HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011684
. .. I
.
.
IJi
,.
Clerk of the Board:
Publi~ Works Director:
A.M. ~'Meara, Cbairman
B.G. 'rown, Member
John: . Pitts, Member
Jerdi e C. Bragg
Brian' L. Shelton
District No. 1 Commissioner:
District No. 2 Commissioner:
District No. 3 Commissioner:
----------------------------- --------------------- ----------------
, M~" 'illI; N U ill, ,.' ''',\~~
----------------------------- --------------------- ----------------
Week 0
I
attendance when Chai~~"",' an A.M. O'Meara
10:00 a.m. I
ork list for Parks dirin winter season:
n ecreat~on epart ~nt, Warren teurer,
winter season on thl: County parks, as
new park entrance si ns.
uld like to level an gravel parking
i
tables and f~~eplaces at all
i
,
January 16, 1984
All members
called the meeting to
Director
outlined
follows:
1)
2)
Standardize an
Lake Leland Pa k - W
area for camps'tes.
3) Make sure ther are
spaces in the arks.
Number all cam sites.
Remove dangero s sna s and trees. I
Put traction 0 the ooden bridge at Lake ~eland.
Replace garbag barr Is with 32 gallon tr~~h cans,
that can be se ured 'n one place. I!
8) Drinking water at La e Leland -- Check indp possibility
of tapping int~ neig boring property, owne~!s,' reservoir
to allo.w the ipstall tion of one or two s~iigots at the
park. II
9) Rearrangement f boa lanch, swimming areBi', restrooms, etc.
"
at Lake Leland to al ow for better use Of" li,these areas.
The Board advised Warre ite up a proposal fo~' this work,
check on costs, and che he amount of money i~! the Parks fund
for this type of work a it it to them. Warr n was also advised
that there is a proposa he formation of a dr ~nage district
which proposes, in an eff remedy the, drainage Rroblems in that area,
to lower Lake Leland by et. This possibilit~1 should be kept in
mind when drawing up pi the fishing dock, a1~ boat launch, etc.
Purchase ) used Display Stati ns for IBM System 36:
Commissioner Brown a prove an sign t e ,a !reement or purc, ase of
f r the IBM System 3& ~om CPU Sales and
Leasing, Ihc. p'tts seconded the mot~'on. ,Unanimous.
Lee Heinzinge re; ondition and naming Jf "Heinzinger" Road:
Mr. & t1rs., Heinzinger as e t e Boar or c ar1 C~lt10n 0 t. e exact
location and boundaries for t. e ,county, road comm, on,. ~ known, as "Heinz inger
Road" (See Minutes of J nuary 9, 1984). This road was determined to be
a county road in a summ ry ju gement, but the find'pgs were never written
which would have define the xact boundaries and 'ights-of-way of the
road. I
4)
5)
6)
7)
Gary Rowe of the Public Works
Attorney had determined from
to be added to the County Roa
The County' will now take care
the right of way will have to
Department reported
eview of the County
Log, but that was a
of maintaining the r
be defined later.
,
,
nat the Prosecuting
~se, that the road was
!l that was determined.
~d as it exists and
The_ tI~iIlz!-nzeJ::' s__s\lgges'ted :' Tf~ltle- H.~~on Roaci."n,__f1Gra~-E-Roa-cP~-I'Haicra-Roaa" , i
and ''Par_k WeJl].oCi.dllas possibl- -names for the road. I Gary- will wrIte to
the--6-ther property owners for their input on a new Iroad name and
OL
~ in :. f'iur 10",
J.. ci iA~:: '
Minutes, Week of Januarr 16,
Page 2:
Public Works Director, ,rian
Attorney on the matter tf cIa
location.
M"nutes
the
the
984
helton, will check wil h the Prosecuting
ifying the exact road boundaries and
Commissioner Brown oved to approve
as corrected. Commi sioner Pitts seconded
pplications for
nd were approved
missioner Pitts
s $241.13, Marvin
Resolution No. 4-84 ,
conded by CommiSSfOner
ide for an equity
Budget Transf
On the mot10n 0 ommis
and signed authorizing
following departments:
Community Services, Coo
Service Maintenance, Pa
and Treasurer. Commiss
nts for 1983:
0.1 - was approved
1983i DUaget for the
Buil ing Department,
nilel Probation, Multi-
, Shl reline Commission
mot'on. Unanimous.
