Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011805C-31 ��SoN c 0 A ,; _ c �41`skI N G�O+ District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of January 18, 2005 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order. Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers were both present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by four citizens: An invitation for the Board to attend the UGN Luncheon this week and a request that they contribute to the UGN Fund to set an example for the employees; a CD with information for a public records request shouldn't cost $10; the telephone, travel, and internet policies are not being followed by County employees; a request for the work, break, and lunch schedules of the top 25 internet users in the County from October 25, to 29, 2004; employees need to be trained to respond correctly to public records requests; a request that a citizen talk to an employee who is proficient in Microsoft Access about putting the employee internet data into that program; and has the County done any more research on County property that could be used as a location to rebuild the Boy Scout House? APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CALL FOR BIDS re: 2005 Supply of Asphalt Concrete for Maintenance Projects on Various County Roadways; Bids Accepted Until 10:00 a.m., Monday, February 7, 2005 and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 2. AGREEMENT re: 2005 Community Services Grant Funding; Gardiner Community Center 3. AGREEMENT NO. 05-64005-004 re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding to Provide Public Services to Low and Moderate Income Persons within Jefferson and Clallam Counties in 2005; Olympic Community Action Programs; Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development 4. AGREEMENT Intergovernmental No. IAC 200404 re: Discovery Bay Stewardship Project; WSU Cooperative Extension; Washington State Puget Sound Action Team 5. AGREEMENT Intergovernmental No. HC04-05 Amendment 1 re: Certified Shore Stewards Program; WSU Cooperative Extension; Washington State Puget Sound Action Team Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 6. Signature Authorization Form re: AGREEMENT NO. E05-042 and E05-020 to Provide Financial Assistance to Answer 911 Calls Originating in Jefferson County; JeffCom, Sheriff's Office; Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division Beth Wilmart, Community Network, and Kellie Ragan, Health Department, re: Endorsement of the Jefferson County Prevention Guide for a Safe and Healthy Community: Beth Wilmart reported that the Community Network wanted to create a long range prevention plan for a safe and healthy County and when the Healthy Jefferson initiative began a few years ago, a report was produced with the necessary data. Last year, community forums were held that got citizens involved in the process and a workgroup was formed with representatives from the Health Department, Community Network, ESD, and other prevention experts to develop the guide. They have given presentations on the guide for several community organizations to encourage their endorsement and the response has been very positive. This guide creates a common language for prevention planning and policy making. The Health Department and the Community Network have offered to work as technical advisors on prevention science. Kellie Ragan added that the community outreach has gotten many more people and agencies involved. Commissioner Sullivan moved to endorse the Jefferson County Prevention Guide. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 19-1220-04 that established policy designating a portion of the Community Investment Fund Revenue to the construction of the Tri Area Sewer System: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. County Administrator John Fischbach explained that the proposed ordinance would repeal an ordinance approved by the Board on December 20, 2004 that designated at least 50% of the Community Investment Fund revenues per year for the Tri Area Sewer System project. The ordinance that established the program for administering the Community Investment Fund was approved in 2002. It required a review of the program before October 2004, a review was not done, and the ordinance sunset. John Fischbach and the EDC Director have proposed that the program be re-established and a public hearing is scheduled for January 24 on an ordinance that would re- establish the CIF Board and program. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Duke Shold, Port Hadlock, stated that it is important to have the CIF funds go to the Tri Area Sewer System project. He worked on the Tri Area UGA planning process to create a better business environment and encourage new businesses that will generate tax revenue for the entire County. A sewer system is an essential element. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 k� 9xnoafi Jim Hagan, Cape George, stated that he is a member of the Planning Commission, but he is commenting as a citizen. As a Planning Commission member, he was involved at the end of the Tri Area UGA process. At some of the final public meetings on the UGA, they needed an extra table to hold all the plans and special studies that had been done. A tremendous amount of planning and public participation has gone into the process. He supports the ordinance passed in December, 2004. It meets a community need, and the purpose of the Community Investment Fund is to create new infrastructure that supports economic development. The UGA designation concentrates growth and a sewer is essential. According to the GMA, local jurisdictions have a duty to finance capital facilities for UGAs. The newly elected Commissioners supported both the UGA and the sewer system during their campaigns. Joe Lavato, owner of Hadlock Building Supply, stated that they are expanding their business and if the proposed sewer