HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/10/18 - Briefing Packet To be in compliance with Proclamation by the Governor 20-25.14 and Order of the Secretary of Health
20-03.3, in-person attendance is restricted.
Our Commission meetings are live streamed at http://masonwebtv.com/ and we will accept public
comment via email dlz@co.mason.wa.us; or mail to Commissioners Office, 411 North 5"' Street,
Shelton, WA 98584; or call 360-427-9670 ext. 419. If you need to listen to the Commission meeting
via your telephone, please provide your telephone number to the Commissioners'office no later than 4
p.m. the Friday before the meeting.
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DRAFT BRIEFING MEETING AGENDA
411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584
Week of October 18, 2021
Monday
Noon WA State Association of Counties Zoom Meeting*
Virtual Assembly
Monday and Thursday
8:00 A.M. Area Command Meeting*
Public Works Meeting Room A
100 Public Works Way
*This is being noticed as a Special Commission Meeting because a quorum of the Mason County
Commission may attend this event and notification is provided per Mason County Code Chapter
2.88.020 - Special Meetings
Monday, October 18, 2021
Commission Chambers
Times are subject to change, depending on the amount of business presented
9:00 A.M. Support Services — Frank Pinter
9:30 A.M. Community Services — Dave Windom
10:00 A.M. Public Works — Loretta Swanson
Utilities & Waste Management
Commissioner Discussion — as needed
Briefing Agendas are subject to change,please contact the Commissioners'office for the most recent version.
Last printed 10/14/21 at 4:20 PM
If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners'office at ext.419,Shelton#360-427-9670;Belfair
#275-4467,Elma#482-5269.
Mason County Support Services Department Budget Management
e°'S °pvti 411 North 5 Street th Commissioner Administration
Emergency Management
Shelton, WA 98584 Facilities, Parks&Trails
360.427.9670 ext. 419 Human Resources
Information Services
Y Labor Relations
lxu Risk Management
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING ITEMS FROM SUPPORT SERVICES
October 18, 2021
• Specific Items for Review
o September Financial Statements—Jenn
o Certify to the County Assessor amount of taxes levied —Jenn
0 2022 Budget Review/Budget Process—Jenn
o Human Resources recommendation for District Court staffing request- Frank
• Commissioner Discussion
J:\DLZ\Briefing Items\202I\2021-10-18.docx
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Jennifer Beierle
DEPARTMENT: Support Services EXT: 532
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: N/A
ITEM: Mason County Monthly Financial Report: September 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Review of Cash Balances, and Budget to Actual Revenues and
Expenditures for all County Funds through September 2021.
BUDGET IMPACTS: Budget to Actual Comparison of 2020 & 2021
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Mason County Monthly Financial Report: September 2021
J:\Budget Office\Briefing, Agenda,&Public Hearing Items\2021\Briefing Summary 10.18.2021 - September 2021
Financial Report.doc
SEPTEMBER
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY
lNSI. 2021FINANCIAL REPORT
J:\Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 1
►° calNr
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY FINANCIAL
;xsl REPORT
2020 vs 2021 Current Expense Revenue Comparison
Revenue Revenue
Collected Collected Actual dif 2020
Through End Revenue
Department Name 2020 Budget Uncollected %2020 2021 Budget Uncollected %2021
g Through End Revenue vs 2021
of Month of Month
WSU Extension 20,500 11,937 (8,563) 58% 23,500 15,122 (8,378) 64% 3,185
Assessor 7,000 17,085 10,085 244% 7,000 12,688 5,688 181% (4,397)
Auditor 1,198,700 1,129,669 (69,031) 94% 1,130,017 832,537 (297,480) 74% (297,132)
Emergency Management 64,648 4,968 (59,680) 8% 121,585 36,661 (84,924) 30% 31,693
Facilities&Grounds - 5,275 5,275 0% 867 867 0% (4,408)
Human Resources - - - 0% 850 850 0% 850
Clerk 328,058 187,334 (140,724) 57% 366,348 183,579 (182,769) 50% (3,755)
Commissioners - - - 0% 725 725 0% 725
Support Services 700 473 (227) 68% 700 2,487 1,787 355% 2,014
District Court 978,652 716,533 (262,119) 73% 1,036,026 877,806 (158,220) 85% 161,274
Community Development 1,790,810 1,717,307 (73,503) 96% 2,177,600 2,377,011 199,411 109% 659,704
Historical Preservation - 0% 76,000 68,948 (7,052) 91% 68,948
Parks&Trails 44,000 7,739 (36,261) 18% 44,000 17,299 (26,701) 39% 9,560
Juvenile Court Services 1,161,972 909,096 (252,876) 78% 1,161,438 1,054,626 (106,812) 91% 145,530
Prosecutor 192,951 130,785 (62,166) 68% 248,575 129,106 (119,469) 52% (1,679)
Child Support Enforcement 209,515 153,353 (56,162) 73% 159,126 69,681 (89,445) 44% (83,672)
Coroner 35,000 24,640 (10,360) 70% 35,000 41,440 6,440 118% 16,800
Sheriff 1,126,875 862,659 (264,216) 77% 1,000,835 771,733 (229,102) 77% (90,926)
Indigent Defense 204,767 144,457 (60,310) 71% 260,423 180,458 (79,965) 69% 36,001
Superior Court 68,927 66,722 (2,205) 97% 78,656 100,963 22,307 128% 34,240
Family Court 2,500 2,056 (444) 82% 2,500 2,296 (204) 92% 240
Therapeutic Court 610,884 287,706 (323,178) 47% 720,875 257,278 (463,597) 36% (30,428)
Murder Expenditures - - - 0% - - 0% -
Treasurer 26,348,450 18,326,202 (8,022,248) 70% 26,206,041 21,234,188 (4,971,853) 81% 2,907,986
Non Departmental 3,956,682 2,858,367 (1,098,315) 72% 4,303,486 3,121,000 (1,182,486) 73% 262,633
Motor Pool 0% 447,202 314,145 (133,057) 70% 314,145
Totals $ 38,351,591 $ 27,564,365 1 $ (10,787,226) 72% $ 39,606,933 $ 31,703,495 $ (7,903,438) 80% 4,139,130
Unaudited *Benc mark for Monff is 75%
J:\Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 2
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY FINANCIAL SEAT G �BER
REPORT 2021
Treasurer Department Receipts
Treasurer#001-260-000 2020Budget 2020YTD This Month %2020 2021Budget 2021YTD This Month %2021
REAL&PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES 10,383,385 6,121,843 192,114 59% 11,546,496 6,931,297 200,511 60%
SALES TAX TITLE PROPERTY - - 0 0% - 1,720 64 0%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES&USE TAX 6,000,000 4,874,269 671,555 81% 6,250,000 6,185,907 772,689 99%
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY-CITY 37,000 36,025 4,077 97% 37,000 37,971 4,136 103%
CRIMINALJUSTICE 600,000 595,973 77,923 99% 750,000 719,040 86,801 96%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 35,000 20,331 0 58% 26,000 22,978 105 88%
FOREST EXCISE TAX 225,000 222,449 0 99% 100,000 183,617 0 184%
FRANCHISE FEES 520,000 363,279 0 70% 500,000 359,286 0 72%
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAX/B OF L 289,000 314,361 0 109% 315,000 331,886 0 105%
PUD PRIVILEGE TAX 725,000 734,058 0 101% 735,000 768,144 0 105%
DNR OTHER TRUST 2 100 104 0 104% 100 265 0 265%
LE&CJ LEG 1 TIME COSTS 0% - 255,892 0 0%
CITY-COUNTY ASSISTANCE 1,415,000 981,230 342,633 69% 1,415,000 1,654,705 688,199 117%
DNR PILT NAP/NRCA 4,000 - 0 0% 4,000 - 0 0%
CRIMINALJUSTICE-COUNTIES 680,000 562,062 0 83% 700,000 577,015 0 82%
ADULT COURT COST-JUVENILE OFFE 5,000 3,675 402 73% 5,000 3,155 382 63%
CRIMINAL JST-MARIJUANA ENFORCE 85,000 63,996 21,522 75% 85,000 74,163 31,343 87%
DUI-OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE A 15,400 11,490 0 75% 14,500 12,972 0 89%
LIQUOR/BEER EXCISE TAX 116,920 105,483 0 90% 125,000 122,563 0 98%
LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD PROFITS 205,000 150,436 50,071 73% 200,000 149,987 49,846 75%
IN LIEU OF-CITY OFTACOMA 190,000 168,700 136,750 89% 190,000 172,074 34,415 91%
TREASURER'S FEES - 23 0 0% - 38 0 0%
PAYMNT FOR SRVCS-MASON LK DIST 475 360 0 76% 360 360 0 100%
PAYMNT FOR SRVCS-SPENCER LK FND - 145 0 0% 100 145 0 145%
PAYMNT FOR SRVCS-ISLAND LK FND 120 290 0 242% 100 100 0 100%
CHARGES FOR SRVCS-MACECOM 1,300 1,324 0 102% 1,325 1,372 0 104%
RETURNED REMITTANCE(NSF)FEES 2,400 1,640 80 68% 2,500 1,480 80 59%
REET COLLECTION FEES 100,000 96,329 16,350 96% 100,000 148,061 24,915 148%
REET COLLECTIONS COSTS 9,000 6,383 900 71% 9,000 7,265 677 81%
TREAS.FIRE PROTECTION ASSESSM 15,000 10,262 278 68% 15,000 10,483 235 70%
3
Treasurer Department Receipts
Treasurer#001-260-000 2020 Budget 2020 YTD This Month %2020 2021 Budget 2021 YTD This Month %2021
TREAS OTHER WORD PROCESSING 575 198 115 34% 425 83 0 19%
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE CHGS SRVCS 5 0 0% 5 - 0 0%
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES - 106 0 0% - 100 0 0%
GAMBLING TAX PENALTY - 300 100 0% - 450 0 0%
REAL&PERSONAL PENALTY 350,000 278,508 17,093 80% 350,000 242,617 13,840 69%
PERSONAL PROP FILING PEN 5,000 15,181 1,035 304% 20,000 23,646 1,097 118%
PENALTY ON REAL&PERSONAL PRO - 5,337 836 0% - 4,565 0 0%
FAILURE TO LIST PERSONAL PROP - - 0 0% - 19 0 0%
INTEREST&OTHER EARNINGS 800,000 386,921 11,177 48% 500,000 89,278 6,284 18%
INVESTMENT SERVICE FEES(TREAS. 25,000 11,936 794 48% 20,000 3,930 364 20%
INT.ON CONT.NOTES-ACCTS.HELD,S 8,500 10,897 1,077 128% 8,500 6,758 578 80%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX INTEREST - 7 0 0% - 4 0 0%
EXCISE INTEREST 50 222 0 443% 50 154 3 308%
INV PURCHASED INT - (45) 0 0% - (962) 0 0%
INTEREST ON DELINQUENT PR TAX 650,000 477,355 33,829 73% 600,000 453,968 36,586 76%
RENTS/LEASES-DNR TRUST 1,000 16,329 18 1633% 10,000 23,238 27 232%
RENTS/LEASES-DNR TMBR TRUST 1 500,000 203,742 53,008 41% 250,000 716,385 15,569 287%
UNCLAIMED MONEY/PROCEEDS-SALES 60,000 60,945 0 102% 225,000 177,935 0 79%
TREASURER TAX FORECLOSURE TRUST 64,000 - 0 0% - - 0 0%
CASH ADJUSTMENTS/OVER-UNDER 20 95 6 477% 10 (349) (5) -3493%
TAX DISTRIBUTION ROUNDING - - 0 0% 10 3 (2) 30%
MISCELLANEOUS-OTHER REVENUE 100 - 0 0% 100 26 0 26%
ROAD DIVERSION 2,160,000 1,313,312 42,471 61% 1,080,000 676,998 19,856 63%
SALE OF TAX TITLE PROPERTY - (1,514) 0 0% - 87 7 0%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 5,000 2,659 0 53% 2,000 (10) 11 -1%
TIMBER EXCISE TAX 53,000 52,487 0 99% 10,000 19,442 0 194%
DNR PILT NAP/NRCA 0 0% 900 (915) 0 -102%
DNR OTHER TRUST 2 50 (955) 0 -1910% 50 28 0 56%
OTHER INT-DNR INTEREST 50 74 5 148% 10 42 9 424%
RENTS&LEASES/DNR OTHR TRST 1 2,500 45,586 12,531 1823% 2,500 2,464 3 99%
SPACE AND FACILITIES LEASES 4,500 - 0 0% - 60,262 1,651 0%
Grand Total $26,348,450 $18,326,202 1,688,749 7091. $26,206,041 $21,234,188 1,990,274 81%
Unaudited *Benchmark for Month is 75%
4
SEPTEMBER
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY FINANCIAL
REPORT 2021
2020 vs 2021 Current Expense Expenditure Comparison
Expenditures Expenditures Unexended
2020 Budget through End of Unexended %2020 2021 Budget through End of Budget %2021 Actual 0 1
2020
Department Name g g g g g �:zoz�
Month Budget Authority Month Authority
WSU Extension 293,274 194,620 98,654 66% 319,520 198,209 121,311 62% 3,588
Assessor 1,433,285 987,653 445,632 69% 1,420,286 989,462 430,824 70% 1,809
Auditor 1,738,549 1,283,025 455,524 74% 1,757,620 1,163,714 593,906 66% (119,311)
Emergency Management 232,009 218,096 13,913 94% 313,592 215,569 98,023 69% (2,527)
Facilities&Grounds 1,309,792 786,196 523,596 60% 1,383,584 898,044 485,540 65% 111,847
HR/Risk Mngt 592,660 440,849 151,811 74% 608,086 416,448 191,638 68% (24,400)
LEOFF 100,044 48,160 51,884 48% 100,044 47,430 52,614 470/ (730)
Clerk 1,037,808 783,513 254,295 75% 1,126,730 819,262 307,468 73% 35,749
Commissioners 348,669 255,847 92,822 73% 355,610 257,194 98,416 72% 1,347
Support Services 716,397 517,607 198,790 72% 750,933 547,947 202,986 73% 30,340
District Court 1,291,480 911,562 379,918 71% 1,376,288 978,532 397,756 71% 66,970
Community Development 2,458,927 1,616,895 842,032 66% 2,801,269 1,97S,300 825,969 71% 358,405
Historical Preservation - 0% 16,000 3,883 12,117 24% 3,883
Parks&Trails 547,442 331,5S7 215,885 61% 568,121 450,443 117,678 79% 118,887
Juvenile Court Services 1,943,451 1,351,652 591,799 70% 2,009,280 1,342,358 666,922 67% (9,294)
