January 3, 2017

The Clerk of the Board Convened the Board 9:00 a.m. She explained she will call for nominations for Chairman and Vice Chairman of the board.

Present: Tanya Craig

Organize the Board
Tanya Craig, Perry Huston

The Clerk of the Board called the meeting to order. She explained the process for organizing the board would be first to obtain nominations for Chairman.

Nominations for Chair
Commissioner Hover and Branch nominated Commissioner DeTro to be chairman of the board The Clerk of the Board called for the vote.

Commissioner Branch moved to nominate Jim DeTro for Chairman, Hover seconded the motion, all were in favor. Nominations were closed motion carried.

Nominations for Vice Chair
Commissioner DeTro opened up for nominations for vice chair, Commissioner Hover nominated Commissioner Branch for vice chair due to his experience in local government. All those in favor, motion carried. Nominations were closed. Motion carried.

Commissioner Hover moved that Commissioner Chris Branch be Vice-Chairman, Commissioner DeTro seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion carried.

The board discussed scheduling the commissioners’ regular weekly agenda. The board directed the Clerk of the Board to keep Wednesday free and not schedule meetings on that day. It would be used sparingly and for overflow meeting which are found to be necessary.

Commissioner DeTro will be in the office on Wednesday’s, Commissioner Branch will be in the office Thursday’s and Commissioner Hover in the office Friday’s. Director Huston stated there is still some long term planning needed for Planning and Development projects. Commissioner Branch stated the meetings could be scheduled in the mornings and evenings. He discussed the previous board’s minutes and would like more opportunities to be available to the public. He asked if evening meetings were ever considered. Director Huston replied that it was tried here for several land use hearings and he experienced in Kittitas County but that fell by the wayside due to no public attendance. It does take additional staff orchestration, but it is a good opportunity for the public once in a while to have an evening meeting scheduled. Commissioner Branch explained he can see that happening depending on the interest in the topic such as Comprehensive Plan. He wants to ensure people have the opportunity to participate. Commissioner Hover stated his thoughts that the options be kept open should the public indicate evening meetings are preferred.

The board went through their list of assignments. Additional refinement will be necessary.

Director Huston explained a letter to Resource Advisory Committee was needed in support of the commissioner application to sit on the committee. He will draft a letter to this affect.

Director Huston explained the Finance Committee is part of the budget group and is a designated board for the county’s debt and investment plan.

Shoreline Master Program was discussed. Commissioner Branch discussed shorelines in Oroville on Lake Osoyoos and what concerns he is aware of. He would like to contract with the City of Oroville to continue to lend support as they county continues to work on its plan. DPA Albert Lin discussed representation of the county over any other and there be a clean distinction between the City of Oroville and obtaining recommendations from their advisor not Commissioners. Commissioner Branch stated he can use the time to hire a consultant to take on this part. There is no one at the city taking this on right now. Commissioner Branch stated the agreement it is ready for adoption with some formatting needing to be completed. There are many on the lake that do not understand the city or county’s plan. DPA Albert Lin understands Commissioner Branch’s wish to be part of the project, but he recommends he not participate in how the city deals with this issue. Commissioner Branch stated he has a draft contract that allows the city to transition with a list of tasks he would like to share with Mr. Lin so anything of concern can be eliminated. Director Huston stated he has experience walking from city to county. There may be some opportunity for a short interlocal agreement to smooth the transition between the program and city and take commissioner Branch out of the direct path of a decision. Ms. Craig stated it would not be appropriate. Commissioner Branch stated the RCW 36.40 allows for interlocal agreement for this kind of thing. Regional planning organizations. Commissioner Hover stated the board will be scrutinized and everything that was done by the previous board generated havoc with staff and commissioners. He believes that it is in the county’s best interest to keep litigation at a minimum and he would like to have a very very thoughtful plan to move forward. We want to resolve issues not create them. Commissioner DeTro stated another aspect he doesn’t want to take a position where we are alienating the city and county. Commissioner Branch stated the simplest way is address this urban expansion area are places the county and city have to work together on. If it is an appearance of fairness issue he can cut it off right now. Commissioner Hover agrees that the City should be given a smooth transition, but he thinks there should be a good plan and transition. Mr. Lin stated his main concern is the public being concerned over Commissioner Branch working two jobs with a problem that will need to be very clear when dealing with either it must appear fair. Commissioner Branch stated he would not move forward with the draft until Mr. Lin reviews it and can support it. Commissioner Hover asked if the board must decide whether or not Commissioner Branch should cut his ties to the City of Oroville. Albert is not comfortable with Commissioner Branch and the City of Oroville entering into an interlocal agreement which exposes Commissioner Branch to all kinds of concerns. Albert recommended Commissioner Branch keep separate the city and county tasks. Commissioner Branch stated he would not contract with the city then, but the board will help the city transition. Director Huston does believe a letter to the city would be appropriate. Any notion that the city within the county is in a conflicting position is false on its face. The contract would allow Commissioner Branch to provide advisement over land use issues the city is making decisions on. Commissioner Branch stated the conversation does bring up potential for concern. He will bring up the potential conflicts, such as the Tonasket EMS District issues. The best thing to do is to cut himself completely off from the city. Albert stated the last thing he wants to see is for a commissioner to have to deal with a situation like this.