system isn't developed, they will have to use 6,000 square feet of property in the Port Hadlock core for a septic system. Jefferson County is economically distressed and we need jobs. People go out of the County to shop right now and we need to keep that revenue here. We don't need any more delays with the sewer system project. Please reconsider overturning the ordinance adopted in December. Dan Titterness, Port Townsend, stated that if the Board passes this ordinance repealing the CIF funding for the Tri Area Sewer System project, it would undo several years of positive work that has been done to change the reputation of Jefferson County and increase economic development by encouraging new businesses. If the Board reverses the decision made in December, it will "make a statement" and close down the County again. Steve St. Clair, stated that he owns a business on Rhody Drive. He asked if this is this about rolling back the progress that the County has made to encourage growth? Does this mean that there won't be a sewer project? It would be a huge mistake if the County didn't go forward with the sewer project. Sewers are key to economic development. Let the County grow for the families who live here. John Fischbach explained that this public hearing is to repeal the ordinance designating 50% of the CIF funding for the Tri Area Sewer System project. The revenue will continue to accumulate in the fund and the proposal to reestablish the CIF Board is on the Board's agenda next week. Commissioner Rodgers added that if the proposed ordinance is passed today 50% of the CIF funds will not go to the sewer project. Gene Seton, Port Townsend, stated that he spent many years on the County's Planning and Shoreline Commissions and he watched the City of Port Townsend stop growth throughout the County whenever they could. If the Board lets Port Hadlock grow, new businesses will come in and people won't have to leave the County to shop. Those same people will shop in Port Townsend. The City stopped the Best Western Motel at Discovery Bay which would have brought in $500,000 to $1 million in revenue every year. The County can't keep getting all their revenue from property taxes. We need businesses to give young people good jobs and keep them here. Port Townsend only wants to cater to rich people, but that also requires people to provide services. The CIF funding needs to be invested in the County, not in the City. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 Commissioner Sullivan explained that this hearing is about repealing the ordinance that was passed in December. He has heard the importance of having the sewer system in the Tri Area and he is in favor of it. The RCW that allows the County to collect CIF revenues states that it will be used to create new jobs. It also says that the funds are to be spent in consultation with ports and cities and he thinks this is critical. When the Community Investment Fund Board was set up, there were representatives from the City, the Port, the PUD, and a citizen representative from each Commissioner district. This Board's make-up helps develop community support for projects. If this Board is re-established, the County doesn't have a proposal ready to present to them and there aren't any other competing projects at this time. The Tri Area Sewer System project is high on the County's priority list. This is a small amount of money that will need to be used to leverage grants. Support from the Tri Area is needed to pay for the remainder of the project. Approving the ordinance in December was a poor decision. Chairman Johnson stated that when the ordinance was approved in December, the CIF process wasn't followed because the ordinance had sunset. He feels that the Port and the City need to be involved in any decision about awarding these funds. Joe Lamato, stated that he runs a business and has 40 employees. When there are delays in moving forward with any project, it costs more money. There have already been many studies done on the sewer system and it is time to move forward. Dan Titterness, stated that he disagrees with Chairman Johnson about the process. There was a reason the original ordinance had a sunset clause because it was a new program and there was a need to evaluate it after a certain time to see if it was working. When that ordinance sunset, the process became the responsibility of the County Commissioners and that is why the ordinance was passed in December. Jim Hagan, stated that he feels that this is a case of "process for process sake." This isn't a decision that was just made in December, 2004. All of the agencies that the Commissioner Sullivan mentioned have been involved in the UGA process for several years and through several studies. This is an alternative for action that is beneficial to the residents of Jefferson County. Joy Baisch, Brinnon, stated that one of the reasons that the new Commissioners were elected was because of the "train wreck" regarding the County's budget. She has been involved in planning issues in the County for 13 years and that "train wreck" was caused by many of the actions that the new Commissioners are proposing, such as "studying again." There are people who have already done the due diligence. The new Commissioners got in by saying "it didn't happen on our watch," but it did happen on their watch about nine years ago and it culminated this last year. Now the new Commissioners are ready to yank those rails up again. Steve St. Clair, asked if the County has considered incorporating that area into a city? He hopes that "more study" doesn't mean more "no growth." If there is faster action that can be taken, it needs to be done. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 John Fischbach gave a brief update on the status of the sewer system project. It is an extremely high priority, and staff has scheduled a meeting with a sewer design consultant to help develop an RFP to be advertised. The Planning Commission has also asked to sponsor a public workshop using the Sequim sewer system as an model. The study phase to decide whether or not the sewer project should be done is finished and the study phase to decide which sewer system is best for the County has begun. A response to the RFP is expected within a month or two and by March or April, there should be a decision on which type of sewer design will be implemented. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ordinance, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he appreciates the fact that the County is moving forward on the sewer system project. This hearing pertains to the ordinance that was passed in December. There will be a hearing next week to re-establish the Community Investment Fund Board. If the CIF Board is not re-established, the decision is the responsibility of the Commissioners. The mechanism is still in place for the Commissioners to decide how to spend these revenues, even if it includes consultation with representatives from other entities. He thinks this is how it should be. He doesn't see any action taken today as a delay. He reassured the citizens present that the new Commissioners are not sending a negative message about the UGA, about the sewer, or about growth in the County. Commissioner Sullivan moved to repeal Ordinance No. 19-1220-04 that established a policy designating a portion of the Community Investment Fund revenue to the construction of the Tri Area Sewer System Project. Commissioner Rodgers refused to second the motion. He stated that the ordinance passed in December, 2004 was the policy of the previous Board. This would allow the County to get seed money for the RFP. These funds are available immediately. There is no reason to repeal this ordinance. There are no other projects competing with this project. The CIF Board, before the ordinance sunset, felt that this project was a good use of the funds. It will be used for infrastructure that will create jobs. He has concerns about the ICAN appeal before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and the 30 -day extension. ICAN's attorney noted that the Community Investment Fund was a reason not go forward with the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. He thinks action on this should be tabled. Commissioner Sullivan asked if Commissioner Rodgers would feel more comfortable if action was taken on this item after the hearing on re-establishing the CIF Board? Commissioner Rodgers said that would be his preference. Commissioner Sullivan reiterated that he feels it is important that the CIF Board be re- established so that all the entities are involved in the process. Chairman Johnson stated that he feels that the funding from the CIF for the Tri Area Sewer System needs to go through the CIF process and be discussed by the CIF Board. The hearing to re-establish the CIF Board is next week. He is not opposed to a sewer, especially in the Port Hadlock core. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 Commissioner Rodgers moved to table this item until after the CIF Board is re-established and has a chance to review the Tri Area Sewer System project proposal and make a recommendation. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 20-1220-04 that Established a Policy that Will Limit the Use of Conservation Futures Monies to the Acquisition of Easements: Chairman Johnson opened the hearing for public testimony. Barbara McColgan Pastore, explained that she is Chair of the Conservation Futures Advisory Board and they discussed the ordinance passed in December 2004 at a recent meeting. She read a letter from the Advisory Board (see permanent record) requesting that the ordinance be repealed. She stated that the ordinance is vague regarding fee simple purchases because they aren't sure if it is directed to just fee simple purchases made by the County or to all fee simple purchases made by any sponsor using Conservation Futures Funds. There were phrases such as "if practical" or "as soon as possible" which seemed to be a judgement call and it isn't clear who is responsible for that decision. Who enforces it? This ordinance was put together and enacted in a few weeks in December. The Conservation Futures funding cycle has already begun for 2005, applications and guidelines have been distributed, and several public notices have been released. If the new ordinance is followed, their rules would have to be changed. As it stands, it is a counter-productive ordinance because the CFF program is structured to leverage funds and right now the Advisory Board is not allowed to give more than 50% of the acquisition costs. When a proposal comes before the Board, they have to do research on other agencies that are helping to fund the project. The unique restrictions in this newly enacted ordinance will make it difficult to find agencies with the same restrictions. If they have a proposal for a project such as Sunfield Farms that is an easement, has merit, is well-managed and has a good stewardship program, they will recommend it. In the case of the Chimacum Creek project, the CFF funding was only about 12% of the entire acquisition cost. Yet that 12% was leveraged for a project that has big benefits for Jefferson County by protecting the mouth of Chimacum Creek. According to the new ordinance, the CFF funds could not have been used for that project. Although the County isn't looking for more park land right now, there may be a time in the future when they will want more. She feels that this ordinance is a poor substitute for the County Commissioner's good judgement because the County Commissioners have the final word on the projects that are chosen. John Fischbach replied that the ordinance doesn't take away any rights. The ordinance states that "when possible, and if practicable, easements shall be purchased." If it isn't possible or