Brown v. Jeff
No. 6-84 was approve a,
and appropriating funds
for payment of Kitsap C
County in the amount of
seconded by Commissione
ounty; Cause No. 83-2 00737-4: Resolution
e, ec aring a n n- e ata e emergency
current expense Non- epartmental budget
unty ause No.'83-2-00 37-4 Brown v. Jefferson
$5,99 .49, by the moti n of Commissioner Brown
Pitt. Unanimous.
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTME TS:
Planning re:
County Jail:
ermit renewa
new County Jail.
Unanimous.
Healthre:
e and sign the
he Coun y regarding
m Lot 3 of the
ioner B own seconded
ween Fr nk Hyde and
ed to a prove and
S14-83" Commissioner
VUl
10
I
I
I
i~GE
1
I
rn, 104
, ,
)1,
Minutes, Week of
,
Page 3:
Planning re:
;~.tt"'"
16, 19 4
Board c
lowing 0
The H
#1 and
ncurred with David Go
ganizations should be
mebuilder's Associati
he City Public Works
dsm'th that the
inv'te to that meet-
n, uget Power,
nd uilding Departments,
VDl
I
10
~o
Snipes and
Beaver
Rachel
pertywas
and 13
7 the Snipes
d side and
ther couple.
rom Bonnie
and David
e Department
d a set of
, .
Minutes, January 16, 1984
Page 4:
Planning re:
1/16/84
Public Works re:
1/16/84 '
Building Dept
1/16/84
Sheriff re:
1/16/84
Si
Co
re
--Ja
To
ha
ca
reported that sev$r
made between Forks;,
each would contrib
f a teletype for F9~
ince there are , 1~
now, Jefferson COlin
y be lowered. This!
dgeted to be used fd
. the past, had mentioi
. !
I
has been resolved r I
lJ-__giJ;~a t 9J:l_ .seryi ce s
Jeff~rsonCounty, , .
84~ After-discusslo
easurer, the Sh~riff
ored on a tenta,t; i v~.. I
out. I .
! '
requested that Ithe
the Town Counci~ reg,
worked out to cdntin
ntral facility Ifor I
n relation to tHe We
it is necessary ito'h
ised that they Jould
ch an agreement on t
Th Board
to try to
~1}L
1..0' 1 "Jr
;r,i\"1-
!
Town of Forks:
, e t in
services, $1300
700 would have
I Y ars ago an
CIa lam and Jefferson
e a. third of the
s, Jnd that figure
ttet means of
y's !contribution
oul~ allow more of
di~patch services
ed 4 $9,000 yearly
I
he F~rks Town
I . ----,-------- ________m__-------
for!the,West End
topwed as.oI-.
witFh the Forks
adv~sed that service
asi~ until a contract
contact the
g this, so a
is service.
rocessing that
t E dlaw enforcement
ve these services.
I
con~act the Mayor
is ~atter.
I
,
I
i
I
J6
'" .
, ,
: I
In the past, the
them mark the wa
suggested that it
of the water pip
crew is cleaning
Minutes, Week 9f
Page 5:
Sheriff re:
1/17/84
approved
r reviewed and
Ie in January.
1984.
Commissioner Pit
Commission fort
motion. Unanimo
the Planning
own seconded the
s the Road crew
s was broken
hours, Mr. Lyle
After discussion
Brian Shel ton, . i
area water senTi
i,
Ii
. I
check withthei res'dents and
e any work was II n t at area.
given a plat mal h m rks where
e located to pr, bre kage when
i
i I
,with the ~?ardi and ubl~c Works Director,
t the Publ1c W0, ks D partlment and the
es' would work ,f-'. t a ' olutlion.
't', I I
" ,l
: i
10 )Jl'rr
,~ f I 1 \1 7
!
have
Mr. Tinker
all
the
I-
. VOL
. .f' t'-
Minutes, Week OflJanuary 16, 1984-
Page 6:
Lin~ mith, Army Corp. of Engineers re;
Army Corpso ng neer s representat1v~~ L1n a m1t ,
to date on the,S ction 205 studyiof f160d control at
wallips State Pa k and the Lazy C Subdivision.