Commissioner Hover asked about appearances, if a group of people invite a commissioner to a function, but if two commissioners were invited to the same function what happens. All county business should be conducted here, Albert Lin recommended. Always apply the Appearance Fairness Doctrine whenever meeting with potential situations the board may make decisions on later.

Commissioner Hover asked about ownership roads in the county. There are a variety of ways the county can come into possession of a county road.

Legal matters were discussed. Albert Lin recommends not furthering litigation in any case the county is a party.

Discussion Jury Management Position Resolution 138-2016
Judge Rawson, Judge Culp, Dennis Rabidou, Sandy Ervin, Leah McCormack, Laurie Thomas, Debi Hilts, Tanya Craig,

Judge Culp stated Judge Rawson is now the presiding judge so all administrative matters will go to him. Judge Rawson stated the reason and the basis they were here was resolution 138-2016.

Mr. Rabidou stated the goal is to provide the current board the historical back ground and to ensure they convey their concerns over the issues. Mr. Rabidou stated he believed the issue could be resolved by $852 and then further discussed the policy and hope that the perspective will lend some clarity. Mr. Rabidou explained the person was ready to hand in her resignation if the board didn’t approve what the court was asking. He read from his prepared white paper all the details he compiled. The Clerk of the Board asked him for a copy for the record, but he did not provide the Clerk with a copy. Judge Culp introduced Ms. Sandy Ervin, saying this is who we are talking about, it is a real person.

Mr. Rabidou again asked the board if they were willing to see an employee, such as Ms. Ervin, resign just because of a $852 difference?

Mr. Rabidou continued to read from his prepared summary. He gave reference to RCW 2.36.052. He relayed his work to meet with HR to come up with a cost effective solution. The facts was funded at full time grade 10 in the Clerk’s office. The court did not ask for addition funds to address their responsibility. Perform jury management of the court SC was to perform JM opposed to the full time jury management position. Mr. Ervin decided to work part time and worked with HR to accomplish this. The discussions were to less than 70 hours per month.

Mr. Rabidou continued to read from his prepared summary.

6/2014 discussed a better solution for jury management and solutions discussed. A resolution was prepared to formally adopt.

7/2014 62-2014 was fully supported by the BOCC and was authorized

8/2014 BOCC discussed concerns raised by the auditor’s office.

7/2015 courts notified the Auditor and HR office.

129-2015 adopting 2016 budget with jury management position funding.

1/2015 the clerk discussed the transfer of jury management back to the Clerk. Note was passed to Sandy Ervin during court.

Mr. Rabidou finished his summary with the last resolution 138-2016 was authorized but no discussion with the courts regarding the draft.

Commissioner DeTro noted that the last few meetings that were scheduled with the BOCC for Superior Court to discuss these issues was cancelled by Superior Court.