practicable, the entire property can be purchased, an easement established, and the remainder of the property can be sold as soon as possible. This is a policy statement of the previous Board of County Commissioners. He was not invited to the Conservation Futures Advisory Board meeting when the ordinance was discussed to explain it. Barbara McCol2an Pastore, added that the Conservation Futures Advisory Board is made up of citizens of the County that volunteer on the board and they try to do their best to make the best recommendation to the Commissioners. They feel that this ordinance will be difficult to put into practice because of their past experience with the program. They are required to meet once a quarter and their Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 a�. meetings are set a year in advance. They advertise the meetings and encourage people to come. Tami Pokorny, staff for the advisory board, stated that the next meeting is March 15 from 1 to 4 p.m. The project sponsors and applicants will present their projects to the Advisory Board at this meeting. Gene Seton, Port Townsend, stated that a portion of the property that was purchased to protect Chimacum Creek was 800 feet from the creek and the top half was flat and platted. He had talked with the owner of the property about purchasing the platted portion, but then the Department of Fish and Wildlife told the owner that they needed to have the entire parcel, not just an easement. The County contributed $160,000 to the purchase and the whole property was taken off the market. If the platted portion of the property had been developed, it would have provided a substantial amount of tax revenue to the County. Purchasing only easements is the right way to go. Another example is the Yarr Farm on Dabob. There is a creek running through the middle of it and there is no reason to buy the entire property. When properties are taken off the tax rolls, the remaining tax payers have to pay more. Mark Dembro, President of the Jefferson Land Trust, stated that they support the repeal of the ordinance that was passed in December. The original ordinance allows for a maximum amount of flexibility to achieve the goals of economic development and land conservation. It makes for the best conservation management by encouraging the best tool for protection of a property. It allows for the best fiscal management to allow for effective use of taxpayer funds. It also allows the Conservation Futures Advisory Board and the County Commissioners to make the best decision about the individual proposals. Jefferson Land Trust has worked with the Conservation Futures Fund Program over the past several years and feel that it is an excellent program. Jim Hagan, Cape George, stated that he supports the ordinance that was passed in December, 2004 and he agrees with Mr. Seton's comments. Hearing no further comments for or against the repeal of the ordinance, Chairman Johnson closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he originally gave public testimony on this ordinance in December, 2004. He moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 1-0118-05 to repeal Ordinance No. 20-1220-04. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he will not second the motion. He understands that the Conservation Futures Advisory Board and the Jefferson Land Trust work very hard to protect environmentally sensitive land. However, there was the potential that the original ordinance could be used to take property off the tax rolls that didn't need to be removed. Jefferson County has so little developable land and he has a problem with removing developable land from the tax rolls. The previous Board recognized that there is a need to set aside open space, but it needs to be done in a way that preserves property for the private sector who generate the tax base. It is the best compromise. It doesn't preclude the purchase of fee simple, but allows that an easement be retained and the remainder of the land be sold. He recommended that the ordinance not be repealed. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 Commissioner Sullivan replied that he appreciates that this ordinance was an attempt to compromise. The fund is important. It can help increase property values on important pieces of property. It protects the environment, and our environment is a competitive advantage in Jefferson County. The ordinance passed in December gives the perception of decreasing flexibility. In real estate deals, it is necessary to be open to flexibility on an individual basis. If it is a decision to take money off the tax rolls, the Commissioners have to take responsibility. By repealing this ordinance, both the Advisory Committee and the County Commissioners have the flexibility that they need to do a better job. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion carried. The Board met in Executive Session with the Auditor, County Administrator, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney from 11:30 a.m. to noon regarding actual litigation. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. for an Executive Session with the Prosecuting Attorney, County Administrator, Director of Community Development, Associate Planner and Planning Staff regarding actual litigation. All three Commissioners were present. They came out of Executive Session and reconvened for the following business: Settlement Offer Related to Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA; ICAN. Commissioner Rodgers moved to have the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney write a letter in response to the petitioners, thanking them for their concerns and informing them that the County will proceed with the Western Washington Growth Management appeal process. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed and was reconvened later in the day. Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Sullivan were present. Commissioner Rodgers was absent. The following business was done: Declaration of Emergency: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 07-05 regarding a declaration of emergency on the Westend due to high flood waters beginning January 17, 2005 especially at the Queets River Bridge. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 18, 2005 The meeting was recessed on Wednesday and reconvened on Thursday. All three Commissioners were present from 4:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. for an Executive Session with the County Administrator and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding actual litigation. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL�u T Y'Ca V10 � A e �{ ' t ATTESTS-' v me ,"Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD. TChair IONERS Phil Johnso Q V % David W. Sullivan, Member Patrick M. Rodgers, Member Page 9 It - me January 4, 2005 su City of Port Townsend Office of the City Manager Waterman -Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290 op poRT Tod 0 b �a Board of County Commissioners John Fischbach, County Administrator P.O. Box 1220 P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Ordinance 19-1220-04 — Community Investment Fund/Tri-Area Sewer Public Hearing Scheduled January 18, 2005 Dear Commissioners and Mr. Fischbach: This letter corrects an error in my December 17, 2004 letter (copy attached for your reference) to you on the above. The first paragraph of my letter should have read as follows (strike should be deleted and underline added): This letter serves as the City's request that the BOCC defer action at this time on the proposed ordinance designating Tri -Area Infrastructure as a priority project and dedicating at least 50% of CIF funds to the Tri -Area Sewer Fund. The City's concern is that RCW 82.14.370 (providing for sales and use tax LT4E funding for public facilities in rural counties) requires that the County "shall consult" with the City to ensure CIF expenditures meet the requirements of state law, and there has been no consultation with the City on this proposed dedication of CIF funding. I understand that Ordinance 19-1220-04 which the City objected to was adopted by the BOCC on December 20, 2004, however, there is now a hearing scheduled January 18, 2005 for possible action to repeal that Ordinance. Please include my original December 17, 2004 letter and this letter as part of the record for the hearing on January 18, 2005, noting the City's objection to Ordinance 19-1220-04 and requesting that the BOCC repeal Ordinance 19-1220-04 and re-establish the consultative process required by state law for CIF expenditures. k r�w425F I a20 7 , c re ,� qgutP -gym T' `; a . �d °b A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT Board of County Commissioners John Fischbach, County Administrator Please call with any questions. Sincerely, David G Timmons City Manager January 4, 2005, Page 2 cc: City Council (enclosing copies of the proposed ordinance, and Ord . 11 - 1021-02) City of Port Townsend Office of the City Manager Waterman -Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290 December 17, 2004 Board of County Commissioners John Fischbach, County Administrator P.O. Box 1220 P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed Ordinance — Community Investment Fund/Tri-Area Sewer Dear Commissioners and Mr. Fischbach: This letter serves as the. City's request that the BOCC defer action at this time on the proposed ordinance designating Tri -Area Infrastructure as a priority project and dedicating at least 50% of CIF funds to the Tri -Area Sewer Fund. The City's concern is that RCW 82.14.370 (providing for LTAC funding for public facilities in rural counties) requires that the County "shall consult" with the City to ensure CIF expenditures meet the requirements of state law,. and there has been no consultation with the City on this proposed dedication of CIF funding. In conversation earlier this week with Mr. Fischbach, he advised me that the proposed ordinance does not affect the County commitment to fund previously recommended CIF projects, including, the Sims Way/Howard Street/McPherson Street improvements. Thank you for your consideration to defer any action on the proposed ordinance until the consultative process required by the RCW occurs. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, V David G Timmons City Manager cc: City Council (enclosing copies of the proposed ordinance, and Ord. 11-1021-02)� A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson In the Matter of an Ordinance Establishing Policy } Designating a portion of the Community } ORDINANCE NO. Investment Fund Revenue to the design and } Construction of the Tri -Area Sewer System } WHEREAS, in 1997 and 1999 the Washington State legislature authorized rural counties to retain a portion of sale and use tax to increase their economy by financing public facilities that will result in new jobs through business expansion and recruitment; and, WHEREAS, the program implemented in 2002 under RCW 82.14.370 is known as the Community Investment Fund; and WHEREAS, the priority of the Community Investment Fund is to create new jobs by stimulating private investment that will, in turn, improve the economy of the residents of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County; and, WHEREAS, Jefferson County recently approved a new UGA in the area of Irondale/Port Hadlock to further stimulate such investment; and, WHEREAS, the newly created UGA is in need of a system to collect and treat sanitary sewerage; and, WHEREAS, the County is desirous of "kick starting" development of the public sanitary sewerage system to serve the area, or a part thereof, identified in the Tri -Area UGA Plan; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED, by the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County, Washington that: Section 1— Community