioner Hover stated if it is done under a resolution there is no commenting on so the best way is to have a public hearing so people can comment on the removal of the road from the system. Engineer Thomson stated the net result is the same.

Commissioner Hover moved to approve the final order of vacation for Road #08. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Road No. 25 Goat Creek Road
Ms. Hughes provided her staff report for vacation of road #25 Goat Creek Rd. (attached) Engineer Thomson provided his Engineer Report on the road. (attached) The map was projected on the wall to show the 1955 map and this road and the majority of the road through forest service road and a portion of the road does not exist. There are several pieces that were obliterated by Forest Service when they built their road. We are not removing access to the forest with this vacation. Commissioner Branch asked if the road crossed the creek. The road stayed on the west side of the creek and does get close but according to attorney it does not qualify as an abutment. Commissioner Branch asked if the road does exist that portion reverts back to Forest Service ownership.

Commissioner DeTro closed staff and asked for public comment, no comments.

Commissioner Branch moved to approve the final order of vacation of Road 25 Goat Creek. Motion was seconded, all were in favor, motion carried.

Road No. 81 Texas Creek
Ms. Hughes provided a comment not in the packet and read her staff report. (attached) Engineer Thomson gave his staff report stating the history 443-2009 was approved which stated the county did not have a right to the road. The resolution stated 1050 feet of the road would not be vacated, but is county road that was dedicated. Some of the road description is not definitive, but going back through the logs it was determined exactly the number of miles, sections and notes showing logs where the road was identified over time. He explained his research on the road log which all mostly makes sense but the description is incorrect. There is a trace of a road that is not passible and cannot connect to any trace of another road, but there is a trace in a different area. Road log shows many details for other roads but for this road there are no details for the trace of road referred to. He further explained how the road was identified as county road through the road log, corner distances, and measurements. Paragraph three was read from a comment. Engineer Explained that county cannot claim right to this road and the county may not claim prescriptive rights like a private landowner can. There are no documents whatsoever that the county can use to claim rights to the road. He understands the publicís concern over vacating the road due to it stemming off of French Creek but the county cannot claim it as its own. Commissioner Branch asked about that section of road that does go through private property. There was a gate there and a deed that he has not seen yet but when it was sold the gate appeared to remain. If the gate was there and the public did not have access at that time, then there was none. If the public can show it was used for a period of 10 years or more is demonstrated then it could be considered a public road but with the locked gate in place so long it would be very difficult to show a right was established by the public in the first place. The DNR does have access.

Commissioner Hover stated if it were left open there is a gate still there on either end so no one would be trespassing at the bottom end because the road it connects to is a private road. It would be the forest service call as to whether to gate it or not. Commissioner Branch asked about the reference to DNR land that there is no access.

Commissioner DeTro closed staff and opened up for public testimony and began calling on those who wished to testify.

Patti Cofield testified about the general process and concerns. The descriptions on the road is either insufficient or not at all. She read from her prepared sheet. There are inconsistencies with the descriptions and there is a mention of section 37 but no actual section for 37 and make it very hard for people to try and find the road. What does it really mean? Should she trust the map being discussed? How can you post a rural road in the winter and makes it difficult for the public to research. This is a county the hunters come to and we kick ourselves in the chin when we reduce access.

Paula Macaroe testified that it is an interesting workshop and did not know what was proposed and doesnít understand about the gate referred to on the northern end of Texas creek in section 17 as that seems to access DNR land. Is the other road DNR road and why doesnít the public have access to it? Why would that portion going into DNR land closed off. She said the best direction to give Public Works is to fix the GIS locations which were not in the public notices. She understands the reason for reporting mileages. If abandoned then can every landowner legally be able to gate the private road and block access to DNR land. How do we expect the public to understand what is going on here when there were unfair processes done in 2009. Why not just remove the gate so the public can access the road. Some land owners are allowed to gate the road and other not.

Commissioner DeTro asked that there be no clapping and that people can go outside if they feel the need.

Chad read from his prepared testimony. He referred to the resolution 443-2009 and the locked gates which were only installed in 2015 with signs and before it was a wired gate not a locked gate and was of course GEBBERs property. How is it determined how far it goes. He is in favor of keeping it open and discussed the fires and lack of access for escape of fires.