Resignation is eminent if this is not addressed to

Commissioner DeTro asked how he can in all good conscious have the only single employee with part time with full time benefits. Mr. Rabidou stated it was discussed thoroughly and at that time it was not the only exception to the policy and acceptations happen all the time. He asked who has the problem with this and why is it too hard to stand up and explain that.

Auditor Thomas stated she lost a part time clerk because she was not allowed the same acceptation as the Jury management position. The person must be separated from the emotions of the person. It should not be an emergency as the resolution stated it would end.

Judge Culp stated this should not be a discussion this group should be having, it not about what is fair here or there it was what was agreed to and the changes that came through was not started there. All they are asking is that this board examine the history of the situation to make a decision based on what happened two years ago between the board and the court. It is really simple. Commissioner DeTro remembered that the Clerk is also an elected official, we cannot tell her what to do, and when she had problems everyone wanted to help. This was to be a training position to ensure all the other judicial assistants were to be trained in jury management. His main issue is that we cannot go down that same path, he just wants this position to be aligned with the personnel manual. Judge Culp stated when people see a job opening they make a conscious decision to apply for a job. That is how it should work as they rely on the representation and that is what Sandy relied on. Commissioner Hover asked how the decision was made to allow full time benefits. The auditor had concerns then about the benefits. Treasurer asked if there was an employment agreement. There was not one, there were resolutions.

Commissioner Branch stated it is complicated, he would like to read the summary prepared by Mr. Rabidou. There are policies that state this cannot be done. He asked about what authority of the Clerk was recognized to change this from their office to the Superior Court office. Commissioner DeTro stated the previous Clerk performed this task for 30+ years. It wasn’t until after the Clerk position was elected that it was a concern. Commissioner Hover stated the final resolution 138-2016

1) Benefits and number of house
2) Where will it be paid from
Initially the position was to be funded out of Current Expense but at the last minute it was funded out of Trial Court Improvement.

Judge Culp stated this board needs to be aware of is the TCI is a fund that is shared between DC and SC and cannot be used by one without the agreement of the other. Commissioner Hover stated if DC benefited from the position why wouldn’t it be okay to fund from TCI. Judge Culp stated the fund was used for over two years for this and was for a limited time. They don’t use the fund to supplant funds over a long period of time, but rather for specific short term issues.

Mr. Rabidou 534.52 has been approved to fund at 40% full cap benefit rate. Auditor Thomas stated her staff.

The position was not in the same grade when it was under the Clerk’s office and the Clerk was not utilizing the clerk 100% for jury management, but was to also close out cases and was not meant to be a full time position just doing jury management. The position was originally a grade 10 when it was in the Clerk’s office. Judge Culp stated jury management always got the new staff person at the lowest level and that is what created the problem. As people were promoted and moved on, there was no continuity of the job and people learning on the fly. There weren’t the numbers needed for jury management, questionnaires were not returned, and we basically got what we paid for. Now we have a higher quality of service and cannot play around with this service. The Clerk might fill it at a grade 10 or 12 and it just doesn’t work for Superior Court. Judge Rawson gave an example, earlier after assuming the bench, he had a mis-trial due to not having enough jurors. The work was taken to Ms. Ervin and she immediately looked through the names. Superior Court believes with her institutional knowledge and follow up with personal contact with people she is invaluable to the courts. Superior Court stated that with the lowest person taking this responsibility on it creates disconnect. They want to preserve and protect the quality of service being provided. Ms. Ervin left the District Court under retirement and analyzed with HR how much time she could work and the 16 hours per week was based on an agreement with the exception worked out. The 16 hours with full benefits would not affect her retirement.

Judge Rawson stated the resolution was to move the position from a special fund Trial Court Improvement fund to Current Expense at the 16 hours per week with full benefits. With the cash flow issues in Current Expense, the previous board approved the position to be paid from Trial Court Improvement fund.

Commissioner Hover asked if District Court also benefits from the jury management position. Treasurer McCormack stated in fairness not everyone is provided the same consideration. Most try to follow the county personnel policy but she is aware that DC benefits very little from the position. When this was set up it was to allow cross training among the other Judicial Assistants in Superior Court and she is now confused as that obviously is not happening.