Investment Fund (CIF) The CIF, created by Ordinance No. 11-1021-02, is designed to increase the economy of Jefferson County by financing public facilities that will result in new jobs through business expansion and recruitment. Section 2 — Establishment of a Priority Pioiect The creation of a new "Tri -Area UGA" in 2004 establishes the need for public facilities and infrastructure in the "Tri -Area" in order to be available for business expansion and recruitment. Page 1 of 2 Ordinance No. : Establishing Policy Designating A Portion of the Community Investment Fund Revenue to the Design and Construction of the Tri Area Sewer System Section 3 — CIF Set Aside for Tri -Area Sewer The funds provided to Jefferson County under RCW 82.14.370 shall be dedicated, in the amount of at least 50%, to the Tri -Area Sewer fund for the planning, design and construction of the Tri -Area Sewer System. Section 4 — Effective Date and Expiration Date This ordinance shall take effect the 27th day of December, 2004. Section 6 — Severability If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances is not affected. APPROVED this day of . 2004 SEAL: ATTEST: Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Page 2 of 2 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Glen Huntingford, Chairman Dan Titterness, Member Patrick M. Rodgers, Member STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson In the Matter of Establishing a } Program To Administer the } Community Investment Fund } ORDINANCE NO. 11-1021-02 WHEREAS, in 1997 and 1999 the State Legislature authorized rural counties to retain a portion of sale and use tax to increase their economy by financing public facilities that will result in new jobs through business expansion and recruitment; and, WHEREAS, the program for administering the funds provided to Jefferson County under RCW 82.14.370 shall be known as the Community Investment Fund; and, WHEREAS, the Community Investment Fund monies shall be invested for economic development in a manner consistent with the goals, policies and objectives set forth in this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the priority of the Community Investment Fund isto create new jobs by stimulating private investment that will, In turn, improve the economy of the residents of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, Washington, that the following is hereby approved and adopted as the Program for administering the Jefferson County Community Investment Fund. Community Investment Fund Section 1: Goals and Objectives la Policy lb Program Activities 1 c Public/Private Partnerships 1 d Priorities le Consistency with Area Economic and Comprehensive Plans Section 2: Standards for the CIF Portfolio 2a Job -Cost Ratio 2b Funding Ratio 2c Activities Financed 2d Eligible CIF Fund Recipients 2e Allocation of Financial Resources 2f Eligible Loan Types 2g Eligible Grant Types Section 3: Grant and Loan General Financing Policies 3a Standard Terms Applicable to All Loans 3b Standard Terms Applicable to All Grants 3c Modifying Loan and Grant Terms 3d Standard Interest Rates 3e Special Financing Techniques 3f Bonding Section 4: Collateral and Equity Requirements 4a Fees to Borrowers 4b Administrative Elements of the Plan 4c Composition of the Investment Fund Board 4d Responsibilities of the Investment Fund Board 4e Investment Fund Board Meetings Section 5: CIF Loan/Grant Administrator Capacity Section 6: CIF Application Administrator Capacity 6a EDC Application Administration Responsibilities 6b Jefferson County Loan/Grant Administrator Section 7: Loan Selection, Approval Process and Servicing Section 8: Application Review Process — Staff Functions Section 9: Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Administrative Costs Section 10: Availability of Loans and Grants Section 11: Other Considerations Section 12: Two -Year Program Review Section 13: Definitions Section 14: Severability Section 15: Venue Jefferson County Community Investment Fund page 2 Section 1: Goals and Objectives In 1997 and 1999, the state legislature authorized rural counties to retain a portion of sales and use tax (.04% in 1997; increased to a total of .08% in 1999) to finance public facilities. The goal of the legislation . is to provide additional funds to increase the economy of the rural counties by financing public facilities that will result in new jobs through business expansion and recruitment. Funds from the Community Investment Fund, herein after referenced as CIF, shall be used to improve the base economy in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, through the use of grants and low interest loans for public facilities. Policy The administering of the moneys provided to Jefferson County under RCW 82.14.370 shall be referred to as the Community Investment Fund, or the CIF. CIF money shall be invested for economic development to support the development of job related public facilities in a manner that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies outlined herein. Program Activities The essential activities of the CIF include the. creation of new jobs and income by improving the base economy by the following: 1. Promote the ongoing operation of businesses; 2. Promote the expansion of existing businesses; 3. Attract new business investment; 4. Assist in the development of new businesses from within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County; and 5. Provide family wage jobs to the citizens of the County Public/Private Projects Moneys collected under this section shall only be used for financing public facilities in rural counties. The public facility must be listed as an item in the officially adopted county overall economic development plan, or the economic development section of the county's comprehensive pian, or the comprehensive plan of a city or town located within the county for those counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040. For