Prosecutor 1,668,998 1,072,333 596,665 64% 1,876,838 1,187,652 689,186 63% 115,319
Child Support Enforcement 210,658 139,077 71,581 66% 160,462 80,603 79,859 50% (58,474)
Coroner 321,934 228,359 93,575 71% 345,276 264,748 80,528 77% 36,389
Sheriff 10,796,256 8,052,672 2,743,584 75% 11,913,223 8,766,103 3,147,120 74% 713,431
Traffic Policing 2,597,217 1,591,819 1,005,398 61% 2,642,512 1,521,449 1,121,063 S8% (70,370)
Courthouse Security 170,740 129,990 40,750 76% 259,587 181,655 77,932 70% 51,665
Indigent Defense 1,127,136 793,092 334,044 70% 1,280,757 896,900 383,857 70% 103,809
Superior Court 986,175 719,690 266,485 73% 1,081,638 802,212 279,426 74% 82,522
Family Court 2,S00 1,070 1,430 43% 2,500 - 2,500 0% (1,070)
Therapeutic Court 617,849 348,079 269,770 56% 724,863 417,655 307,208 S8% 69,576
Murder Expenditures 50,000 620 49,380 1% 50,000 37,231 12,769 74% 36,611
Treasurer 823,053 591,435 231,618 72% 872,579 606,266 266,313 69% 14,831
Nan Departmental 4,328,914 3,121,280 1,207,634 72% 4,889,779 2,907,715 1,982,064 59% (213,565)
Motor Pool 37,438 27,178 10,260 73% 49,538 26,561 22,977 54% (617)
Transfers Out to Other Funds 913,913 714,322 199,592 78% 91,339 85,656 5,683 94% (628,666)
Totals $ 38,696,568 $ 27,258,249 $ 11,438,319 70% $ 41,147,854 $ 28,086,202 $ 33,061,652 68% 827,953
Unaudkeo"Benchmark Month Is 75%
J:\Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 5
Six Year Specific Revenue Streams Comparison
9/30/2016 9/30/2017 9/30/2018 9/30/2019 9/30/2020 9/30/2021
Community Development Revenues 1,512,257 1,246,904 1,383,224 1,560,427 1,717,307 2,377,011
Detention &Correction Services 144,767 14,683 17,908 20,118 84,445 92,800
Current Expense Property Taxes 6,630,269 5,826,873 5,833,801 6,082,021 6,121,843 6,931,297
Road Diversion Property Tax 725,125 980,463 1,290,035 1,316,617 1,313,312 676,998
County Road Property Tax 3,997,397 4,965,134 5,148,598 5,394,251 5,496,320 5,669,821
Current Expense Sales Tax 3,314,435 3,622,003 3,939,023 4,450,596 4,874,269 6,185,907
Criminal Justice Taxes/Entitlements 949,206 980,069 1,084,295 1,160,088 1,237,195 1,386,346
Rural Sales &Use Tax Fund 432,371 470,164 508,944 601,178 629,104 761,193
800,000
600,000 ----- _-
400,000
200,000
Com Srvcs-Homelessess Preven Filings 290,392 416,510 411,523 515,539 613,972 753,970
800000
soo,000
aoo,000 � i I -
200,000
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)Tax 261,064 269,441 312,187 392,156 317,325 618,823
s00,000
600,000
400,0"0 --
200:000 - -� - MEN= - -_ -
REET 1 Excise Tax Only 586,002 824,493 948,179 950,508 1,165,967 1,609,629
REET 2 Excise Tax Only 586,002 824,493 948,179 950,508 1,165,967 1,609,629
1,800,000
1,350,000 -
800,000 - - `-
450,000
J:\Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 6
SEPTEMBER
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY
�xsd
FINANCIAL REPORT 2021
REVENUE MONTH 12020 REVENUE F 2021 REVENUE DIFFERENCE
JANUARY $ 455,733.71 $ 571,994.75 $ 116,261.04
FEBRUARY $ 590,257.14 $ 705,713.58 $ 115,456.44
MARCH $ 449,177.66 $ 554,356.28 $ 105,178.62
APRIL $ 427,572.82 $ 561,429.19 $ 133,856.37
MAY $ 487,803.83 $ 740,012.36 $ 252,208.53
JUNE $ 460,999.44 $ 724,550.39 $ 263,550.95
JULY $ 628,587.98 $ 754,454.16 $ 125,866.18
AUGUST $ 702,582.07 $ 800,707.00 $ 98,124.93
SEPTEMBER $ 671,554.81 $ 772,689.33 $ 101,134.52
OCTOBER $ 653,529.82 $ (653,529.82)
NOVEMBER $ 703,295.80 $ (703,295.80)
DECEMBER $ 652,599.03 $ (652,599.03)
TOTAL COLLECTED REVENUE $ 6,883,694.11 $ 6,185,907.04 PROJECTED END OF YEAR REVENUE
REVENUE BUDGETED $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,250,000.00 $ 7,541,859.70
YET TO BE COLLECTED $ (64,092.96)
ANTICIPATED INCREASE $ 1,291,859.70
12 MOW ROLLING AVERAGE CHANGE 18.8%
PRIOR MONTH 92 MO. ROLLING AVG CHANGE 17.7% >'
J:\Fin2ncials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 7
��OON cooNr
A
Y SEPTEMBER 2021
/NSJ
Six Year Financial Recap
Current Expense Recap 9/30/2016 9/30/2017 9/30/2018 9/30/2019 9/30/2020 9/30/2021
Account Receivable from Belfair Sewer 1,200,000
General Fund Operating Reserves 6,520,791 6,817,603 10,044,540
Contingency Reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Technology Replacement Reserves 200,000 200,000 264,295
Equipment&Vehicle Replacement Reserves 525,000 525,000 932,475
Accrued Leave Reserve 520,000 530,805 347,742
Current Expense Unreserved Cash 677,699 3,520,434 7,420,954
This Month Current Expense Cash 4,189,473 3,170,576 5,719,621 9,443,491 12,593,842 20,010,006
Adopted Budget on December 31st 40,787,973 38,545,163 36,930,990 41,404,349 49,581,229 53,464,511
Supplemental Appropriations 80,657 654,840 1,059,364 263,253 407,320 142,422
Total Budget including Supplementals 40,868,630 39,200,003 37,990,354 41,667,602 49,988,549 53,606,933
Budgeted Beginning Fund Balance 8,019,728 7,309,944 3,061,750 5,786,719 11,636,958 14,000,000
Budgeted Ending Fund Balance 3,816,117 4,801,241 5,185,957 5,185,957 11,291,981 12,459,079
Revenue Budgets 32,687,588 31,890,059 34,928,604 35,880,883 38,351,591 39,606,933
Revenues thru This Month of each year 22,747,496 23,584,834 25,611,041 26,704,001 27,564,365 31,703,495
Budgeted Revenues Received 70% 74% 73% 74% 72% 80%
Expenditure Budgets 37,062,413 34,434,450 34,652,959 36,481,645 38,696,568 41,147,854
Expenditures thru This Month of each year 25,505,191 24,003,167 24,275,623 25,323,033 27,258,249 28,086,202
Budgeted Expenditures Expended 69% 70% 70% 69% 70% 68%
8
J:\Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx
Special Fund Cash Balances 9/30/2016 9/30/2017 9/30/2018 9/30/2019 9/30/2020 9/30/2021
Rural County Sales&Use Tax Fund (.09) 462,179 465,957 508,267 675,187 887,143 1,246,219
Auditor's O&M 249,099 252,040 282,685 289,968 321,863 416,066
County Roads Fund 10,252,306 9,042,787 9,295,488 8,714,792 10,840,407 12,480,272
Paths&Trails 229,093 241,818 256,053 267,688 277,521 286,273
Election Equipment Holding 255,263 270,867 158,094 170,212 228,158 242,887
Crime Victims 221,531 233,560 207,330 198,982 204,868 218,707
Victim Witness Activities 91,377 46,100 24,415 22,587 23,688 21,951
Historical Preservation Fund 37,164 40,295 49,399 28,596 42,005
Community Support Services Fund 385,587 418,554 632,936 775,936 979,341 1,182,704
Abatement/Repair/Demolition Fund 266,167 268,319 272,372 277,643 279,006 278,031
Reserve for Technology Fund 318,632 165,835 165,718 92,891 -
REET&Property Tax Admin Asst 66,933 78,144 72,787 77,357 71,878 84,169
National Forest Safety 86,828 39,465 47,752 33,076 21,533 9,270
Trial Court Improvement Fund 63,053 81,409 100,455 106,480 120,199 86,945
Sheriff Special Funds 247,128 242,530 267,616 246,188 -
Sheriff's Boating Program 111,329 114,946
Narcotics Investigation 86,738 99,234
Public Health Fund 195,030 187,192 223,241 350,777 992,287 1,435,799
American Rescue Plan Act 5,717,761
Law Library 79,532 83,151 78,796 73,244 62,663 53,028
Lodging(Motel/Hotel)Tax Fund 330,708 357,684 496,619 694,350 781,951 1,003,049
Mental Health Tax Fund 1,461,632 1,362,789 1,486,938 1,466,501 1,518,678 1,857,576
Treasurer's M&O Fund 71,079 102,022 122,050 80,522 190,420 140,565
Veterans Assistance 213,073 188,138 79,755 54,330 77,270 126,589
Skokomish Flood Zone 235,731 165,930 180,942 18,942 80,190 17,547
Mason Lake Management District 80,495 95,478 126,319 134,722 115,677 90,776
Spencer Lake Management District 1,060 2,442
Island Lake Management District 12,768 18,870 16,522 25,866 26,135 24,935
Capital Improvement/Reet 1 Fund 797,265 1,247,852 1,785,534 2,129,468 2,217,304 1,788,172
Capital Improvement/Reet 2 Fund 2,295,050 2,432,903 2,759,714 2,995,440 3,435,912 4,197,629
Mason County Landfill 891,146 707,433 505,573 620,106 845,847 1,988,734
N.Bay/Case Inlet Utility 695,549 854,123 876,510 862,728 1,380,148 1,789,621
N. Bay/Case Inlet Utility Reserve 717 721 729 362 -
Wastewater System Development 3,986 3,986 3,986 3,986 3,986
Rustlewood Sewer&Water 46,084 357,528 230,438 159,891 77,904 193,639
Beards Cove Water 276,065 342,493 419,243 457,903 537,366 587,269
Belfair WW&Water Reclamation 615,369 394,019 188,571 305,866 594,261 1,644,671
Reserve Landfill 509,539 513,096 487,399 470,383 446,422 443,871
Reserve Beards Cove Ulid 324,521 337,753 353,882 199,214 206,906 213,514
Storm Drain System Development 158,909 55,107 217,182 184,069 180,256 179,064
Information Technology 170,243 199,302 268,427 345,883 175,320 509,302
Equipment Rental&Revolving Fund 1,802,651 2,973,758 2,636,137 3,719,230 2,094,620 1,617,626
Unemployment Fund 171,828 180,211 175,769 162,141 181,507 201,302
TOTALS $24,671,310 $25,049,219 $26,061,643 $27,493,509 $30,719,767 $42,592,156
j:\Fnanda1S\2U21 inancia s\2U21 September Hnancial HepoTx7sx
MONTHLY
- -� FINANCIAL SEPTEMBER
IXTJ REPORT 2021
2021 Current Expense and Health Fund Motor Pool Budget to Actual Expenditures
FUND OR DEPARTMENT ORIGINAL REVISED YTD MP AVAILABLE %USED
APPROP BUDGET EXPENDED BUDGET
ASSESSOR 34,908 34,908 26,501 81407 75.92%
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 0 0 210 -210 0%
FACILITIES&GROUNDS 10,377 21,307 16,121 5,186 75.66%
COMMUNITY SERVICES 46,151 46,151 34,517 11,634 74.79%
PARKS&TRAILS 3,555 8,055 8,850 -795 109.87%
JUVENILE COURT SERVICES 8,480 8,480 5,062 3,418 59.69%
PROSECUTOR 6,646 6,646 4,879 11767 73.42%
CORONER 25,717 25,717 31,613 -5,896 122.93%
SHERIFF ADMIN 1,078,726 1,078,726 923,862 154,864 85.64%
MOTOR POOL 55,968 49,538 26,561 22,977 53.62%
Total 001 GENERAL FUND 1,270,528 1,279,528 1,078,176 2011352 84.26%
SHERIFF'S BOATING PROGRAM 1,220 -1,220 0%
COMMUNITY SERVICES HEALTH 59,360 59,360 38,552 20,808 64.95%
TOTAL SPECIAL FUNDS 59,360 59,360 39,772 19,5881 67.00%
Total GENERAL FUND &SPECIAL FUNDS 1,329,888 1,338,888 1,117,948 2201940 83.50
TOTAL MOTOR POOL EXPENDITURES BY ORIGINAL REVISED YTD MP AVAILABLE
OF TOTAL
OBJECT CODE APPROP BUDGET EXPENDED BUDGET
MOTOR POOL SALARIES & BENEFITS 38,672 38,672 25,542 13,130 66.05%
MOTOR POOL SUPPLIES 10,300 10,300 66,715 -56,415 647.72%
MOTOR POOL FUEL 216,250 225,250 198,193 27,057 87.99%
MOTOR POOL LEASE 100 100 331,677 -331,577 331676.69%
MOTOR POOL MAINT-MONTHLY 6,234 6,234 17,411 -11,177 279.30%
MOTOR POOL REPAIRS 79,836 79,836 44,263 35,573 55.44%
MOTOR POOL INSURANCE 45,719 45,719 6,227 39,492 13.62%
MOTOR POOL CAPITAL LEASE 559,158 559,158 13,537 545,6211 2.42%
MOTOR POOL CAP UPFIT 373,619 373,619 414,382 -40,763 110.91%
Total GENERAL FUND &HEALTH FUND 1,329,888 1,338,888 1,117,948 220,940 83.50%
Unaudited *Benchmark for month is 75% 10
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY FINANCIAL
REPORT SEPTEMBER 2021
2020 vs 2021 Special and Other Funds Revenue Comparison
Revenue Revenue
Fund Fund Name 2020 Budget Collected Uncollected %2020 2021 Budget Collected Uncollected %2021 Actual dif 2020
No. g Through End Revenue 9 Through End Revenue vs 2021
of Month of Month
103 Sales&Use Tax 703,500 633,851 (69,649) 90% 728,500 761,193 32,693 104% 127,342
104 Auditor's 0&M 118,500 118,345 (155) 100% 127,500 156,781 29,281 123% 38,436
105 lCounty Road 15,862,898 8,845,727 (7,017,171) 56% 17,402,782 11,321,753 (6,081,029) 65% 2,476,027
106 Paths&Trails 12,695 8,085 (4,610) 64% 12,695 7,686 (5,009) 61% (399)
109 Election Equipment Holdings 38,500 67,457 28,957 175% 65,850 16,625 (49,225) 25% (50,832)
110 Crime Victims 41,910 57,313 15,403 137% 41,910 75,686 33,776 181% 18,374
114 Victim Witness Activities 55,683 37,484 (18,199) 67% 55,683 1,608 (54,075) 3% (35,876)
116 Historical Preservation 16,000 16,638 638 104% 1 - - 0% (16,638)
117 ICommunity Support Services 2,002,005 1,663,254 (338,751) 83% 4,695,483 4,299,118 (396,365) 92% 2,635,864
118 Abatement 8,100 1,926 (6,174) 24% 7,920 313 (7,607) 4% (1,613)
120 REET&Property Tax Admin 20,800 17,285 (3,515) 83% 20,250 20,267 17 100% 2,981
134 National Forest Safety 23,092 21,466 (1,626) 93% 21,457 20,996 (461) 98% (470)
135 Trial Court Improvements 22,800 11,336 (11,464) 50% 22,672 16,989 (5,683) 75% 5,653
140 Sheriff Special Funds 102,200 - (102,200) 0% - 0% -
141 Sheriff's Boating Program 208,947 141,468 (67,479) 68% 38,979 31,212 (7,767) 80% (110,256)