Judge Culp stated confirmed that cross training is used in the job descriptions and when it was set up they envisioned all the Judicial Assistants to be cross trained across the various functions and they are. So any staff can deal with jury. Judge Culp relayed that cross training doesn’t mean a person can step into another position and work it for several weeks, rather it was meant that some other staff could temporarily step in and perform the jury duties for that day or on a very temporary basis. It is was convenient to throw that term in, you don’t cut out 16 hours per week and have others absorb the tasks. The other assistants are crossed trained and can conduct jury.

Auditor Thomas stated the resolution allows 20 hours per week and some benefits in accordance with the personnel policy to be paid out of TCI fund. Commissioner Hover asked about the pro-rated amount for benefits and asked if the resolution follows the personnel policy. Yes, Ms. Craig replied. Mr. Rabidou stated $843 will get absorbed throughout the rest of the year and should not be much of an impact. A resolution was recommended to amend 138-2016 the funding source, up to 20 hours per week, allowing the full time benefits for the part time employee. It doesn’t matter the resolution must state 16 per week. Commissioner Branch asked about other situations where this was accepted. Is there a difference or a problem by affording this waiver for one person and not another? He observed a difference in circumstances and asked is there anything in our policy that allows exceptions? The weight of a policy is not statute, they are policy and exceptions are made. DPA Albert Lin stated there are two issues, one is a budget issue. The other issue personal, ultimately that will need to be squared away. Auditor Thomas stated jury management is important but when exceptions are made that unfairly impact other it will start effecting morale. This resolution was an attempt to correct a previous error and to go back to following county policy. Judge Culp stated there are two decisions to be made and recommended the board read the first resolution 62-2014 which originally created the positon and suggested the new board read 76-2014. It is important because it implies that once this. When the time came and the person filling the position has left county employment, resolution 76-2014, than that future vacancy would be reevaluated and filled in accordance with the needs of the county. Judge Rawson discussed resolution 76-2014 that language is there for a purpose, so everything else in the recitals, it has significant bearing. Commissioner Branch stated what he is hearing is that if another department requested an exception like this, he

He sees a challenge here, knowing there are those who might disagree in the way things are viewed. He isn’t hearing any proposal to address the problems at hand. He sees that as a problem. The full time benefits is the issue. Commissioner Hover stated policies do need to be adhered to and we cannot just change policy every time it doesn’t suite us. He believes that position should not be lost, but there are budget issues. We will need to discuss the amount of money in the county and what we will do about it. Tanya Craig stated it is personal and how do we explain to other that they are not being considered like this and how do we not make it personal. Director Huston stated his understanding, figure out what a position ought to be compensated and recommended that portion of the personnel policy be addressed. Figure out what the position is worth. Repeal that portion of the personnel policy and consider benefits as part of the compensation. Then the benefits follow and that is not budgeting we must look at the total dedicated portion it out and find the funding source. He suggested to find out if our policy works and total compensation. Auditor Thomas has concerns about trying to do a resolution to repeal the policy as it currently is. The bargaining units are very clear in what we cannot do and cannot be applied to non-bargaining.