those counties that do not have an adopted overall economic development plan and do not plan under the growth management act, the public facility must be listed in the county's capital facilities plan or the capital facilities plan. of a city or town located within the county. In implementing this section, the county shall consult with cities, towns, and port districts located within the county. For the purposes of this section, 'public facilities' means bridges, roads, domestic and industrial water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities, railroad, electricity, natural gas, buildings, structures, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, or commercial Infrastructure, and port facilities in the state of Washington. Priorities The priority of the CIF is to create new jobs by stimulating private investment that will, in tum, improve the economy of the residents of the incorporated and unincorporated areas Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 3 of Jefferson County. Grants and loans shall only be given to support the creation of public facilities that improve the base economy. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate projects.- 1. rojects:1. Improvements that have a large job creation -to -funding ratio. 2. Retention or expansion proposals that exhibit a higher probability for supporting immediate basic industry job opportunities, over recruitment proposals that do not provide a similar probability. 3. Projects that leverage public and public/private financial partnerships. 4. Accelerated repayment schedules. 5. Redevelopment, in -fill and expansion of existing infrastructure systems. 6. Higher match percentage and the use of outside fund leveraging. Match may include project -related expenditures for a period up to one year prior to the request for funding. 7. Projects that will immediately benefit the incorporated or unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. 8. Projects that successfully mitigate for significant adverse environmental impacts, if applicable. Consistency with Area Economic and Comprehensive Plans In addition to compliance with general federal, state and local laws, all projects must be consistent with the officially adopted county overall economic development plan, or the county economic development section of the county's comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of the incorporated area(s) of Jefferson County. Section 2: Standards for the CIF Portfolio This section outlines the general. standards to be achieved by the CIF portfolio as a whole. Individual loans and grants may vary but CIF loans and grants shall generally conform to the standards specified in this section. Variations shall be premised upon one or more of the following: critical timing; emergent opportunities: enhanced immediate or long-term economic benefits. Job/Cost Ratio Applications demonstrating a lower investment per job shall be given preference. The job types can be categorized as unskilled, semi -skilled, and skilled. Funding Ratio Funds provided shall not exceed 50% of the project cost. The cost may include in-kind expenses. Activities Financed CIF funds shall only be spent to support the development of public facilities within Jefferson County and the administration of the CIF. CIF funds shall not be spent on the construction of public facilities that do not improve the base economy. Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 4 Eligible CIF Fund Recipients Eligible CIF fund recipients shall include local public agencies within Jefferson_ County. All applications shall include a resolution of support adopted by the governing body of the public agency. Allocation of Financial Resources To conserve fund equity, principal deferrals or similar flexible repayment techniques should be used to offset financial hardship in lieu of grants. Eligible Loan Types All CIF funds shall be used only for projects that are consistent with all other goals, policies, and requirements as defined herein. Priority may be given to those projects placed on the Jefferson County WACERT list; however, a project may be considered that is not on the WACERT list. Loan projects must meet the following criteria: 1. Moneys collected under this section shall only be used for financing public facilities in rural counties. The public facility must be listed as an item in the officially' adopted county overall economic development plan, or the economic development section of the county's comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of a city or town located within the county for those counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040. For those counties that do not have an adopted overall economic development plan and do not plan under the growth management act, the public facility must be listed in the county's capital facilities plan or the capital facilities plan of a city or town located within the county. In Implementing this section, the county shall consult with cities, towns, and port districts located within the county. For the purposes of this section, 'public facilities" means bridges, roads, domestic and industrial water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities, railroad, electricity, natural gas, buildings, structures, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, or commercial infrastructure, and port facilities in the state of Washington; all for the purpose of job creation, job retention, or job expansion, herein before and hereinafter referred to as a I ublic facility. 2. The loan term of the loan shall not exceed the useful life of the asset. 3. The loan must improve the base economy for the incorporated or unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. 