142 1 Narcotics Investigation Fund 96,797 91,921 (4,876) 95% 7,500 13,026 5,526 174% (78,895)
150 Community Services Health 2,238,822 2,371,443 132,621 106% 2,644,630 3,694,033 1,049,403 140% 1,322,590
155 American Rescue Plan Act - - 0% 6,484,451 6,485,706 1,255 100% 6,485,706
160 Law Library 25,373 13,623 (11,750) 54% 24,900 17,486 (7,414) 70% 3,862
163 Lodging Tax(Hotel/Motel) 392,000 318,189 (73,811) 81% 392,000 618,927 226,927 158% 300,738
164 Mental Health 1,224,328 1,051,654 (172,674) 86% 1,231,968 1,094,175 (137,793) 89% 42,521
180 Treasurer's M&O Fund 195,025 184,777 (10,248) 95% 199,210 130,243 (68,967) 65% (54,535)
190 Veterans Assistance 145,060 88,487 (56,573) 61% 140,060 96,053 (44,007) 69% 7,566
192 Skokomish Flood Zone 80,500 87,380 6,880 109% 20,500 865 (19,635) 4% (86,515)
194 Mason Lake Mngmt Dist#2 36,000 22,269 (13,731) 62% 36,500 21,462 (15,038) 59% (807)
195 Spencer Lake Mngmt Dist#3 14,500 9,798 (4,702) 68% 14,500 9,233 (5,267) 64% (565)
199 Island Lake Mngmt Dist#1 10,000 6,005 (3,995) 60% 10,000 5,819 (4,181) 58% (187)
350 REET 1 Capital Improvements 1,220,000 1,179,865 (40,135) 97% 1,220,000 1,612,777 392,777 132% 432,913
351 REET 2 Capital Improvements 1,535,000 1,245,978 (289,022) 81% 1,210,000 1,823,582 613,582 151% 577,604
402 Mason County Landfill 4,209,280 3,483,799 (725,481) 83% 4,694,521 4,288,335 (406,186) 91% 804,536
403 N.Bay/Case Inlet Utility 1,835,584 1,653,242 (182,342) 90% 2,197,857 1,677,717 (520,140) 76% 24,475
404 N.Bay/Case Inlet Utility Res 1 - (1) 0% - - 0% -
411 Rustlewood Sewer&Water 320,200 187,857 (132,343) 59% 376,725 315,663 (61,062) 84% 127,806
412 Beards Cove Water 227,560 169,630 (57,930) 75% 232,793 162,321 (70,472) 70% (7,309)
413 Belfair WW&Water Reclamation 4,294,500 1,586,176 (2,708,324) 37% 7,475,158 5,456,141 (2,019,017) 73% 3,869,965
428 Reserve Landfill 6,000 3,141 (2,859) 52% 6,000 372 (5,628) 6% (2,769)
429 Reserve Beards Cove ULID 11,500 9,024 (2,476) 78% 11,500 1 8,085 (3,415) 70% (939)
480 Storm Drain System Development 500 - (500) 0% 500 - (500) 0% -
500 Information Technology Dept 751,746 751,305 (441) 100% 962,574 962,574 - 100% 211,269
501 Equipment Rental&Revolving 3,520,491 1,098,742 (2,421,749) 31% 4,272,791 155,511 (4,117,280) 4% (943,231)
502 Unemployment Fund 73,150 73,073 (77) 100% 73,805 73,906 101 100% 833
Totals $ 41,701,547 $ 27,329,015 1 $ (14,372,532) 66% $ 57,182,124 $ 45,454,240 $ (11,727,883) 79% 1 18,125,226
J:1Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 11
MASON COUNTY MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2021
2020 vs 2021 Special and Other Funds Expenditure Comparison
Fund Expenditures Expenditures Actual dif 2020
No. Fund Name 2020 Budget through End of Unexpended %2020 2021 Budget through End of Unexpended %2021 vs 2021
Month Budget Authority Month Budget Authority
103 Sales&Use Tax 639,379 486,823 152,556 76% 663,051 501,628 161,423 76% 14,804
104 Auditor's 0&M 138,104 78,982 59,122 57% 88,667 68,687 19,980 77% (10,295)
105 County Road 20,704,939 9,308,164 11,396,775 45% 21,570,530 9,873,550 11,696,980 46% 565,386
106 1 Paths&Trails 1,903 1,299 604 68% 2,238 1,520 718 68% 221
109 Election Equipment Holdings 30,615 1,509 29,106 5% 52,040 1 1,429 50,611 3% (79)
110 Crime Victims 93,234 61,657 31,577 66% 98,649 62,841 35,808 64% 1,184
114 Victim Witness Activities 60,234 37,571 22,663 62% 63,345 3,796 59,549 6% (33,775)
116 Historical Preservation 15,753 4,111 11,642 26% 60,000 48,147 11,853 80% 44,036
117 Community Support Services 2,309,031 1,497,950 811,081 65% 4,807,444 4,286,904 520,540 89% 2,788,954
118 Abatement 54,518 1,124 53,394 2% 54,336 955 53,381 2% (169)
120 REET&Property Tax Admin 64,283 17,653 46,630 27% 64,672 13,399 51,273 21% (4,254)
134 National Forest Safety 88,092 25,119 62,973 29% 41,457 27,756 13,701 67% 2,637
135 Trial Court Improvements 50,650 2,697 47,953 5% 51,380 1,558 49,822 3% (1,139)
140 Sheriff Special Funds 597,682 247,346 350,336 41% - - 0% (247,346)
141 Sheriff's Boating Program 38,187 30,139 8,048 79% 38,890 34,968 3,922 90% 4,829
142 INarcotics Investigation Fund 6,043 5,183 860 86% 8,204 5,385 2,819 66% 202
150 Community Services Health 2,306,857 1,728,785 578,072 75% 3,060,733 2,290,368 770,365 75% 561,583
155 American Rescue Plan Act - 0% 6,484,451 767,945 5,716,506 12% 767,945
160 Law Library 36,365 22,292 14,073 61% 36,272 22,580 13,692 62% 288
163 Lodging Tax(Hotel/Motel) 637,791 269,193 368,598 42% 762,548 382,156 380,392 50% 112,963
164 Mental Health 1,439,941 703,537 736,404 49% 1,500,623 632,898 867,725 42% (70,639)
180 Treasurer's M&O Fund 269,649 89,710 179,939 33% 293,195 84,474 208,721 29% (5,236)
190 Veterans Assistance 187,060 79,749 1 107,311 43% 191,422 69,073 122,349 36% (10,676)
192 ISkokomish Flood Zone 108,543 29,127 79,416 27% 53,319 1 7,450 45,869 14% (21,677)
194 Mason Lake Mngmt Dist#2 129,000 18,604 110,396 14% 145,500 4,331 141,169 3% (14,273)
195 Spencer Lake Mngmt Dist#3 14,500 8,738 5,762 60% 19,650 13,585 6,065 69% 4,847
199 Island Lake Mngmt Dist#1 29,000 9,521 19,479 33% 40,650 11,151 29,499 27% 1,631
350 REET 1 Capital Improvements 2,304,898 1,161,211 1,143,687 50% 2,912,161 2,153,645 758,516 74% 992,434
351 REET 2 Capital Improvements 2,687,427 1 645,586 2,041,841 24% 2,090,995 774,737 1,316,258 37% 129,151
402 Mason County Landfill 4,333,969 3,281,668 1,052,301 76% 4,876,235 3,705,172 1,171,063 76% 423,504
403 N.Bay/Case Inlet Utility 2,124,568 1,301,614 822,954 61% 2,217,382 1,312,296 905,086 59% 10,682
404 N.Bay/Case Inlet Utility Res 654 - 654 0% 1 - - 0%
405 Wastewater System Development - - 0% 3,986 3,986 (0) 100% 3,986
411 Rustlewood Sewer&Water 459,233 280,296 178,937 61% 482,065 198,551 283,514 41% (81,745)
412 Beards Cove Water 216,877 105,508 111,369 49% 218,444 120,207 98,237 55% 14,698
413 Belfair WW&Water Reclamation 4,166,524 1,479,343 2,687,181 36% 7,768,406 4,221,110 3,547,296 54% 2,741,767
428 Reserve Landfill 26,168 18,433 7,735 70% 301,780 1,335 300,445 0% (17,098)
429 Reserve Beards Cove ULID 3,754 2,816 939 75% 4,286 3,215 1,072 75% 399
480 Storm Drain System Development 1,850 1,311 539 71% 1,029 708 321 69% (604)
500 Information Technology Dept 999,366 1 755,572 1 243,794 76% 961,722 659,542 302,180 69% (96,030)
501 Equipment Rental&Revolving 4,128,801 2,225,693 1,903,108 54% 5,219,823 2,721,373 2,498,450 52% 495,680
502 Unemployment Fund 242,484 47,476 195,008 20`y, 230,005 52,992 177,013 23% 5,517
Totals $51,747,926 1 $26,073,110 $$ 25,674,816 50% 67,541,585 $35,147,401 $ 32,394,184 52% 9,074,291
J:\Financials\2021 Financials\2021 September Financial Report.xlsx 12
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Jennifer Beierle
DEPARTMENT: Support Services EXT: 532
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
ITEM: Certify to the County Assessor the amount of taxes levied for county purposes
and the amount of taxes levied for Current Expense and Road for 2022. An increase to
the Current Expense and Road property tax levies for 2022 may be considered.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 84.52.070, the Commissioners must certify
to the County Assessor the amount of taxes levied for county purposes and for each
taxing district by adoption of a resolution by November 30.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Approval to set a public hearing on
November 23, 2021 at 9:15 a.m. to certify to the County Assessor the amount of taxes
levied for county purposes and the amount of taxes levied for each taxing district for
2022. An increase to the Current Expense and Road property tax levies for 2022 may be
considered.
J:\Budget Adoption Info\2022\2022 Levy InfoTriefing Summary 10.18.2021 - Levies.doc
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Jennifer Beierle
DEPARTMENT: Support Services EXT: 532
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
ITEM: Approval to set a public hearing on Monday, December 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. to
consider adoption of the 2022 budget for Mason County. Copies of the 2022 preliminary
budget will be available to the public on November 22, 2021.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 84.52.070, the Commissioners must hold a
public hearing on the 2022 Preliminary Budget to allow taxpayers to "appear and be
heard for or against any part of the budget". The public hearing also allows county
departments to publicly testify if they so desire.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Approval to set a public hearing on
Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. to consider adoption of the 2022 budget for
Mason County. Copies of the 2022 preliminary budget will be available to the public on
November 22, 2021.
J:\Budget Adoption Info\2022\2022 Budget Briefing, Agenda,& Public Hearing Items\Briefing Summary
10.18.2021 -2022 Budget.doc
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Alex Paysse
DEPARTMENT: Community Services, EH EXT: 279
BRIEFING DATE: 10/18/2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information
INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources
❑ Legal [7 Other — please explain
ITEM: Request to hire an additional EHS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential
solutions):
Additional funding has been allocated through foundational public health services (FPHS) for
environmental health programs. Increases in FPHS will allow for additional services related
to food safety, sewage safety, and school safety programs. Community Services is
requesting use of these funds to hire an additional FTE to assist with education and program
coordination relating to food safety.
The food safety program currently supports a single FTE through food establishment
licensing fees. Mason County averages approximately 370 retail food establishments per
year. An additional FTE would:
• Decrease impacts from staff changes, providing additional program depth
• Provide vital education to food safety partners and retail establishments (such as
regular updates on food recalls, regulation updates, and important food safety
reminders)
• decrease response time to food borne illness reports and complaints
• additional coordination with management on policy and program development
• increase availability to the public for technical assistance and permit inquiries
• Provide opportunity for workshops and training events to assist retail establishments
This is work paid for by state funding and is within contract language. Request is to start
post and fill hiring process. No job offers will be provided until updated consolidated
contract amendment is secured and signed by commission (expected end of October 2021
with processing in early November).
BUDGET IMPACT:
This will require a budget amendment. Current annual salary range for EHS and EHS senior
is approx. $49,440 to $69,024, dependent on qualifications.
Briefing Summary 10/13/2021
PUBLIC OUTREACH:(Include any legal requirements, direct notice, website, community
meetings, etc.)
Approval through public meeting
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
Approval to add to next available action agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Briefing Summary 10/13/2021
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Alex Paysse
DEPARTMENT: Community Services, EH EXT: 279
BRIEFING DATE: 10/18/2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information
INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources
❑ Legal ❑ Other — please explain
ITEM: Clean Water District Advisory Committee Applications
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential
solutions):
An advertisement for the 3 vacant citizen positions was posted on 9/28. We have received
applications from Teri King and Glenn Landram to serve on the Clean Water District Advisory
Committee. Both applicants reside within the district boundaries.
BUDGET IMPACT:
NA
PUBLIC OUTREACH:(Include any legal requirements, direct notice,website, community
meetings, etc.)