Commissioner Hover asked who authorizes the position and its funding. Mr. Rabidou replied that the courts sets it out. Commissioner DeTro stated at some point he thought it was the boards thought was to bring it back under the county policy. Mr. Rabidou stated resolution 76-2014 made acceptations but not until the position was vacated. He is sorry that other departments are not asking for the same consideration and if they are the circumstances are different. Commissioner DeTro asked if the FSLA impacts this what so ever, no she replied. Judge Culp doesn’t expect a decision to day, but time is important. It is fair to say time is of the essence. They are asking the board to make a decision. Two questions, Albert do you see this as a contract law question, aside from everything else. Albert Lin stated this is an at will position. He sees it as a budget question, the court is making its pitch to the BICC and why their pitch should be afforded and supported by dollars and cents. The BOCC must make a decision on the finite dollars. SC stated they have the funds to support it. Judge Culp stated they are passed discussing the need, we are talking dollars and policy. Auditor Thomas stated separate the person from the position, although if that person was not able to work, those skills would not be obtainable by another person in the department. Albert Lin every year departments come to the board for dollars. The court has made a pitch as to its recommendation, this board. Just because you made the request doesn’t mean the request must be granted as there are other concerns to be addressed, stated Commissioner Hover. It is $70 increase to our budget, and he would like to see the numbers. Mr. Rabidou requested the courts be part of the process. Treasurer asked if this position would take on additional responsibilities of both Superior Court and District Court. Judge Culp stated the history of the TCI budget being shared between DC and SC. Treasurer McCormack stated no budget was submitted for TCI. She saw only the salary and benefits. MR. Rabidou stated there would not be a drastic budget impact and doesn’t believe they would need to supplement the budget at grade 16 step 5 with full benefits. Commissioner Hover stated to keep with policy the benefits would be funded

Tanya Craig explained consideration over the 16 hours per week versus 20 hours per week. Commissioner Hover stated we either go against county personnel policy or change the compensation. He asked if the Superior Court could absorb the difference. It would be approximately $31,369 impact at 20 hours including retirement to current expense and $28,182 if at grade 16 and does not include retirement. Thomas stated we budget for the position not for the person. Auditor Thomas stated the county will be looking at layoffs if the county cash situation doesn’t get better. The funds in TCI cannot be transferred to Current Expense, Current Expense would have to foot the cost of the position. It was decided the positon continue being funded from TCI because CE didn’t have the means. The budget can be moved to SC/CE but there is no revenue that can be transferred to cover it in CE.

If District Court is alright with the positon being paid from TCI would it be alright with the courts to continue funding it from TCI. Judge Culp stated he could not speak for district court. The TCI fund cannot continue to fund the position as revenues will not be adequate. Auditor Thomas stated if Ms. Ervin is doing administrative duties for District Court also, perhaps the positon should be funded from there?

Commissioner Hover stated it was the county’s goal to move it out of TCI to Current Expense, he would really like to keep the position in TCI at this point and understands it is not an unlimited pot of money. If the funds could be moved along with the budget he would not have a problem with it being in Currently Expense. Judge Culp asked if the board would approve full benefits at 16 hours per week. Commissioner DeTro stated he would like to discuss further with the board. He stated positions with the salary are posted all the time, many interviewed, are not hired because they ask

Ms. Craig explained why Superior Court believes this is an urgent matter. Does the board wish for staff to crunch the numbers and provide them to the group? District Court should discuss the use of TCI fund for this purpose. The information will be provided to the courts.

Mr. Rabidou discussed interpreter issues, ADA issues, and equipment issues they were hoping to address with the TCI funds. That is why there was a shift to the current expense so the TCI funds could be used for that. Treasurer McCormack discussed the Capital Improvement fund and Plan, that fund can be fronted or used for capital improvement the bond will be paid off in 2017 and recommended ADA improvements be discussed with the BOCC.

The emergent situation is the personnel manual, stated Mr. Rabidou. Commissioner Branch stated the situation be memorialized for future discussions and being able to go back. Judge Culp stated the last recital in 138-2016 stated the position ended in December 31, 2017. He would like that part removed from future resolutions. Ms. Craig stated that language was put into the resolution because the board wanted to revisit the funding source for the position. Commissioner DeTro stated the first finance committee meeting the board wishes to address the line item budget.

The Finance Committee Meetings are always the third Tuesday of every month at 10:00 a.m. and is a public meeting. No one is sent individual invites, the information is on the BOCC agenda.

Citizen Comment Period
Kit Arbuckle

Mr. Arbuckle discussed Commissioner of Public Lands Hillary Franz DNR, taking office and her wish to strengthen local economy is a goal of hers. Mr. Arbuckle thinks it would benefit all to invite her to come here. If we had more logging going on we might have been able to save the mill. It would give her a sense. Inviting Douglas County and Quad County group would be good too. He suggested inviting her out very soon before her calendar fills up. If the board decides to move forward let him know as he knows several who would be interested in attending such a meeting.