! . ' I
S~e explained ~,h t the, stU,dY def~ned th,~ flood areas! and~'then pro~eeded
w~th an econom~c analysis of the costs 1nvolved for he .nstallat10n of
a levee to cont::r I the flooding. : A belilefit analysis is Iso done which
estimates a totai dollar savings that would be reali ed i1fthe flood
damages, were red ced by the inst41lation of a levee'i Th~se two figures
form the benefit I to cost ratio. In order for the Co p t~ recommend
government fun4,i g for a levee p~oject it must be ec nom' cally feasible
as shown by the enefit to cost ratio. Brinnon and he tate Park
would not qual~f for funding. ,
Since there ~r~., til1205 funds ~,vailab,le, The Corps, w. i~II be 100k1,'ng into
other alternativ s that the citi~ens as a Flood Cont ol istrict, could
undertake: 1) 'D edging, 2) Low level protective lev e ) Flood proofing
and 4) Flood wa ning system. II). this sense, the Co ps would be serving
as a consultan~ 0 the area residents. I
Since the benefi to cost ratio in the Lazy C area w s v~ry close, the
Corps is going,tp double check tlieir ftgures. Lyle i inker of that
area asked what could be done ab~ut the erosion prob em ~n that area,
W"h,i.Ch is.. cau,.,S,in"g~fIOOding Yfh ich ~,,~reat,e,ns t~eir wate, sY$,t~m and closes
the Gounty cRoad . Ms. Sm1 th adV1sed Mr. T1nker tha, Sedt1.on14
~oyers erosion, ut the government loo~s at the fact thaU even if the
County road is flpoded there is still access to the p ope1ty and the
water supply is rrivate, and isn1t covered by that s ctin.
After diSCU. ssiJn of the res.identJ conc~rns ~bout the' t~x~ng ~spects
of a Flood Contr I District, the:Board urged the res den~s to give this
oPtio,n serious .."cbns,iderat,io,n. AI,.FIO,Od,.."C6ntrOI Distr ct JOUld not obligate
the property own rs to anything unless they wanted i to but would allow
for a solution:t the problems ort an area basis inst ad f individually.
, , I
Pete & etty Piccini re~ Proposed Short Pia Ri ht-of-Way:
Mr. & Mrs. P1cci i, a ong wit Rac e at anson an avi 0 sm1t of
the Planning Dep rtment, met with the :Board to discu!s t~e right-of-way
requirements of the County Platting Ordinance whichi cal~s for 30 feet
of right-of-way. I i
The Piccini's adyised the Board~hat if they the County
30' of right-of'-rmy across their! property as require 1n the Platting
Ordinance, they fould lose most of the~r front yard ,Cabo t 1/3 of an
acre). ThePiC.,clni's have ,been t::,rYing",to ~hort.Plat,the~r property for
two years now an have spent about $2~OOO l.n the pro ess They feel
giving the Count this 30 foot right-of-way is aski g t 0 much, but they
would be willing to split the difference with the Co' ntY1
Rachel Nathanson of the Planning 'Department reported, thaJ the Carroll's
Hood Canal View states Plat, which is across the st eet from the Piccini's
proposed short.~ at, had dedicat~,d 30' of right-of-w r f r plat approval.
The exact locat1 n of the CountYiroad is not known, 1nc a survey has not
been done, so t::. h re is a qUestion., as to where the 301 fOO, right-of-.way
measurement woultl start. !'
Commissioner Brok explained thaJ a total of 60 feet of ~ight-of-way is
required to take!i c- care of future needs bf the road SUI h a~ drainage, and
utilities. This right-of-way, when dedicated, is no ta1ed as part of
the adjacent p~o,rerty owners property. I
...,'I1T'!' c~
MEETI~: ~;J~f" j- I i
,,' ~-:,,}. ': ~.. . . · .j'
SEA!;":. \ ,,~.,r,'~~/-T)',. ~,.i~~
" ,; I ..}, I' · 'x.
", t \ . ..t.....",~, ,. _~ U'j
~, ~,I a 'J'>: ' . '
If'' _'
~ 'J' .~' l~ '- ' ~ _~ ~ I
ATTESr~' j!.:-:;~-r ...~ c," :
->J."~~" ~-~..,~i .f "':. J J
~. "_.~
The
oard up
Dose-
1:, ,0'.' , ":if'\!:,
if",.>>_