Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county on Sherm Loop stormwater erosion; county risk-management letter cites neighboring runoff
Summary
Property owners at 2345 Sherm Loop NW urged county action after repeated bank failures and loss of a bulkhead; risk-management staff previously concluded runoff originated on a neighboring property, the county manager said. Other public commenters raised courthouse maintenance and a proposed local landmark program.
Several members of the public used the general-comment period to press the county on localized stormwater and erosion problems, courthouse maintenance and a proposed landmark program.
Frank (Greg) Burleson said he owns the property at 2345 Sherm Loop NW and described repeated bank failures going back to 2009; he said a recent failure this year removed a bulkhead and that ongoing stormwater runoff continues to undermine the bank and the house’s stability. Burleson asked the county to visit the site with the relevant agencies to find a solution before the house collapses.
Steve Marshall, who identified himself as Burleson’s brother-in-law and a long-time local resident, told the board he believed the county had diverted water from an upstream area and urged the county to connect the diverted flow to an existing drain that flows to the bay to protect the bank and the house.
County management responded on the record. The county manager said Risk Management sent a letter on May 7, 2025, to Mr. Brooke Olsen concluding the runoff originated from a neighboring property and was not created by the county; the county manager said the same letter was sent to Burleson and that staff would provide a copy. No immediate remedy was announced on the record.
Other public commenters raised separate concerns. John Pettit urged public involvement and criticized courthouse maintenance and potential costs for new facilities. Lawrence Jacobson raised a proposal he has promoted for a local landmark program to protect old-growth trees and said the proposal had been discussed on the county’s preliminary docket but that staff and legal identified obstacles and funding needs; county staff said the proposal had not been elevated to the work plan and offered to follow up.
Why it matters: The Sherm Loop comments concern an immediate threat to private property and potential public-safety implications if bank failure continues; the manager’s reply points to a determination by Risk Management that runoff originated from a neighboring parcel, which affects where responsibility and remedial action may fall.
What’s next: County staff agreed to send the Risk Management letter to the property owner and to follow up with Mr. Jacobson on the landmark-item status.