Advertisement for vacancies was posted, appointment through public meetings.
RECOMMENDED OR REOUESTED ACTION:
Schedule interviews and proceed towards appointment if in agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Applications (x2)
Briefing Summary 10/12/2021
Cc:CMMRS Neatherlin, Shutty, Trask
Clerk A. e �SQUe L t c
i' MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
` SAP 3 0 2021 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET
SHELTON WA 98584
mason County ` Fax 360-427-8437; Voice 360-427.9670, Ext, 419;275.4467 or482-5269
_s Commissioners
I ill,SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO Mason County Clean Water District
NAME; Glenn Landram
ADDRESS: PHONE;
CCIMZ P. CINCT: WORK PHONE-,
(OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE) E- L
-- . - . ---- -__=------------------
COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: (IF RETIRED. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE)
AC __
TIVITIES OR MEMBERSHIPS) USAF-_20 Years rn
Belfair/Hood anal Sewer Advisory COMPANY;
Committee 999-2000
POSITION: LTCol--Operations Research Analyst
'President ot the connection Water System
2010-Present COMPANY, The Evergreen State College-- 16yrs YRS
North Mason School Board--2003-2007 POSITION; Faculty—Finance, Economics and Statistic$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your words, what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying:
To provide a resident's perspective, and advice, to the commissioners regarding our clean water district.
What interests, skills do you wish to offer the Board, Committee,or Council?
I've experience with government having worked as an analyst for Gov Locke for 6 years between my time in the
USAF and teaching at Evergreen. I live on Hood Canal and have swam in those waters for the past 60 years and
0-fe - _
Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board:
(Le,create a potential conflict of Interest)
I raise clams commercialiv on my beach. I am retired and have no other known affiliation that might provide a conflict
of interest. If one did come up I would recuse myself.
Your participation Is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours
(such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be
able to attend such trainings? Yes
Realistically, how much time can you give to this position?
Quarterly 4 Monthly Weekly Daily Office Use Only
_ _ ____�__.__ 9-27-2021 Appointment Date
Siginhire Date
Term Expire Date
p_ Cc:CMMRS Neatherlin, Shutty,Trask
1� `�.� ::.b��' a; Clerk �OI�I1Q / �, / �/sPe
*1854
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCj 1 1 N2 i 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET
SHELTON WA 98584
Mason County Fax 360-427-8437, Voice 360-427-9670, Ext. 419;275-4467 or482-5269
Corn)rlissioners
I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO Mason County Clean Water District
NAME:Teri King
ADDRESS: PHONE:
CITY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE:
(OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE) E-MAIL:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: (IF RETIRED. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE)
(ACTIVITIES OR MEMBERSHIPS) COMPANY: Washington Sea Grant 30 yRS
,Skookum Rotary ib
DKG Washington State Organization POSITION: Marine Water Quality Specialist
Mason County Master Gardeners COMPANY: YRS
WW Girl Scouts
POSITION:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your words,what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying:
The role of the Committee is to prnvide advice to the Bnarci of Cor(nty Commissioners rPa_ a�g
the use of the CWD funds to recover downgraded shellfish beds and to protect those that are in an
approved status. I have served on numerous CWD advisory boards for MC over the last 25 years
as well as the Puget Sound Paitneiship's Ecosystem Cuaidination Buaid (10 yeam) mpiesenting
Heed Canal.
What interests,skills do you wish to offer the Board, Committee,or Council?
As a 30 year MC resident working on marine Water qualety 1 have good knowledge of pi-ir shellfish
growing areas, their challenges and opportunities for improvement. I am active in our community
and am able to bring people, issues and science together to actively solve problems.
Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may Influence or affect your position on this Board:
(i.e.create a potential conflict of interest)
N)ono that I ran think of at this tima.
Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours
(such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be
able to attend such trainings? Yes
Realistically,how much time can you give to this position?
Quarterly X Monthly Weekly Daily
Office Use Only
./Qiu &�� 10/8/21 Appointment Date
Signature Date
Term Expire Date
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Kell Rowen and Mariah Frazier
DEPARTMENT: Community Development EXT: 286
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: May 4, 2020
If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information
INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply): ❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources
❑ Legal ❑ Other — please explain
ITEM: Authorization to accept a Local Records Grant from the State Department of Archives
for the amount of$19,620.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (if applicable, please include available options and potential
solutions): The Department of Community Development worked with State Archives staff to apply for
a Local Records Grant to assist with the department in its continued effort to organize files consistent
with state records retention laws and with the goal of timely and satisfactory responses to public
records request. The original application was postponed due to COVID-19 and revised and reapplied
for in June 2021.
BUDGET IMPACT: If approved for acceptance, the grant money received will be used to
hire part-time staff to perform clerical duties, while senior staff familiar with department
functions would inventory records and prepare boxes for transfer or destruction.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:(Include any legal requirements, direct notice, website, community
meetings, etc.) N/A
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Authorize DCD to accept Local Records
Grant in the amount of $19,620
ATTACHMENTS: Grant Application and Award E-mail
Briefing Summary 10/12/2021
Mariah Frazier
From: McGrath, Marnie <marnie.mcgrath@sos.wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:27 PM
To: Mariah Frazier
Subject: Your Local Records Grant Application
Dear Mariah,
Congratulations on your selection as one of the award recipients of the 2021-2022 Washington State Archives
Local Records Grant Program. An overwhelming 91 applications were received this grant cycle, requesting a
total of$2,047,569.
Due to the volume of quality requests, we were not able to fund all of the worthy projects submitted, but the
Archives Oversight Committee has recommended that your Organizing the File Room (2021-2022) grant
proposal receive up to $19,620.00 We encourage you to continue working with Washington State Archives
staff to answer any questions you may have regarding your project.
You will receive an official award notice in the mail in the next few days. To accept your award, please e-mail
recordsmanagementta'),sos.wa.gov or send a letter of acceptance to Steve Excell, Washington State Archives,
PO Box 40238, Olympia, WA, 98504-0238. Once your acceptance letter is received, you will be sent a Grant
Agreement requiring your signature. You may find it helpful to review our guidance on "What Happens After
You Are Awarded a Grant?" And please be aware that no funds may be promised or expended prior to
receiving the executed grant agreement from my office.
We are very pleased to award this grant to your agency and look forward to the successful completion of your
very worthwhile project.
Sincerely,
Records Management Team
Washington State Archives
1129 Washington St. SE, MS: 40238 • Olympia, WA 98504-0238
Phone: 360.586.4901 1 RecordsManagement(@_sos.wa.gov
Washington State Archives I Digital Archives
To receive updates on records management advice, records retention schedules and training, click on the
appropriate link: Local government agency notifications --State government agency notifications
you
Grant Application — Organizing the File Room
(2020-2021)
Agency Information
Agency Name: Mason County Department of Community Development, Facilities, and
Prosecuting Attorney
County: Mason County
Agency Type: County
Federal Employer ID#: 91-6001354
Number of Population Served by agency/department: 56,601
Number of Full-Time Employees in Agency/Department: 23
State Legislative District(s): 35
Designated Project Contact
First Name: Last Name: Title: Phone Number: Email:
Mariah Frazier Planning Clerical (360)427-9670 x365 mfrazier@co.mason.wa.us
Agency Head
First Name: Last Name: Title: Phone Number: Email:
Dave Windom Director of Community Development(360)427-9670 x 260
dwindomkco.mason.wa.us
Physical Address
Address: City: Zip Code:
615 W Alder St Shelton
Mailing Address (if different)
Address:
615 W Alder St
About the Problem
What is the impact to your agency by not having your paper records organized in terms of
responding to public records requests in a timely manner or protecting records from damage?
Mason County Community Development has a large records inventory of long term and
permanent records housed in three locations. The majority of our Building Department records
are held in our main office with older Planning records stored two blocks away in the attic of the
Prosecutor's office, as well as at the County Shop ten blocks away.
The records located at the County Shop 10 blocks away are boxes that were damaged in a flood
in 2011. They were previously inventoried and are labeled with box numbers,however current
staff have been unable to locate the inventory. While these boxes are recognized as a problem,
they aren't the greatest concern as they are rarely accessed and stored securely to prevent more
damage. Future plans would include assessing retention of these documents and transferring to
archives or destroying.
Our main concern and focus are the records located at the Prosecutor's office 2 blocks away
from the main office. Facilities is planning on removing all records stored in the Prosecutors attic
space and remodeling it into usable office space. While there is storage space for the records to
go during the process of remodeling if needed, it is temporary. The records will need to return to
the main office where there is little extra room. It is estimated that half the boxes can be
destroyed or sent to archives for proper retention. The records currently stored in the
Prosecutor's office for Community Development are mainly planning documents from the 70's-
90's and are poorly or mislabeled. There is approximately 40 boxes that do have an inventory
with them,but are out of order and stacked one on top of each other on the floor under a window.
There is also no consolidated list of those boxes that are already inventoried to let us know what
is over there. The boxes on shelving are not inventoried and are only labeled by a year or record
type. Often upon opening, there is an assortment of unrelated records that don't correlate with
the label on the box.
Several boxes have also been marked with"Landfill"or"To Archives" stickers. It is assumed
this means those particular boxes labeled"landfill"are past retention and able to be destroyed,
though sending them to the landfill is recognized as not proper procedure for destruction. Those
that say "To Archives"could mean they were meant to be transferred, or just mean they were
moved from the main office to the Prosecutor's office to be stored. There has also been little to
no records retention done in the past. We have many records that are long term or permanent, but
also many that can be transferred or destroyed and are past their retention date. This means when
locating documents for a records request, we are sifting through documents or boxes that we no
longer need to be keeping,taking up space and time.
On average, we receive over 200 records request per year, and spend an average of 15 minutes to
complete. Records requests that require going to the Prosecutor's office often require requesting
extra time in order to schedule time and coordinate with the Prosecutor's office for access to
their attic to locate the record. Time spent searching through records of the one requested can
often take upwards of an hour. Having an inventory and clearing out the boxes that can be
archived or destroyed would significantly decrease that time as we would know if the record
even exists, and exactly which box to find it in rather than guessing and searching.
About the Project
What is your plan/project schedule to complete the work by May 31, 2021?
Community Development has previously met with Archives staff and after getting their input,
would focus on having existing clerical staff inventory the records located in the Prosecutor's
office and prepare any records past their retention date for destruction or transfer to archives. Our
plan would be to hire a part time extra help person at 25 hours a week for 6-8 months to cover
existing clerical staff duties, enabling existing staff to spend time two blocks away inventorying
records and preparing boxes for transfer to archives and destruction. Ideally,we would have
extra help staff hired in December 2021 and have them through July 2022. This time frame
coincides with our slower season during the winter for hiring and training allowing for optimal
time management. December would be spent training the extra help,then January and February
would be to go through boxes from the Prosecutor's office to assess what records are there and
organize what is past retention and what is not. March through July would consist of creating an
inventory of each box and labeling,to be able to transfer boxes to archives and or to destroy in
August. Then September and into November would be finishing up by putting all remaining
boxes on shelving and wrapping up.
What is the cost breakdown/budget (including quotes) for your project? (Boxes must be purchased
through Washington State Archives.)?
Part time Extra Help: See attached Job Description
Extra help $20.17/hour even number$16,136.00
Labor& industries $94.00
Social Security $1,235.00
Retirement$2,093.00
Total salary/benefits $19,558.00
Boxes for WA State Archives:
20 boxes x $2.97 per box=$59.40 plus tax
How much money are you requesting?
$19,620
List the type of work to be carried out by agency staff,temporary staff, vendors, and Archives
staff.
New Hired Extra Help: Answer phones, correspondence, scheduling, data entry, file in use
records (see attached job description).
Existing Staff:
Community Development-To be split between two existing clerical staff. Create inventory for
records stored in Prosecutor's office, organize and properly label boxes to remain on site,prepare
and transfer boxes to archives for retention, destroy records past retention date.
Facilities-Transfer boxes from Prosecutor's office to Community Development Office
Vendors/Archives: Provide boxes and process transfer of records for retention.
About the Expected Results
What improvement in response time to public records requests and protection of public records
is expected?
When Planning records are requested, it can take hours to fill a request after scheduling a time to
access the Prosecutor's office and sift through boxes that aren't properly labeled or indexed.
Having an inventory of the Planning records as well as which have been transferred to archives
would significantly decrease those response times. The whole process would also allow us to be
able to move boxes off the floor and onto proper shelving,helping protect those records that are
required to stay onsite. There would also be record of which documents were transferred to
archives or destroyed, which would free us from spending time to respond to those requests.
What benefit(s) are expected from destroying/transferring records past their retention period?
The biggest benefit to destroying and transferring records would be having records stored in one
location, saving time in locating records by not having to guess where they are stored. There
would also be a record of which documents were transferred to archives or destroyed, which
would free us from spending time to respond to those requests. Another benefit would be
improved responses for"any and all"requests for property records. We currently only use the
files stored onsite at the main office to respond to "any and all"requests. Having all onsite
records in one place as well as an index of records sent to archives would ensure we are not
missing documents in our response.
What new procedures/training will be in place to prevent the file room from becoming
disorganized again?
At the beginning of 2019 we started using a new computer system for permitting which allows
for us to rely on less paper and filing. Especially for created reports and correspondence. We will
always have paper records but will be creating less and less little by little over the next several
years. This will help us maintain our organization efforts.
We also plan on utilizing Archives resources of webinars and workshops for our clerical staff to
keep them up to date and trained in retention policies and standards. Specifically,we plan on
sending our clerical staff to the Organizing the File Room Workshop and Improving Your
Agency's Records Management Workshop.New staff will also be required to take the Basics of
Managing Records course.
Lastly,we will also be getting one of our clerical staff certified as a second Public Records
Officer for our department in order to help with the number of requests and be tasked with
keeping up on retention.
By clicking submit,you affirmatively consent to proceed with this grant application and
have the support of your director/commissioners/manager, etc. to do so.
Got Questions?