Discussion Public Works Josh Thomson
Perry Huston, Kit Arbuckle

Engineer Thomson went through current staffing in the office. The area supervisors with 6 area shops and several lead men. Solid Waste manager coming on board next week. There are a total of 72 employees and several temporary groomers, road, and sign shop. Commissioner Hover asked how the grooming of the snowmobile routes fall under Public Works. Thomson explained it is 100% grant funded from State Parks. There is a fund balance as we used to get a portion of the fees, and now we send a bill out to get reimbursed, so the fund isn’t one that grows. Commissioner Branch asked about temp crews and how those positions are used. We almost always have a temp on the crew, and is a balance. Commissioner Branch asked about the finance office, traditionally there were three staff with one of them finance manager. Engineer explained that two staff is enough. There is a total of 82 employees at Public Works with 12 funds with the largest being the Road Fund. Paths and trails receives 1/10 of one percent tax and cannot be used for trail maintenance.
Engineer Thomson stated fund 116 for Dike controls. The dikes use a separate fund and there is around $15,000. These funds are used to maintain the dikes with vegetation management. The Army Corp doesn’t like to see any vegetation on the dikes.

Fund 122 is a sewer fund and is currently used for training, not much more in it and is a fund that has been sitting there a while. Several sewers had separate funds, but this one had a purpose at some point. Solid Waste Closure Fund 123 which is where the CE loan is coming from.

Engineer Thomson reported on current projects listed on his attached agenda.

B-3 B-15 bridge replacements

Hwy 7 Tonasket Bridge South RATA not till 2020
Hwy Tonasket Bridge North overlay RATA funded not till 2021
Bridge load ratings reload rate our bridges by 2022. We have about 25 that must be done this year with 40-50 thousand to do. The shorter bridges will be inspected.

Will request signatures on a janitorial services agreement for 2017 Public Health and Public Works and ER&R shop services.

There is one section of Cameron Lake Road that will be addressed tomorrow as it is impassible.

Engineer Thomson discussed roads that will be addressed and BIA paperwork will be sent in.

Part of Cherokee Road and is annexed to the city. There is county road on either end, and like miles to be swapped with the city. The thought was a permanent agreement would be work out. The county would continue to plow snow on Cherokee and the city will continue to plow on one of our streets. An agreement will be approved over the summer, stated Engineer Thomson. Commissioner DeTro explained some other road jurisdiction issues. There are a few portions of county roads that have not been annexed to the city. He has not approached the city regarding these roads. Commissioner Branch replied that some residents living on the roads might initiate the annexation.

Director Huston stated one thing to be addressed still is the city expansion areas and airport overlay areas that will need to be started up again this year. Commissioner Branch asked whether the county involves itself with recommending annexations? Director Huston clarified that he doesn’t make recommendation to city. The county does need to coordinate with the cities for any annexations being considered.

County weed spray program was discussed. Two years ago the diexion was made to hire a contractor to do the roads, but unpaved roads are done by local contractors. One more year to extend the contract or hire our own to do the work. A discussion between Anna Lyon and him to consider Noxious Weed providing the county with weed spray program. Commissioner Hover asked what the cost would be for the county to do the spraying and was about the same per mile as the contractor. The chemical is where the costs differ. Typically contract spraying is contracted for twice a year. County forces were less expensive for contact spraying but we do not have any employees certified to do the work. We would need to hire at least two employees who are certified and trained to do the work.

Two options
Extending Woodlands contract
Meet with Anna Lyon for Noxious Weed to do it

Commissioner Hover stated eventually the county should explore. Commissioner Branch stated if the budget stays the same either way, if we have the funds and budget then it would pay and not affect the bottom line. Engineer Thomson explained utilization of the county weed program are also the staffing plowing in the winter, and truck driver during off season. Commissioner Hover asked what Engineer’s recommendation is. He would like the county to do the contact spraying, but residual could be contracted out. There was flexibility lost due to contractors not able to address emergency growths. Commissioner Hover asked how long it takes to become certified and hired for the purpose. Commissioner DeTro stated that decision would be something for 2018 but certainly a solution we can work towards this year. Director Huston stated a cost benefit analysis should be brought back to the board with a revised plan for 2018. This decision must be made before the current contract expires. The contractor would like assurances now as to the county’s direction for its weed spray program. Engineer Thomson will meet with Noxious Weed and will have an idea after that. Noxious Weed does weeds, he does roads. If it is more efficient that it would be good to consider.