Commissioner Branch asked if the process includes the commissioners asking questions of the public.

Lorah Super handed out her comments and her supporting documents. She clarified Mr. Kingís comment. She stated the map seems to look different every time. Vacation is forever gates are not. It is very expensive to get it back on the county system. She recommended it be kept open for now. The road was posted but due to the snow the posting were inaccessible and was not physical visible. Some people have keys to the gate and other do not. She is hoping the options be kept open. The maintenance of the county should not be used to demonstrate ownership of a road. She said the road was established for 10 years or more and is a public road. Since it is already established as a county road, why not keep it. There is a spur road that spurs onto and may be the road that doesnít jive with the county road map. There could have been better alignment at that location. Cow creek was a stage stop and regular use then and now by recreators and they do not know what is happening to the road. The fire access out the north is the only access out and they do not know what will happen if a fire happened in the future. CRAB doesnít require vacation. There is no public benefit to vacating the road and suggested the commissioners not be biased in considering the road.

Kevin Craiger homestead about Ĺ mile from the gate. It was the only gate he has to get around to access public lands and since then there are more gates. He has used the road for over 10 years and he sees fresh tracks and definitely has been used. Many roads probably donít match up to what is documented. He discussed if a wildfire happens the road would provide him access to the Loup Loup Highway and many other road areas and opens options for recreation, visiting neighbors etc.. Vacating this road would terminate his access to public lands. He testified that the county not vacate the road as it is very useful.

Commissioner DeTro closed public testimony and opened up to staff on the road posting. Ms. Hughes stated the road was definitely posted on both ends and there are photos of the postings. Commissioner DeTro opened up to the board. Commissioner Hover stated the purple section shown on the road is not county road and nothing that would prove it to be county road. The county cannot comment on the gating of the road as it is not a county road. Engineer stated the gates existed prior to the county. Commissioner Hover stated he is not ready to make a decision on this road. Commissioner DeTro explained scriveners errors happen and very likely those things will be caught and exactly why the county is addressing the road logs and system. Commissioner Branch explained his thinking and thought the county may have established the road at some point for us to be talking about it this way. He thought this one will need additional consideration and would like to learn more about it. If there is a way to gain access to our land and prevent them from being locked up. Some information about the gates only having been locked for a short amount of time and the debate goes on and on. The public should be clear about it. He would like to talk to the public about it.

Commissioner DeTro stated no action would be taken at this time for this road.

Road #103 No Name.
Ms. Hughes gave her staff report and Engineer Thomson provided his report.

Patty Cofield commented that the maps she looked at is not consistent. Commissioner DeTro stated Ms. Hughes is the go to person for the most up to date information. It is confusing.

Commissioner Hover moved to approve the final order of vacation on road #103. Motion was seconded all were in favor, motion carried.

Road No. 123
Ms. Hughes gave her staff report. (Attached) It was not able to be posted due to snow. This road was not drivable as it doesnít exist beyond a certain point. There was one comment and no objections were noted on the vacation. The area was homesteaded but since then the land has gone back to DNR. Commissioner DeTro asked for comments seeing none he closed public comment. Commissioner Hover would like to withhold the decision until the road can be posted.

Road No. 131
Ms. Hughes read from her staff report. Reposting the south end of the road as she didnít want to get stuck it so it too was posted on one end. Commissioner DeTro closed public comment and stated no action would be taken until the road can be posted properly.

Road No. 218
Ms. Hughes gave her staff report. Engineer provided that the road is platted and there is no trace and not accessible and should have been vacated when the water level was raised and does fit that does abut a body of water 36.80.130 allows us to vacate. The road was not posted on either end. This road only has one end so stated Albert Lin and it was his thought since the road only has one end due to the other end being underwater. Ms. Hughes stated the initial posting was on our guardrail. Engineer stated he had to get permission from the land owner to get to where the road would have been had there actually been one created. Commissioner Hover stated this is a unique situation and asked if anyone objected to the county not being able to post. The posting of the road did trigger the landowner wish to discuss further another issue. Commissioner Branch asked about access for PUD to access their lands and do they have any interest.

Commissioners would like clarification of PUD lands along the river and whether the PUD has access. Engineer stated there is no access to the potion of road in question from any other public road. No action at this time. Commissioner DeTro closed public comment.