Ask Us!
recordsmana eg, mentna_,sos.wa.gov
Local Records Grant Hotline(360)586-7810
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Michael MacSems
DEPARTMENT: Community Services EXT: 571
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information
ITEM: Discuss two open seats (due to resignations) on the Historic Preservation
Commission.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and
potential solutions)
BACKGROUND: The Mason County Historic Preservation Commission is a seven (7)
member commission which serves to identify and actively encourage the conservation of
Mason County's historic resources. In 2021 the HPC has lost two members due to
resignations (Russ Sackett and Steve Rose) both terms end on November 30, 2022. We
currently have one of these open seats advertised as open until filled since May 25,
2021. Although not technically expired, it probably would be best to re-issue the news
release advertising both open positions. I am requesting that that a new news releases
be read at the October 26, 2021 regular meeting.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
This proposal has no cost.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:(Include any legal requirements, direct notice, website,
community meetings, etc.) Renewing a news release requesting applicants issued in
May 2021. Normally, public outreach for open HPC seats occurs every Fall.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
At the October 26, 2021 BOCC meeting, Staff will read a news release inviting qualified
applicants to apply for these open positions.
ATTACHMENTS:
News Release and 2021 HPC Membership Roster
Breifing Cover New Sheet Open Seats NR Special
NEWS RELEASE
October 26, 2021
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
411 NORTH 5T" ST
SHELTON, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 EXT. 419
TO: KMAS, KRXY, SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, THE
OLYMPIAN, SHELTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NORTH MASON
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CITY OF SHELTON, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, THE SUN
RE: Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
The Mason County Commissioners are seeking an applicant to fill two open positions on
the Mason County Historic Preservation Commission.
The major responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission is to identify and
actively encourage the conservation of Mason County's historic resources by initiating
and maintaining a register of historic places and reviewing proposed changes to register
properties. They also work to raise community awareness of Mason County's history and
historic resources and serve as Mason County's primary resource in matters of history,
historic planning, and preservation.
Commission members serve three-year terms and meet monthly, during business hours,
at the County offices in Shelton. During COVID these meetings are being held via Zoom.
Both of these terms are open due to unexpected vacancies and will expire in November
2022. Applicants must be residents of Mason County.
Interested persons are encouraged to apply for this commission by completing an
advisory board form that can be downloaded from our website—
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/advisory/Advisoryboardapp.pdf or by calling the
Commissioners' office at 427-9670 ext. 419 or 275-4467 ext. 419. Completed
applications should be submitted in the Commissioners' office at 411 N 5th Street,
Shelton. Positions are open until filled.
If there are questions about theses positions, please contact Michael MacSems at 427-
9670 ext. 571 or by e-mail at HPC(cD-co.mason.wa.us.
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Randy Neatherlin Sharon Trask Kevin Shutty
Chair Commissioner Commissioner
2021 Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
Membership List
Jann Goodpaster Vice Chair Nov 2021
Micah Sanders Nov 2024
Vacant Nov 2022
Vacant Nov 2022
David Dally Nov 2022
Edgar Huber Chair,Professional Expertise Nov 2023
Wayne Nicholson Nov 2023
Rhonda Foster Ex-Officio Member
Kris Miller Ex-Officio Member
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Michael MacSems
DEPARTMENT: DCD EXT: 571
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
ITEM: To appoint or reappoint a community member to a new three-year term on the
Mason County Historic Preservation Commission.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and
potential solutions): The Mason County Historic Preservation Commission is a seven
(7) member commission which serves to identify and actively encourage the
conservation of Mason County's historic resources.
Currently the MCHPC has one position that expires on November 30th and two other
open seats (due to the resignation of Russ Sackett and Steven Rose) that will expire on
11/30/2022. The term expiring this year is currently occupied by Jann Goodpaster and
she has reapplied for a second term. The empty seats are open until filled. Mason
County has received no other applications for any of these open seats.
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
For the BOCC to review the application of Jann Goodpaster for a second term on the
MCHPC and to reappoint her as an Action Item at the October 26th regular public
meeting. This new term will end in 2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
Applications from Jann Goodpaster and the 2021 HPC membership roster.
Briefing Item Summary Form Appointments
Cc:CMMRS Neatherlin, Shutty, Trask
Clerk
N .IUacSer�S
°pa�.r f `L1}:-�?; 1l1ASON COUNTY COMMFSSIONERS
Ra PAY ` "` ' `p'` J 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET
SHELTON WA 98584
9. Fax 360-427-8437; Voice 360-427-9670, Ext. 419;275-4467 or482-5269
f S4 ((Mason County
I AM SEEKING APPOINTME& I UmWWWunty Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
NAME: Jann Goodpaster
ADDRESS: PHONE:
CITY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE:
- EMAIL:
(OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOULNE)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT:(IF RETIRED. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE)
AChe T Mason Co Historic WMES OR MEMBERSHIPS)
t Vice Chair of COMPANY: Risk&Regulatory Consultants 10 YRS
Preservation Advisory Committees; President
of the Mason County Historic Society and POSITION: Director of Market Regulations
volunteer membership coordinator.
COMPANY: State of Oregon, Ins Division YRS
POSITION: Market Enforcement Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your words,what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying:
To identify historic sites and place of interests and preserve them for future residents of Mason County. Educate and
inform the public of Mason oun s History. Work in concert with other agencies to enhance tourism that may Pconorny
What interests,skills do you wish to offer the Board,Committee,or Council?
I have 4+year of Mason County based historical training through my aff(iation with various organization. Excellent
networking skills. Executive level experience in private and public management. A B.A. in History from the University
o€Washin ton. 1 have elre„+,.. mple+e+►,e-9pen P,-hlls Me tings Acit a d Publie ReGGFds TFaining.
Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board:
(i.e.create a potential conflict of interest)
None
Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours
(such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be
able to attend such trainings? Yes
Realistically,how much time can you give to this position?
.� Quarterly ` nthly 4 Weeldy Daily Office Use Only
_ /lk
ICA)0'` Appointment Date
Sig atPre Date
Terni Expire Date
2021 Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
Membership List
Jann Goodpaster Vice Chair Nov 2021
Micah Sanders Nov 2024
Vacant Nov 2022
Vacant Nov 2022
David Dally Nov 2022
Edgar Huber Chair,Professional Expertise Nov 2023
Wayne Nicholson Nov 2023
Rhonda Foster Ex-Officio Member
Kris Miller Ex-Officio Member
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Kell Rowen, DCD Administrator
DEPARTMENT: DCD EXT: 286
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
ITEM: Appointment of Terri Arcieri to the Planning Advisory Commission (PAC).
BACKGROUND: Mason County citizen Terri Arcieri has requested appointment to the
Mason County Planning Commission. Ms. Arcieri would fill the "At-Large" position on the
Planning Commission. Her application is attached.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
This proposal has no cost.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
Interview Terri Arcieri for consideration of appointment to the Planning Advisory
Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application, 2021 PAC Membership Roster
Briefing Item PAC Appt 10-18-2021
-- c:CMMRS Neatherlin, Shutty, Trask
Clerk
MASON COUNTY COM.WSSIONERS
a,�irb�Ti COprY 'rr_h
>'4 411 NORTH Ft7'TH STREET
,n SHELTON WA 98584
.:;:, ;-r ) ty Fax 36a427-8437; Voice 360-427-967Q Ext.419;275:4467 or 432-5269
C;611I,„issiol; ors
I AM SEEKING-APPOINTMENT TO C1 11 �' , OYl^VY I SIor�
NAME: lit PaCi 1`�.l
11 ADDRESS: PHONE,
��q,-T—ylzlp-- atVO 'ING PRECINCT;' � WORK PHONE:
-
COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT:(IF RETIRED (4PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE)
t.4CTNITIESORMEMBERSHIPS) COMPANY: � , V 'V �t �E 1r YRS
POSITION
COMPANY: YRS
POSITION:
in your words,,what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying:
What interests, skills do you wish to offer the Board,Committee,or Council?
' 0 � L e �i YrU>' I n )7'lat<5i�f1 LoCtn t 50 LtrlcuiNI-Wre alo&r
I mn 1�4�dm 'em%s, `T- h v c 2 M as�kv-'s o,r-l� I✓► }�,v a r�` 11�ta�c��Yl'td-'t
cif c a rlrkrl-HA i 1,)o < (X4 Mj Cfi Yrnncc►e,,�
Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board:
(l.e.create a potential conflict of interest) '
Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours
(such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be
able to attend such trainings? _
Realistically,lao>A!much time can you iveu this position? -
(Quarterly Monthly �W�Y--.� Daly �Qftice Usc 0►tly
` Oili { �, °1 f '7—�rl Appo�ntjnentpate
Sign reDate
TerniExpm Date
Terri Arcieri
To:
Mason County Commissioners
411 North Fifth Street
Shelton WA 98584
RE:Planning Advisory Commission
Community Service:
• 1 designed two residential septic systems in Kitsap County for Habitat for Humanity with their new home
building projects for low-income families.
• 1 assisted as a volunteer in the Silverdale sub area plan for the development of the Kitsap County 2021
Comprehensive Plan.
• 1 volunteered with Kitsap Dept of Emergency Management as a Ham Operator and attended active
shooter drills at Olympic College.
• 1 was a Dept of Home Land Security/FEMA-Federal Emergency Response Official/Communications
Supervisor and flew to California in 2005 to help with the wild fires.
• 1 was a member of the Silverdale Rotary club as a Kitsap County business owner.As a group we donated
to local food banks,and sponsored young college students. My company sponsored the local Whaling
Days Duck Race.The proceeds went back into the community in the form of new play ground equipment
at the park near the Port of Silverdale.
I understand the role or purpose of the appointed seven-member citizen board is to provide a voice for Mason
County residents in the form of the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission.The Planning Advisory
Commission members help set the long-term direction or vision for Mason County's future.To consider and make
recommendations or advise the Board of County Commissioners on policies and amendments related to the
Comprehensive Plan and plan updates,Shoreline Master Program,Resource Ordinance and other development
regulations in addition to making recommendations on land uses and rezone applications.
Interests,skills I can offer the Board,Committee,or Council.
• 1 owned and operated a business within Mason County"Affordable Septic Designs".I was a licensed septic
Designer in Mason, Kitsap and Pierce counties for seven years.During this time, I became very familiar
with environmental issues,wells,storm water retention and other regulations.I helped with dye testing
along the South Shore of the Hood Canal by flushing dye packs down the toilet of a home owner and
going out to the bulk head to see if the system was leaking into the canal.Then I helped the home owner
by designing a new septic system.
• 1 designed one of Washington States first drip irrigation septic systems.
• 1 owned the Mortgage Company American Home loans from 2003 to 2008(business experience)
• 1 owned the Real Estate Company Better Homes and Land and Beyond Realty(Residential housing
knowledge and experience,familiar with WA Growth Management Act for affordable housing and
availability)
• 1 am currently an IT Project Manager in Cyber Security for the Dept of the Navy at Keyport Undersea Naval
Warfare Center(Critical infrastructure experience)
• 1 have a Master's Degree in Project Management
• 1 worked for FEMA as an Emergency Communications Supervisor and flew to California in 2005 to help
with the wild fires.
More Information is available upon request.
Mason County
Planning Advisory Commission-2021
Position
Comm Name Phone Mailing Address Initial Appointment Term Expires
District No.
2 1 Brian Smith
1/16/2018 1/31/2022
2 2 Joseph Myers
6/2/2020 1/31/2024
3 3 Isaiah Johnston
6/2/2020 1/31/2022
At 4 VACANT
Large 1/31/2025
3 5
Bob Wilkerson 7/6/2021 1/31/2025
1 6 Mac McLean
11/26/2019 1/31/2024
1 7
Tim Opiela 6/2/2020 1/31/2022
Contact: Kell Rowen, Dept. of Community Services, Planning Division @ Ext. 286
Updated 7/6/2021
MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS—COMMISSIONER BRIEFING
October 18,2021
Briefing Items
• Joint Funding Agreement#22YGJFA03400 with the US Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey, for the period October 1, 2021,to September 30, 2022 for
streamflow monitoring gage stations on the Skokomish river.
• Road Vacation No. 410,to vacate an easement named W Walnut Street adjacent to Block 4
and vacation of easement named Fourth Street adjacent to Block 4 in the Plat of Moore's
addition to the City of Shelton.
Discussion Items
• Combined Sewer& Water Operator Position
Commissioner Follow-Up Items
Upcoming Calendar/Action Items
• Hearing set for October 26, 2021 @ 9:15am to consider changing the speed limit on Boyer
Road to 25 mph(Briefed August 16, 2021 and September 20, 2021).
• Hearing set for October 26, 2021 for a franchise renewal with Orchard Beach Water
System (Briefed Sept. 20, 2021).
Attendees:
Commissioners: Public Works: Other Dept. Staff: Public:
_Randy Neatherlin _Loretta Swanson
_Kevin Shutty _Mike Collins
_Sharon Trask _Richard Dickinson
Other(list below):
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Mike Collins, PLS, PE, Deputy Director/County Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works EXT: 450
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply):
❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Other— please explain
ITEM: Cooperative Agreement between USGS and Mason County Public
Works for streamflow monitoring gage stations on the
Skokomish River
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates and
maintains the network of streamflow monitoring gage stations on the Skokomish
River near Potlatch and Union for the purpose of flood forecasting, documentation,
flow regulations and fisheries enhancement.
Most of these stations are funded through a joint agreement between the USGS
and Tacoma Public Utilities; however, Mason County, the Department of Ecology
and the U.S. Geological Survey fund the South Fork Skokomish gage. The river at
this site is unregulated by dams and provides an excellent measure of the natural
runoff of the upper basin, particularly during floods. Mason County also
participates in funding real time data transmission at the gage near Potlatch.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The total fixed cost of this program is $10,363, of which Mason County's portion of
the annual cost is $7,073. The remainder ($3,290) is funded by the USGS Federal
Priority Streamgage Program. Mason County's share is paid out of the Road Fund to
aid in assessing road closures and threats to critical transportation infrastructure.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
Recommend the Board authorize the County Engineer to sign the Joint Funding
Agreement #22YGJFA03400 with the US Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey, for the period October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022 for
streamflow monitoring gage stations on the Skokomish river.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Agreement
6000000725/22YGJFA03400/FY22
website(https://www.usgs.gov/abouVorganization/science-support/science-quality-and-integrity/fundamental-science-
ractices).
Form 9-1366 U.S. Department of the Interior Customer#:6000000725
(May 2018) U.S.Geological Survey Agreement#:22YGJFA03400
Joint Funding Agreement Project#:YGOOKU
FOR TIN#:91-6001354
Water Resource Investigations
9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered annually. Invoices not paid within 60 days from the billing date will bear
Interest, Penalties, and Administrative cost at the annual rate pursuant the Debt Collection Act of 1982, (codified at
31 U.S.C. §3717)established by the U.S. Treasury.
USGS Technical Point of Contact Customer Technical Point of Contact
Name: Christopher Laveau Name: Michael Collins
Associate Director Deputy Director,County Engineer
Address: 934 Broadway,Suite 300 Address: 100 W Public Works Dr.