Public Works ER&R owns the equipment and it would rent it to Noxious Weed to administer the spray. There are many things to consider.

2017 Budget
Engineer Thomson stated his priority has been to chip seal the roads with county forces and considering the $2 million load and road levy shift he isn’t sure his projections are still accurate.

Commissioner DeTro stated a person relayed to him that the bus routes have not been plowed before the bus in over 10 years and thanked the county. What constitutes the county owning a road on the county 1955 map? If we maintained it for 7 and the public used it for 10 years are some of the consideration to determine this. Albert Lin stated there are several ways to determines use. But that usually comes into play during a lawsuit. Director Huston stated roads that are in the platting process are forever and there are a number of cases that come into play.

Commissioner Hover asked about the January 23 public hearing and whether the map could be displayed by the projector. Yes, we have it available. He would like the 11 roads and numbers based on spreadsheet so he knows which he is looking at. There is a gate across one of the roads and could be contentious. There is a road that was recently gated. The road connects Texas Creek to a forest service road. There is a resolution acknowledging a portion of the road as not being county road. Number 81. The aerial photos doesn’t show the current alignment. There is a portion of it that is not perfectly aligned. The portion on FS is gated. The gate goes across the cattle guard with the side wire gate open. The cattle guard is not franchised and could pre date the 1970’s.

The 11 roads were supposed to be the easy slam dunks. Albert Lin asked if Gebbers have requested vacation of any of these roads. Engineer Thomson stated they didn’t know until recently and he had not heard from them on this. Albert Lin would recommend vacate but without all the information in the file it makes it difficult.

Engineer Thomson requested that both himself and Administrative Officer Ben Rough to utilize the same time for their commissioners update. The board agreed and were fine with both coming to update them during the same hour. Either way works for the board.

Jeff Lang is coming in at 10:00 am to discuss and approve the contract for Tonasket EMS Services.

Commissioner DeTro stated invitation to new commissioners to attend OCOG on January 9 at 5:00 pm.

Ms. Craig updated the board on a drafted resolution addressing the Judicial Assistant position that was discussed earlier this morning. The Superior Court is requesting the position to be funded at 16 hours per week at the full cap rate. Commissioner Hover would like to stick with policy but still provide adequate consideration.

Director Huston provided the AIA document transmittal for the fairgrounds restroom facility.

Albert Lin explained an at-will-employee is easier to let go with or without cause and still retain certain rights. A contract is set in stone, but what is there it does limit flexibility versus what is already written in the personnel manual. There isn’t going to be much difference. Due to currently litigation does the board have the right to contract with a court employee? Mr. Lin stated hypothetically because he is not involved with that. Is the commissioners be very clear about their consideration so there is no question as to what the boards decision is as it relates to any employee. Who has the authority over budgets, it is the board, but he senses reluctance. He doesn’t believe that responsibility should be usurped by another department. What do other counties pay their jury manager, do they have one specific person given that duty and if so how is that position compensated, but is a HR question. Mr. Lin stated the courts must make request for budget authority to pay their employees. Commissioner DeTro stated he is involved with litigation and if he makes a decision they can hold up later, he is sorry. But he held up resolution 138-2016 and stated if it leads to this he will have to abstain. He has never agreed that the future vacancy for the position be filled in accordance with the needs of the county.

Commissioner Hover discussed their options. Mr. Rabidou came in briefly to request to be part of the future discussions regarding the position. The commissioners stated an invite would be generated when they discuss again. Mr. Rabidou left, thanking the board. The commissioners also thought the Auditor and Treasurer should also be invited.

Commissioners adjourned at 5:00 p.m.