Patti Cofield stated she was confused but the map was very helpful.

Road No. 338
Engineer Thomson stated the road was identified in the 1955 resolution. He explained it is on the reservation with a portion of it being a small forest road but does connect into Coyote Creek road. Verlene Hughes gave her staff report. This road was posted on both ends. Engineer stated he did meet with BIA and it does show in their system as their road. It does cross Coyote creek and is intermittent and doesnít qualify as leading to a body of water as defined in RCW. Commissioner Branch asked about a lighter color road. The BIA currently maintains the road. Commissioner DeTro closed the staff and opened up to public.

Edwin Wells commented that the road accesses closer to another road and he has property across the way from it. Commissioner DeTro stated the BIA road runs along the length of the portion the county owns. Mr. Wells explained Omak Lake road was turned over to BIA and they have not maintained it as it only has one lane after the road slide. The tribe doesnít maintain that road why would they maintain this one.

Pat Graves commented to thank everyone here including the former commissioner to do this process right. He said anytime dealing with the BIA or Tribes you enter into a nebulous of laws. He further explained it is gone forever but they are not known for doing what they say with Omak Lake road being an example. The whole basis was for public interest so when will it be opened?

Engineer Thomson stated in the 1900 a county requested a survey of roads and rights were given by the tribe and according to BIA we cannot claim the road and it was not one of the roads. It wasnít on 1955 map but in the 1955 log it was shown as a county road. Commissioner Branch asked for these types of roads whether Boss Colman timber harvesting could have established it as a county road. Another issue with BIA and taking care of their roads, what is wrong with the road and why havenít they fixed it. There was some engineer feats that would cost money and was one reason why BIA has not fixed it yet. Commissioner DeTro state if we relinquish anything can the tribe post it as no access. He would like further legal opinion on this road to find out if the tribe can close off lands to us. It has happened before.

Commissioner DeTro asked if the rest of the proposed roads for vacation are also BIA roads does the board wish for further clarification on the proposed vacation. Commissioner Branch asked what the risk is. Engineer Thomson stated the county does not collect road taxes nor does it maintain it. Commissioner DeTro would like to further clarify. Commissioner Branch explained he is in favor of no action on the other two.

Ms. Hughes will work with legal counsel to clarify.

Commissioner Hover recapped those proposed vacations that no action was taken on will be clarified or reposted. Commissioner Branch believes more effort be had to ensure good clear

Mr. Edwin also lives on that road and he remembers in the early 1950 it was maintained by the county to the junction up until the commissioners made an agreement with the tribe for maintenance of the road and the county was reimbursing the tribe for maintaining it. He knows of other roads the county turned over to be maintained by the tribe but retained ownership. He thinks the county has the right of way. Commissioner DeTro closed public testimony and remanded back to the engineer.

Director Huston recommended the commissioner remand back to the engineer those roads to be clarified and specifically state what information is needed. Commissioner Hover stated there were a couple roads that were not posted on either end.

Commissioner Hover moved to remand those roads with procedural errors back to county engineer to be reposted and the hearing re noticed and reposted.
Jon Wyss asked if only those roads that were not posted will be reposted and those with legal or technical errors will be through another public hearing.

Road Not posted were 123,131, and 218 so a new public hearing happen.

The board should remand roads 81, 338, 452, and 449 as there is not enough information.
Those should be remanded for additional research and not continue the hearing. When the reports are done the roads will be reposted and a new public hearing held.

Where will the postings be done on #81 so people know where to find it. The area was shown on the map where the red and purple meet and on the other end. One end is not accessible due to gate. Commissioner Hover stated the portion of road that is not in question. It is like one end being in the water and that is impossible to post so the posting will be where it is required to be. Commissioner Hover stated the decision was not made on this road and not enough info was provided. The hearing will be redone and an opportunity for more testimony will be allowed at that time.

RCW 36.87.050 was read by Attorney Albert Lin about the notice requirements. He recommended the statute be followed.

Engineer Thomson explained that if additional time is allowed he can create additional language to more clearly inform people of the proposal through the website, postings and notices.

Commissioners thanked everyone.

Commissioner Hover moved to close the public hearing motion seconded all were in favor, motion carried.

Commissioners adjourned the hearing at 6:43 p.m.