Tacoma,WA 98402 Shelton,WA 98584
Telephone: 253-552-1609 Telephone: (360)427-9670 Ext 769
Fax: 253-552-1583 Fax:
Email: cdlaveau@usgs.gov Email: mcollins@co.mason.wa.us
USGS Billing Point of Contact Customer Billing Point of Contact
Name: Sharbra Gordon-scott Name: Michael Collins
Budget Analyst Deputy Director, County Engineer
Address: 934 Broadway Suite 300 Address: 100 W Public Works Dr.
Tacoma,WA 98402 Shelton,WA 98584
Telephone: (253)552-1698 Telephone: (360)427-9670 Ext 769
Fax: (253)552-1581 Fax:
Email: sgordon-scoff@usgs.gov Email: mcollins@co.mason.wa.us
U.S.Geological Survey
United States Mason County
Department of Interior
Signature Signatures
Dtally by
CYNTHIA CY TH BAARRTON
BARYON Dale:2021.10.0709:54:58
By -071007 By Date:
Name: Cynthia Barton,Ph>D., L.H.G., L.G. Name:Mike Collins,PE,PLS
Title:Center Director Title:County Engineer
Approve as to Form
By Date
Name:Tim Whitehead
Title:Ch.DPA
USGS-Mason County Cooperative Streamgaging Program,October 1,2021-September 30,2022
USGS Federal
Priority
USGS Station Streamgage
No. Station Name Mason County Program Total Remarks
WESTERN WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE(TACOMA),253-552-1651
12060500 South Fork Skokomish River near Union
Streamflow discharge $6,323 $3,290 $9,613 The remainder of this gage is funded by the Washington State
Dept.of Ecology and USGS.
12061500 Skokomish River near Potlatch
Data transmission via telephone $750 $750 Streamflow discharge with priority real-time data transmission
is funded by the City of Tacoma and USGS.
TOTAL $7,073 $3,290 $10,363
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Mike Collins, PLS, PE, Deputy Director/County Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works EXT: 450
BRIEFING DATE: October 18, 2021
INTERNAL REVIEW (please check all that apply):
❑ Budget/Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Other — please explain
ITEM: Road Vacation No. 410— Hearings Examiner Recommendation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Public Works received a request from Mary Leighton, property owner at 121 W Walnut
Street, petitioning for the vacation of two County easements, W. Walnut Street (north of
her property) and Fourth Street (west of her property), both adjacent to Ms. Leighton's
property.
These easements were dedicated to the public in 1938 by way of Plat of Moore's Addition
to the City of Shelton. There is no evidence that these two easements have been opened
nor used as a public roadway.
The Examiner issue his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Laws and Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners deny the proposed vacation. In the
alternative, the Commissioners may wish to approve a modified vacation that provides
access to the Clevenger property while also providing setbacks to the Leighton property as
identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
Public Works recommends Board to approve Road Vacation 410 with the following
provisions:
Provision 1. These easements are classified as a Class A which requires payment of
fifty percent (50%) of the appraised value. Should the vacation of these two easements
is approved, the petitioner will be required to pay $9,581.96.
Provision 2. The petitioner will be required to relocate the existing board fence to match
the right of way line along 3rd Street. (See Map Exhibit)
Provision 3. An easement for ingress and egress or any other purpose, if any, will be
retained. In accordance with RCW 36.87.170, an easement will be retained in favor of
Mason County for any utilities present in the rights of way.
Provision 4. If provisions 1. and 2. are not met, this vacation approval shall be
withdrawn, the vacation will be declared null and void and the right-of-way shall be
returned to public use.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
An administration fee of $1,000 was paid to process the petition. These easements are
classified as a Class A which requires fifty percent (50%) of the appraised value. Should
the vacation of these two easements be approved, the petitioner is required to pay
$9,581.96 (see calculations in Exhibit D-1, 2) prior to recording the vacation.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
Recommend the Board approve the modified vacation resolution for Road Vacation 410,
petitioned by Mary Leighton, that vacates W. Walnut Street and Fourth Street, subject to
provisions 1. through 4. No order of vacation shall be recorded until provisions 1. and 2.
are satisfied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Hearing Examiners Findings
2. Resolution w/Exhibit
I
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
J
RE: Road Vacation No. 410
4 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS
5 Request for a Road Vacation OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
6
Mary Leighton has again petitioned for the vacation of right of way abutting her
7 property located at 121 Walnut Street along Walnut and N. 4th Streets. It is
recommended that the Commissioners deny the petition. In the alternative, the
8 Commissioner may wish to consider a slightly reduced vacation that arguably provides
9 access to property owned by opponents to the vacations.
10 The County Commissioners denied an identical vacation request from Ms. Leighton,
Road Vacation No. 399, in 2020. The Commissioners based their denial upon the
1 1 recommendations of City of Shelton and County public works staff. Both identified
compelling road access and connectivity problems as the basis for denial. The City
1 and County, now with different staff, recommend approval. However, the record
1 establishes no material change in road network conditions since the 2020 denial. Ms.
Leighton,the City of Shelton and County staff have presented no evidence or rationale
14 to overturn the findings made by the Commissioners for the 2020 denial. For these
reasons,there is no basis in the record to approve the vacation.
15
Ms. Leighton focuses her position on the fact that a corner of her home and her garage
16 were approved by the County with no setback to the Walnut Street right of way. Ms.
17 Leighton's setback issues are not pertinent to the merits of her vacation petition. Under
state mandated vacation standards, the sole factor to consider for vacation approval is
18 whether the vacation area is necessary to the County's road system and whether there
would be a public benefit to vacation. The public's interest in an efficient and safe road
19 network should not be compromised to solve private property setback issues.
20 The Clevenger family hotly contested Ms. Leighton's vacation request. The
21 Clevengers own a 7.5-acre parcel on the north side of the Walnut Street vacation area.
The parcel is in Shelton's Urban Growth Area,which would enable the subdivision of
22 the property into urban densities. The Clevengers have been anticipating access from
the vacation area to serve as an access point to the subdivision of their parcel. The
23 Clevengers already have a second viable access point to the east of the vacation area
24 along Walnut Street. In Ms. Leighton's first vacation request, the Clevengers argued
that the access point to the east of the vacation area is not viable due to the
25
1 The merits of a modified vacation area are addressed at the first full paragraph of
Page 8 of this recommendation.
Road Vacation P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
encroachment of a well. There still appears to be sufficient space to accommodate
1 access as well. In any event,the Clevengers appear to believe that both access points
are necessary to provide optimal access to the future subdivision of their property.
The potential road utility of the proposed vacation area is best understood by examining
the GIS map for the vacation area below in Figure 1. Ms. Leighton requests vacation
4 of the portions of 4t'street and Walnut Street right of way abutting the north and west
sides of her property. As shown in Figure 1, Ms. Leighton's parcel is part of a
5 collection of lots that is accessed from Northcliff Road by Poplar Street, which is a
6 two-way road. The other access point to Northcliff is Moore Avenue to the south of
Poplar,which is a one-way road. As can further be seen from Figure 1,there are several
7 large lots to the north of Ms. Leighton's lot. All these lots are in the Shelton Urban
Growth Area. As such,there is significant potential for a large increase in density that
8 could add a considerable amount of traffic to the road network surrounding Ms.
Leighton's property. The vacation Ms.Leighton is seeking would eliminate a potential
9 new access point to Northcliff Avenue as well as interior access points from both the
10 Clevenger lot and the large Killeen lot to the west of it.
12
1�
14
i
.......... .........ter
15
.� r
16
NLeo t n _ t
17
19
20
i
22
2;
Figure 1
24
Due to the access issues identified above, the City of Shelton emailed the County on
2> Ms. Leighton's first petition stating that "[alt this time the City of Shelton would not
recommend vacation of the roadways. With the width and connectivity in the area we
would recommend having the option to improve the ROW." See Ex. 1 attachment to
399 Examiner Recommendation. As noted in the Examiner's recommendation on Ms.
Road Vacation p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Leighton's first request, County staff also found lack of access and connectivity to
1 necessitate denial.
For Ms. Leighton's current vacation request, Shelton and Mason County public works
are now recommending approval of the vacation. Both staff members involved in the
current recommendation were not involved in the recommendation made for Ms.
4 Leighton's first petition. No reason was provided in this year's staff report for the
change in position. The record shows no change in the road network in the short
5 amount of time that has expired since denial of Ms. Leighton's first petition. Shelton
6 staff did not participate in the hearing on the current petition. The County was asked
both at the hearing and in post-hearing questions to identify what led to the change in
7 recommendations. At the hearing County staff stated that the County was deferring to
the City's change in position. Staff asserted that the City's main objection to the
8 vacation the first time was utility access, which was no longer a concern. In point of
fact,utilities weren't presented as a reason for denial by the County or City for the first
9 petition. Further,no reason in this proceeding was provided as to why utilities were no
10 longer a concern.In the post-hearing questioning,County staff limited their explanation
to the change in recommendations by stating that County and City staff had visited the
i 1 vacation site and determined that it wasn't necessary to the County road system.
12 The 2020 City and County recommendations for denial are much more compelling than
the 2021 recommendations for approval. The 2020 staff provided concrete and
13 plausible reasons why the vacation area may be of use to the County road system. The
14 2021 staff presented no reasons why the vacation wasn't necessary and identified no
error or fault in the 2020 staff analysis. There simply are no facts in the record to
15 substantiate the conclusion that the vacation area is not necessary to the County's road
system.
16 TESTIMONY
17 A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the appeal hearing to provide an
18 overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes
only as Appendix A. Since the transcript is computer generated, it is not 100%accurate,but
19 does provide a useful indication of what testimony was presented during the hearing.
2() EXHIBITS
21
Exhibit 1: April 2,2021 Engineer's Report
Exhibit 2: Leighton 7/28/21 Letter
Exhibit 3: Swanson 7/9/21 Letter
23 Exhibit 4: Clevenger 7/9/21 Letter
Exhibit 5: Swanson(Leighton Attorney) 8/3/21 email
24 Exhibit 6: Ellyn Clevenger 8/3/21 letter
25 Exhibit 7: Brian Clevenger 8/4/21 Letter
Exhibit 8: Leighton 8/6/21 Letter
Exhibit 9: Clevenger annotated survey and photographs submitted 7/28/21
Road Vacation p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Exhibit 10: August 14, 2021 email with attachments (including questions) from
1 Examiner
Exhibit 11: August 19, 2021 County Email response to Examiner Questions with
Attachments
Exhibit 12: September 1,2021 Leighton letter responding to Examiner questions
Exhibit 13: September 6, 2021email from Ellyn Clevenger with Quiet Title petition
4 Exhibit 14: September 6,2021 Brian Clevenger Response to Examiner questions
Exhibit 15: September 7,2021 Email from Ellyn Clevenger
Exhibit 16: September 7, 2021 Email from Ellyn Clevenger with Quiet Title Default
6 Judgment attachment.
Exhibit 15: September 10,2021 Leighton Reply
7 FINDINGS OF FACT
8 Procedural:
9
10 1. Hearing. A hearing on Ms. Leighton's petition was held on July 28, 2021.
Ms. Leighton's petition was hotly contested by the Clevengers, who own property on
I I the north side of the Walnut Street vacation area. Both Ms. Leighton and the
Clevengers were represented by attorneys'. The hearing was left open for written
comments through August 6,2021. The hearing was re-opened on August 14,2021 by
13 the examiner for the parties to answer a series of written questions posed by the
examiner. Responses to the examiner questions were authorized through September
14 10, 2021.
15 Substantive:
16
2. Site/Proposal Description. Mary Leighton petitioned for the vacation of
17 Walnut Street and 4th Avenue to the extent it abuts her property located at 121 Walnut
Street. The right of way is 30-feet wide,undeveloped as a road and unopened. It was
18 dedicated in 1937. A survey submitted by Ms. Leighton shows a corner of Ms.
Leighton's home and her garage have zero setback to the Walnut Street right of way.
See Ex. 1. Her home was built in 1973. Several improvements have been constructed
20 within the right of way, including a deck and fencing.
21 The vacation petition was signed by Ms. Leighton and Mary and David Killeen. The
Killeens own one lot that abuts the west side of the N. 4th Street vacation area. The
22 Killeen lot also extends to the north of the Walnut Street vacation area. The Clevengers
23 assert that the Killeen property is separated from Walnut Street by a rectangular strip
of property about 30 feet wide that they designate as"untitled property"in their survey
24 exhibit, Ex. 9. The Clevengers assert they have title to this strip of property. The
The Clevengers' legal arguments were presented by their daughter, an out of state
attorney who apparently has an ownership interest in the Clevenger property as well.
Road Vacation p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Clevengers have successfully acquired title to an eastward extension of the strip along
the frontage of their property from a 2008 quiet title judgment. See Ex. 9 and 16.
Ms.Leighton presented an identical vacation petition in 2019 or 2018 as Vacation No.
399. The County Commissioners denied that petition in 2020 via Resolution 2020-09.
4 3. Utility of Vacation Area. The vacation area still has utility to the County's road
system.
6 Normally, in a case this complicated with conflicting evidence the expertise of the
County public works staff would weigh heavily in assessing the need for the vacation
7 area. However,this case presents the expertise of current County and City public works
staff against the expertise of other County and City public works staff who issued their
8 opinions within the last couple years. No material change in circumstances has been
identified by anyone to justify the change in position by the current staff.
9 Consequently, the evidence presented by the current staff and former staff must be
evaluated in the same manner as would expert witnesses with conflicting opinions.
Overall, the opinion of the former staff is the more compelling because their opinions
are based upon specific and plausible factors that haven't been refuted in any manner
1 by the current staff. As noted in the Examiner's 399 recommendation, the County's
former public works staff recommended against approval because the vacation area
13 was necessary for connectivity and proper alinement of Walnut Street. Current access
14 to the surrounding area is limited with one two-way access on W Poplar Street and a
one-way street on Moore Avenue that allows traffic to only flow on to Northcliff Road.
Approval of the vacation would eliminate another potential access point to Northcliff
Road via N.4t' Street.
16
17 As further stated in the 399 Examiner recommendation, the former County staff
analysis reflected the conclusions of Shelton's former engineer,who wrote an email to
18 the County stating that "[a]t this time the City of Shelton would not recommend
vacation of the roadways. With the width and connectivity in the area we would
19 recommend having the option to improve the ROW."
"O Current County staff did not identify any reason why the connectivity concerns raised
21 just last year no longer applied. The County's right of way agent stated that he largely
relied upon the change in position of the Shelton engineer, since the road area in
22 question is within Shelton's urban growth area. When asked why Shelton changed its
position, the agent responded that Shelton's only concern had been over utility
23 placement and that the City had found that now this was no longer an issue. There was
no reason given as to why it was no longer an issue. Further,as seen from the quote in
24 the preceding paragraph, in the 399 petition the City expressed concern over width and
connectivity in the existing network. Although this could be linked to utility issues,
that's not the way County staff presented the issue at the time.
Road Vacation p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The 399 recommendation identifies that Ms. Leighton asserted that creating road
I connections in the proposed vacation area would result in two closely spaced
2 intersections onto Northcliff Road — one from N. 4t' Street and one from Poplar.
Intuitively this would appear to create conflicting turning movements that would be
3 both inefficient and potentially unsafe. However,the County staff member for the 399
petition was fully aware of Ms.Leighton's concern and still advocated the need for the
4 potential added connectivity. County staff either had no problem with a Northcliff/4t'
Street intersection or they found that limiting road development to the Walnut Street
5 vacation area would materially benefit connectivity. In either scenario, the problems
6 associated with a Northcliff/4t' Street intersection, if any, were not found significant
enough to recommend approval of Ms. Leighton's first vacation request.
7
Ms. Leighton has also repeatedly referenced the fact that the Walnut and N. 0 Street
8 right of ways are only half the width of County right of way standards, i.e. 30 feet
instead of 60 feet. She asserts that any road construction within this narrow roadway
9 would necessitate the removal of her home. That is not correct. As noted in the
10 County's response to Examiner questions, Ex. 11, County road standards require two
eleven foot travel lanes and two five foot shoulders. That is just two feet wider than
1 available right of way width. As noted in the County response,that deficiency can be
corrected by a variance. More likely than necessitating a variance, additional width
12 would be dedicated from the Clevenger property as a condition of its development.
Part of the north frontage along Walnut Street is comprised of a Clevenger access
13 easement across a third party's lot (the Perez property). If that easement cannot be
14 dedicated into a public street, in a worst case the travel lanes could be displaced to the
north side of Walnut Street, leaving Ms. Leighton with an 8-foot setback to her house
15 corner and garage. Alternatively, lane width could be halved by making the Walnut
Street access way one-way.
16
17 As to any safety concerns related to the proximity of Ms. Leighton's home and garage
to Walnut Street travel lanes,County staff wrote that"to what degree that is acceptable
18 is a matter of taste and preference." See Ex. 11. County staff expressed no concerns
over safety issues.
19
Ultimately,it must be acknowledged that the 30 foot right of way width for the vacation
20 area does pose a challenge for right of way development. However,there are multiple
1 options to make development reasonably possible as outlined above. At no point has
any public works staff opined that the right of way could not be reasonably developed
within this width. From these facts it must be concluded that the 30 foot right of way
width does not preclude road development. There is still the outside possibility that
23 road development would prove too cumbersome for its utility, but until the large lots
of the area are further subdivided, it is premature and too speculative to make that
24 determination. The only reason the to foreclose that possibility at this time would be
25 to accommodate the private interests of Ms. Leighton, which is not a valid basis for a
road vacation.
Road Vacation p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
An added consideration is that the Clevenger property should not be considered one lot
I for purposes of road planning. It's a 7.5-acre parcel in Shelton's urban growth area.
2 The Clevengers testified that they would like to subdivide their property into nine lots
and their property is zoned for a substantially denser development. Development of
3 the Clevenger lot will result in new internal public roads that would benefit from
secondary access to Walnut Street. The same can be said for the Killeen lot abutting
4 the Clevenger lot on its west side.
5 Overall, the opinions of the County and City staff for the 399 vacation are more
6 compelling than those of the 410 staff. The 399 staff provided sound engineering
reasons for their recommendation while the 410 staff did not. The 410 staff provided
7 no explanation as to why the connectivity issues identified by the 399 staff are no longer
a problem. Given the absence of any change in circumstances and the absence of any
8 justification for the opinions of the 410 staff,there is no basis to change the conclusion
9 that the proposed vacation area is necessary to the County road network.
10 4. Right of Way as Easement. The County engineer's report, Ex. 1, identifies the
vacation area as "Class A" per MCC 12.20.040, which means the County owns the
11 right of way as an easement as opposed to in fee.
12 5. Administrative Fees. Ex. A to the Engineer's Report, Ex. 1, includes a payment
13 receipt of$1,000.
14 6. Clevenger Access. Approval of the vacation will likely not landlock the Clevenger
property.
15
Brian and Annette Clevenger own a 7.5-acre parcel abutting the north side the Walnut
16 Street vacation area,located at 320 West Walnut Street. They and their daughter,Ellyn
17 Clevenger, strenuously object to the vacation because they believe that area is
necessary to access future development of their property. The Clevengers have plans
18 to develop their lot into nine lots. They have the right under Shelton Urban Growth
Area zoning to develop at a higher density. Their lot is currently developed with a
19 single-family home and they're able to access the home both from an easement adjacent
to the Walnut Street vacation area as well as another point along Walnut Street east of
20 the vacation area that is not subject to the vacation petition.
21 In Ms. Leighton's first proceeding, the Clevengers asserted that the Walnut Street
22 access outside the vacation area could not be used to serve a subdivision of their
property because the access point is bifurcated by a well. Public works staff was unable
23 to ascertain whether the well would in fact preclude access. See Ex. 11. The outer
access point is 170 feet wide and the well is located in the middle of that access area.
24 Id. As noted in a Leighton comment letter,the Clevengers have been using this area to
25 access their single-family home. See Ex. 12. In their response to the Leighton and
County assessment of their access points,the Clevengers did not dispute that they could
access their property around the well site. See Ex. 13. The Clevengers did not identify
a well head protection easement or other factor that would render the Walnut frontage
Road Vacation p. 7 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
on either side of the well unusable for access purposes. For these reasons, it appears
1 likely that the frontage on either side of the well could serve as access for a subdivision
of the Clevenger property.
If the Commissioners approve the vacation, a slight modification to the vacation area
could provide the second access point the Clevengers assert they need from the vacation
4 area. One of the post-hearing questions distributed by the Examiner inquired whether
a reduction in the vacation area could serve the purpose of both providing Ms.Leighton
sufficient setbacks while also providing adequate secondary access to the Clevenger
6 property. Public Works responded this could be achieved by just a minor reduction in
the vacation area on the east side of the Walnut Street vacation area. However, this
7 modification necessitates that the Clevengers use a 30-foot private easement across
another parcel to access their property from the vacation area. See Ex. 11. It's
K unknown whether the scope of this private easement is broad enough to accommodate
dedication as a public street and/or added traffic created by subdivision of the
9 Clevenger parcel.
10
11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12 Procedural:
13
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 12.20.030 provides the Examiner
14 with the authority to review road vacation applications and make a recommendation to
the Mason County Board of County Commissioners.
l
16 Substantive:
17 2. Review Criteria and Application. Chapter 12.20 MCC sets forth the requirements
for vacation of roads. Furthermore, MCC 12.20.010 provides that County roads may
18 be vacated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.87 RCW. Applicable
19 review standards for vacation under Chapter 12.20 MCC, as well as those in Chapter
36.87 RCW, are quoted in italics below and applied via corresponding conclusions of
20 law.
21 3. Res Judicata. The Clevengers assert that Ms. Leighton's current vacation petition
cannot be considered a second time under res judicata. Res judicata is not found to
22 apply to street vacation decisions. The Commissioner's denial of Ms. Leighton's
23 petition in 2020 does not dictate denial of Ms. Leighton's 2021 petition on grounds of
res judicata.
24
Res judicata is a judicial doctrine that prohibits the reconsideration of judicial and
quasi-judicial matters that have been resolved in a prior proceeding. Whether res
judicata applies to vacation decisions was addressed in an Ohio decision, Holtkamp v.
Joint Board of County Commissioners, 2011 Ohio 2986 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). In
Holtkamp,the Richland County Joint Board of Commissioners denied a street vacation
Road Vacation p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
in 2009 and then approved the same request in 2010. Property owners abutting the
vacation area appealed the 2010 approval, claiming it was barred by res judicata. The
Holtkamp court assumed without ruling that actions that qualify as quasi-judicial are
subject to res judicata. The court then concluded from applicable case law and statutes
that street vacations are more of a legislative function than quasi-judicial and therefore
res judicata does not apply. The court also found that subjecting street vacation
4 decisions to res judicata would violate public policy as follows:
Finally, on public policy grounds, we conclude under the present
6 circumstances that the application of res judicata to deny county
commissioners their discretion to periodically vacate township roads in the
7 interest of the welfare of the citizens, upon proper petition, would begin to
make public transportation systems nonadaptable to the development of
8 Ohio's townships...
9 The Washington State Supreme Court has recognized the hearing portion of street
10 vacation review as quasi-judicial but the subsequent approval of a vacation ordinance
as legislative. See State ex Rel. Myhre v. Spokane, 70 Wn. 2d 207 (Wash. 1967).
11 County vacations under Chapter 36.87 RCW are not required to be approved by
ordinance. However, the property management nature of the final decision makes it
1 similarly legislative. For these reasons, road vacation hearings may very well qualify
as quasi-judicial for purposes of the appearance of fairness doctrine and other due
process considerations that require fair hearings. However, the policy grounds
14 enunciated in Holtkamp override the quasi-judicial nature of the final approval when
considering application of res judicata. As outlined in Holtkamp, County
15 Commissioners should not have their hands tied on street management decisions by res
judicata. The Commissioners should not be precluded from doing what's best for its
16 public roads because of a poor decision in the past or a change in circumstance.
17 MCC 12.20.010: County roads may be vacated in accordance with the provisions of
18 RCW 36.87,...
19 4. MCC 12.20.010 and RCW 36.87 Apply to Vacation of Undesignated County
Roads. To avoid some of the procedural deficiencies raised by the Clevengers, County
20 staff have made the argument that MCC 12.20.010 and the vacation procedures
required by RCW 36.87 do not apply to Ms. Leighton's petition because Walnut and
21 4''Avenue have not been designated by the Commissioners as County roads pursuant
22 to RCW 36.75.080. It is concluded that both MCC 12.20.010 and RCW 36.87 apply
to undesignated roadway/right of ways.
23
RCW 36.87.020 governs the petition method of vacation of"any county road or portion
24 thereof' by the petition method of vacation. It must be acknowledged that the plain
25 meaning of"road"as used in MCC 12.20.010 and Chapter 36.87 RCW would normally
mean a developed right of way. Webster's defines a "road" as "an open way for
vehicles,persons, and animals." However, this is not the way that the term is used in
Chapter 36.87 RCW. Most notably,the ancient right of way statute, RCW 36.87.090,
Road Vacation P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
applies to a road "...which remains unopen for public use for a period of five years..."
I RCW 36.87.090 provides that roads left unopened for five or more years are
automatically vacated. Overall, it is unlikely that any road that is unopened will have
been designated a County road by the County commissioners. Further,from the policy
perspective of eliminating unused right of way, it makes no sense to prioritize the
elimination of unused county designated roads while excluding unused roads that aren't
4 designated. The latter, of course,have far less use to the County road system than the
former.
6It should also be recognized that RCW 36.87.020 applies not only to the vacation of a
"road,"but also any"portion"of the road. To conform the language of Chapter 36.87
7 RCW to the way it is intended to function (as outlined in the previous paragraph), a
"portion" of a road can be construed as its right of way.
8
It is also significant that the County has historically and consistently applied Chapter
36.87 RCW via MCC 12.20.010 to undesignated and undeveloped right of way. For
Ms. Leighton's petition, the County only took the position that Chapter 36.87 RCW
doesn't apply to undesignated County roads after the Clevengers raised the procedural
I I problem with the petition signatures. The County's 410 engineering report and Ms.
Leighton's 410 vacation petition both apply Chapter 36.87 RCW standards to the
12 proposed vacation. Taking judicial notice of past vacation decisions, the
County Commissioners have been applying Chapter 36.87 RCW to undeveloped right
13 of way for decades. It is not too far a leap to conclude that many if not most of these
14 undeveloped right of ways were never designated by the Commissioners as roads under
RCW 36.75.080.
15
RCW 36.87.020: Owners of the majority of the frontage on any county road or portion
16 thereof may petition the county legislative authority to vacate and abandon the same
17
or any portion thereof...
18 5. Majority Required for each Separate Street. The majority of ownership signatures
required by RCW 36.87.020 applies individually to Walnut Street and N. 4th Street.
19 The majority requirement is not satisfied by combining the frontages of Walnut Street
and 4th Street.
20
21 Whether the frontages of Walnut and N. 4th streets can be combined for purposes of
the majority signature requirement is significant in this case because Ms.Leighton can
22 meet the majority requirement if the frontages are combined,but may not be able to do
so if not. As noted in FOF No. 2,the Clevengers dispute whether the Killeens, one of
2 the petitioners, has any frontage on Walnut Street. If the Clevengers are correct, Ms.
Leighton would still have majority signatures under combined frontage but not
24 individual frontage. With the Killeens, under the Clevenger argument, Ms. Leighton
2_ has signatures for both sides of N. 0 Street and 50% of Walnut Street. Under a
`� combined frontage, that clearly exceeds 50%. Under an individual assessment, Ms.
Leighton only has 50% of the frontage for Walnut and fails to meet the majority
requirement.
Road Vacation P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 It is concluded that individual frontages must be assessed simply because RCW
36.87.020 is written in the singular ("county road or portion thereof' as opposed to
"county roads or portions thereof'). Construing RCW 36.87.020 in this manner also
prevents the gerrymandering of vacation areas to acquire desired majority results.
Further, since different property owners tend to abut different streets, requiring
4 majority signatures along each individual street prevents abutting owners on one street
from overriding majority sentiment on another.
6 6. Killeen Property Construed as Abutting Walnut Street. The Killeen property
should be construed as abutting Walnut Street for purposes of the right of way vacation.
7
As shown in the GIS map for the vacation area,Ex. 11,the Killeen property abuts both
8 N. 4th St. and a portion of Walnut Street. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 2, the
Clevengers claim that the GIS map is in error, because they claim to own an"untitled"
9 strip between the Killeen property and Walnut Street.
10 Case law is clear that the Examiner and the County Commissioners do not have the
I 1 authority to adjudicate the Clevengers' claim to ownership of the "untitled" strip. A
case on point is Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). In Halverson, the
12 court ruled that once the Bellevue City Council was put on notice of an adverse
possession claim for property located within a proposed subdivision it was reviewing,
13 the City Council had to cease review. This was because City regulations required the
14 signature of all persons with an ownership interest in the project site for the subdivision
application. The extent of the ownership interest was dependent upon an adjudication
1.5 of adverse possession rights over which the City Council had no jurisdiction to
determine.
16
The Halverson facts are very similar to Ms. Leighton's vacation petition. As in
17 Halverson, signatures of property owners are required for Ms. Leighton's petition.
18 Further, as in Halverson, the Clevengers assert a dispute in ownership that puts into
question whether the vacation signature requirements have been met.
19
Unfortunately, one point that is not so clear in Halverson is whether the adverse
20 possession claimant had actually filed an adverse possession claim in court when she
21 put Bellevue on notice. The Halverson court opinion notes that the claimant ultimately
prevailed in her adverse possession claim in court, so it appears likely that she had an
22 active judicial claim when she put the City on notice. Id.At 458.
23 As a policy consideration,Halverson should not be read to require the Commissioners
to stop vacation review due to a disputed property claim, unless that claim has been
24 filed in court. To do otherwise would give the power to vacation opponents to disrupt
2 vacation proceedings anytime they make the assertion that they're disputing ownership,
no matter how tenuous such claims may be. In this proceeding the Clevengers have
acknowledged that they haven't yet filed a judicial claim to the alleged"untitled"strip
Road Vacation P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
between the Killeen property and Walnut Street. For this reason, their claim should
1 not be given any significance in this proceeding.
When setting aside the Clevenger claim to the"untitled" strip,the question then arises
3 as to who should be considered the owner if the Commissioners continue with their
vacation review. It is suggested that the Commissioners use the County's GIS maps to
4 assign ownership for purposes of vacation petition review. The GIS maps serve as the
basic reference tool of County staff for purposes of determining ownership in
5 application of County procedures. The maps serve as an objective and straightforward
6 tool to guide County decision makers. The courts can then resolve any inaccuracies in
judicial appeal. In this regard, if the Commissioners approve the vacation request, the
7 Clevengers will likely be able to join their property claim to their judicial appeal of the
Commissioners' approval. If the reviewing court then rules in favor of the Clevengers
8 on their property claim, the vacation may then very well be invalidated for failing to
9 have the requisite majority signatures.
10 7. Majority Signatures Applies to Adjoining Intersection. The County argues that the
majority signature requirement of RCW 36.87.020 does not apply to the north side of
11 Walnut Street because those properties are in a separate subdivision that did not
contribute any property to the Walnut Street vacation area. There is no legal basis for
12 this position. The plain wording of the statute and associated policy considerations
dictate that the majority signature requirement includes the owners of property abutting
13 the north side of the Walnut Street right of way.
14
The County bases its position on the fact that abutting owners to the north would not
15 be entitled to fee title to the middle of the Walnut Street right of way upon vacation.
The County is correct about transfer of fee interest—if the Commissioners approve the
16 vacation the abutting property owners to the north would not be entitled to any portion
17 of the Walnut Street right of way since their subdivision didn't contribute to that right
of way property interest. See London v. Seattle, 93 Wn. 2d 657(1980). This result is
18 contrary to the general rule that abutting owners are entitled to fee ownership to the
middle of the right of way upon vacation. Id. However,there is nothing in the language
19 of RCW 36.87.020 or any other source of legal authority presented by the County to
suggest that the signature requirement is imposed solely to protect the right of way fee
20 interest of abutting owners. As amply demonstrated by the Clevengers, an abutting
21 owner's interest in the vacation of right of way is much more than just its future fee
interest. The abutting owner obviously also has a strong interest in abutting street
22 vacations since that affects the access to their property. Indeed, a vacation's impact
on access can have a far greater impact on the use and value of property than the loss
23 of a 30-foot wide strip of vacation property. Given these factors, there is no basis to
imply an exception to the signature requirements of RCW 36.87.020 for adjoining lots
24 from subdivisions that haven't contributed a property interest to the right of way.
25 8. Vacation Resolution. If the Commissioners are leaning towards approving the
vacation, they should consider adopting a resolution to initiate the vacation. As an
alternative to the petition method of vacation initiated by Ms.Leighton,RCW 36.87.010
Road Vacation p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
authorizes a vacation to be commenced by a resolution adopted by the County
Commissioners. This procedure does not require any petition with majority signatures.
Adopting a resolution would hopefully nullify the majority signature issue raised by the
Clevengers. However, the resolution method is intended to serve as a method of
initiating a vacation action. It should normally be adopted prior to instead of after the
4 hearing on the vacation action. Adopting the resolution after hearing is not in technical
compliance with the RCW 36.87 statutes. A court may invalidate the resolution on that
basis. More likely, a court would see no point in doing so since a full hearing with all
6 the necessary and interested parties has already been held.
7 If the Commissioners choose to adopt a resolution,it should ensure in advance that Ms.
Leighton will still agree to pay for the costs of the vacation review process. RCW
8 36.87.070 and MCC 12.20.080 only authorizes reimbursement for expenses related to
y
the petition method.
RCW 36.87.060: ...If the county road is found useful as a part of the county road
system it shall not be vacated, but if it is not useful and the public will be benefited by
11 the vacation, the county legislative authority may vacate the road or any portion
thereof.
12
9. Proposed Vacation Fails to Meet Vacation Criteria. As determined in
13 Finding of Fact No. 3, the vacation area is useful to the County road system.
14 Consequently, as required by RCW 36.878.060,the Commissioners should not vacate
the road.
15
MCC 12.20.040: For the purpose of vacating county roads, all roads shall be
16 classified as follows:
17 (1) Class A. All roads for which the right-of-way is an easement.
18 (2) Class B. All roads for which the right-of-way is owned in fee simple and for which
the county paid full fair market value of the fee simple estate.
19 (3)Class C.All roads that meet RCW 36.87.090 requirements.
20 10. Vacation Area Qualifies as Class A Road. As determined in Finding of
1 Fact No. 4, the right of way subject to the requested vacation is an easement and
therefore qualifies as a Class A road.
RCW 36.87.090: Any county road, or part thereof, which remains unopen for public
use for a period of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening
24 it, shall thereby vacated, and the authority for building barred by the lapse of time:
Provided, that this section shall not apply to any highway, road street, alley or other
public place dedicated as such in any plat, whether the land included in such plat is
within or without the limits of an incorporated city or town, or to any land conveyed by
Road Vacation p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
deed to the state or any county, city or town for highways, roads, streets, alleys or other
I public places.
2 11. Vacation Area Not Vacated Under Ancient Right of Way Statute. RCW
3 36.87.090, quoted above, is referred to as the Ancient Right of Way statute. Due to
amendments made to the original statute in 1909, a court has ruled that the statute
4 generally operates to vacate roads that were dedicated prior to March 11, 1904 and
remained unused for a period of at least five years. See Gillis v. King County,42 Wn.2d
5 373 (1953). The vacation area was dedicated in 1937 and therefore not subject to
6 vacation by RCW 36.87.090.
7
MCC 12.20.050: Any person or persons desiring to have any portion of any county
8 road vacated shall be required by the Mason County board of county commissioners
as a condition precedent to the vacation to pay the county prior to the vacation. The
9 compensation rates include those rates set forth in Section 12.20.060, if any, and the
10 administration fee set forth in Section 12.20.080.
11 12. Payment Made. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5,Ms. Leighton has
paid $1,000 towards the costs of this vacation review. The final amount of costs will
12 likely be higher given that this vacation is the most complicated vacation considered
by the Commissioners in at least the past two decades as shown in prior Examiner
13 recommendations.
14
MCC 12.20.060: The county shall require, as a condition precedent to the vacation of
15 roads or portions thereof within the classifications set forth in Section 12.20.040, that
persons benefitting from the vacation thereof compensate Mason County as set forth in
16 the following schedule:
17 (1) Class A Roads. Fifty percent of the appraised value.
18 (2) Class B Roads. One hundred percent of the appraised value.
(3) Class C Roads. No compensation other than for the administrative fee of the
19 vacation action.
At no time will the compensation for Class A or B roads be reimbursed less than the
20 county originally paid for the property.
21 13. Compensation for Vacation Required. If the Commissioners approve the
22 vacation,the Commissioners should require that Ms.Leighton pay for half the assessed
value of the vacation area. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 10,the vacation
23 area qualifies as Class A roads and thus 50%compensation is due as required by MCC
12.20.060.
24
25
3 This includes Ms. Leighton's 2019 vacation petition, since the Clevengers raised
numerous new legal arguments for Ms. Leighton's 2021 petition that were not
presented for her 399 petition.
Road Vacation p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
In her written materials, Ms. Leighton maintains that the County's vacation fee and
I compensation requirements are discretionary. They are not. MCC 12.20.060 provides
2 that the Commissioners"shall" require compensation. Similar language is included in
the fee and deposit requirements,MCC 12.20.050 and 12.20.080.
3
MCC 12.20.080: Each petition for vacation of a road shall be accompanied by a
4 payment of one thousand dollars to cover all administrative costs regardless of the
county's approval of vacation. Said administrative costs shall include the costs of the
5 hearing examiner in holding the public hearing and reporting recommendations to the
6 board of county commissioners.
7 14. Required Deposit Paid. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, Ms.
Leighton has paid the required$1,000 deposit.
8
9 RECOMMENDATION
10 It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners deny the proposed vacation. In
11 the alternative, the Commissioners may wish to approve a modified vacation that
provides access to the Clevenger property while also providing setbacks to the Leighton
12 property as identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
13 DATED this 20th day of September, 2021
14
15
16 ^_
Phi r A.01brechts
17
18 Mason County Hearing Examiner
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Road Vacation p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
RETURN TO MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
100 W. Public Works Drive
Shelton,WA 98584
RESOLUTION NO.2021-
IN THE MATTER OF THE VACATION OF BOTH ORDER OF VACATION
W.WALNUT STREET AND FOURTH STREET VACATION FILE NO.410
EASEMENTS RCW 36.87
PETITIONER: MARY LEIGHTON
WHEREAS, Mary Leighton, property owner at 121 W. Walnut Street has requested that
Mason County vacate W.Walnut Street located North and adjacent to Block 4 in Moore's addition to the
City of Shelton and also Fourth Street located West and adjacent to Block 4 in Moore's Addition.
WHEREAS, the Mason County Board of Commissioners agreed on May 25, 2021 by
adopting Resolution No. 2021-027 to publish and post, according to law, a notice of intent to close
and vacate the described rights-of-way and set a virtual hearing for July 28, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. with
the Mason County Hearing Examiner.
WHEREAS,a virtual hearing was held on July 28,2021 and left open for written for written
comments through August 6,2021; and,
WHEREAS,the hearing was re-opened on August 14,2021 by the examiner for the parties
to answer questions posed by the examiner that were authorized through September 10,2021; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner has considered the County Engineer's report, together
with any evidence for or objection against said vacation and has rendered to the Board his Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations and the members of the Board have given due consideration;
and,
WHEREAS,the Petitioner,Mary Leighton, has satisfied Provisions 1. and 2.:
Provision 1. Payment of$9,581.96 which is fifty percent(50%) of the appraised value for Class A
easements.
Provision 2. The petitioner has relocated the existing board fence to match the right of way line
along Yd Street(See Map Exhibit).
ORDER OF VACATION
VACATION FILE NO.410
RCW 36.87
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED; that the above described right of way is
hereby vacated;and
IT IS FURTHER OREDERED;that said vacation is subject to any existing easements for
ingress and egress or any other purpose, if any in accordance with RCW 36.87.170, retaining and
easement in favor of Mason County for any utilities present in proposed vacated rights of way.
ADOPTED this day of ,2021
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board
Randy Neatherlin,Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kevin Shutty,Vice Chair
Tnn Whitehead,Ch. DPA
Sharon Trask,Commissioner
Cc: Vacation File No. 410
Treasurer
LYELENCF.P PARL12
LOT l Or 9VOPT
PLA T Mv 2AS6
-T-
AVFh7 PARM
LOT?01 9VOPT
2 O fYAT NO TA56 1oANCF,PARM
-9va
O9VOPT
AU r
PUT NO 2%6'
SCALE I" = 25'
EA.SEA/E7VT nw NOPE^.SS
AaW 112A/AN AM4RS ANO EafESS PER-WOPT
Ml7N PUSPC CAP AS PUT NO 2AS6
910MN OV PRELIVIVARY APROA7MA7F LLCAROV Ar
RNAt$7.T/!'A4OV P/PE MAP fW LY//ET nRE CYEY£Naw ARaw~
PEP KYDAIE.;PACE 1J5 — — --
a"SNOPT PLA75 a6z7 R71E _ --------- --------
A(dY7p4SF.YE — ----------_
......... Na 1SX210 MO
...... ..... MP arAnote LcroMa... V�riro ) AWW LINE Ll'7NE PUT CY AfOOFES,4aW7&W MAC Orr
.. •.•• O .. . .. .............. .... ar.AVEZ l w AS IN Pm f C!�"mws AT PAC.£u
/ o/ChoiNink FM... ��-1. RECO4AO
�O... ..... .......�hq... T R. ..... _
..........
.... ........ft�.............
..............rvo...vow ......: Mm7
...... OnwJ Lh1a AWNO 1 1/?'/ROV APE PER
.. 'V .. . ............. ....... .. .... ............... n` O KXUAIE.d PALr l.E5 Or SVC 7-
.. RA7S AAD KY 4 PC 7.INO
LO W70V PARCEL / \ ka??RO?O OF 5WRWXS
(� f3"f LO75 /NOMev I Lmdregopy
1-I 4/co ES AOO. Carr �' I (----------------
70,9VEL7AV I RETAN WS AAr4I � I ---------
I '` I
(� I
MZ OCA7F ET7S7wO FENCE 70 7NE"
//�/ ME-7 LINE a'MOOrf MALLOAY
BL OC fU7URE frbAOlY.1YAVYwo{E7/EN7S , O
I I
I Bz 06,lf-
\ -------
---------
O � I
� I
\ _ L-------
----------------
%- -----------
NASCW CaIIVTr POBC/C MOPKS OEPT
SE 1/4 SECT/ON 18, TOI�/NSh'/P 20 NOrQTh; -WELw7CW c„' 9 4
�" � �JBOf s77-9670
= /-DANCE J &EST, /I!&.. ADD/T/ON TO o,M,Br qrs
IACAnav Hlo
THE C/TY OF SHEL TON SrUZZ- ET
CNKO BY.Au 1' = 25' 1 CY 1