4. Loan projects shall result in the direct and immediate development of a public facility. S. Loans shall be used as a pledge of funding to leverage other sources of funding for financing public facilities that are found to be consistent with all other goals, policies and requirements as set forth herein. Placement on the Jefferson. County WACERT list is not a requirement for consideration. Eligible Grant Types Grants shall be used as a pledge of funding to leverage other sources of funding for financing public facilities that may have been placed .on the Jefferson County WACERT List and which are found to be consistent with all other goals, policies and requirements as set forth herein. Placement of the Jefferson County WACERT List is not a requirement for granting eligibility. Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 5 Section 3: Grant and Loan General Financing Policies Y The loan to grant funding ratio shall be as follows o The fund shall have 50% committed to the grant program and 50% committed to the loan program o Determination for loan disbursements will be based upon a review by the CIFB of the merits and strengths of the proposed project. Standard Terms Applicable to All Loans Subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the terms for repayment of the CIF loan are subject to negotiation with the borrower, in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. The date of interest payment, unless negotiated otherwise, shall be due every June 1 until the loan is satisfied. The date of interest payment and principal shall be due every December 1 until the loan is fully satisfied. A negotiated moratorium on the principal may be considered, but for no more than six (6) months from the date of disbursement. The Community Investment Fund Board (CIFB) .shall review proposed exceptions. 2. The amortization for each loan shall not exceed ten (10) years. Interest rates, origination and other fees shall be determined at the time of application. 3. The rate of interest will be based on the Local Government Pool Rate as of the last business day of the preceding month, and subject to a loan origination fee. 4. The CIF may specify or limit the uses of CIF funds if deemed necessary and prudent. 5. The CIF and Treasurer may include. special clauses in a loan agreement that stipulates payments, decreased payments, or increased repayment amounts under certain circumstances. Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to one or more of the following: ➢ any delay in repayment, • project cost overrun, or ➢ project cost overestimate. In each case where such a clause is utilized, the language shall clearly establish the thresholds that would cause a change in the payment schedule. These thresholds may include, but are not limited to, the completion of a project ahead of the deadline(s). 6. Specific performance required of the borrower, including meeting payment schedules, timely completion of project phases, and other conditions of the loan, shall be specified in each contract between the County and the borrower. Failure to comply with the terms of the loan will cause the borrower to be in default, the CIF Administrator may accelerate debt repayment or demand full payment. The terms will also include the rights of the borrower to cure the default. 7. Detailed penalty fees, and rates in case of default, and late payment penalties shall be contained in the contract between the County and the borrower. 8. There will be no prepayment penalty assessed for a principal reduction or early satisfaction of the loan. A A compliance system shall be in place that defines the deadlines for completing specific project phases directly related to the loan. The monitoring system should include penalties for not achieving predetermined deadlines. 10. Loan disbursements should be consistent with progress of the project including the commitment of other necessary funding sources. Verification via an on-site visit Jefferson County Community Investment Funs! Page 6 written documentation may be required before funds are disbursed. Note: A system of draws will be put in place depending on size of loan. Standard Terms Applicable to All Grants Subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the terms for CIF grants are subject to negotiation, in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Funds may be disbursed upon completion of the project, or as draws upon completion of pre -determined phases of the project. The method of disbursement will be determined upon approval of the grant request. 2. The CIFB may specify or limit the uses of CIF funds If deemed necessary and prudent. 3. The CIFB and the Treasurer may include special clauses in a grant agreement, which require a repayment of some or all of the grant funds under certain circumstances. Such circumstances may include but are not limited to one or more of the following: ➢ Project cost overrun, ➢ Project cost overestimate, or Unreasonable non-compliance with project timelines Impossibility of performance by borrower ➢ Acts of God making performance impossible ➢ Lack of OF funds due to decreased sales tax revenues 4. A compliance system shall be in place that states timelines for completing specific activities directly related to the grant. The activities should be detailed as to the characteristics. The compliance system should include penalties for not achieving predetermined deadlines. 5.Grant disbursements should be consistent with progress of the project including the commitment of other necessary funding sources. 6. Public Works Trust Fund Construction Loan Program/Matching Program: This mechanism provides for a local match against the Public Works Trust Fund Construction Loan Program, which is one of four loan programs under the umbrella of the Public Works Trust Fund. This is a low-interest revolving loan fund designed to help local governments finance critical public works projects. Eligible applicants for this program are — Counties, Cities and Towns and Special Purpose Districts. Eligible projects include repair, replacement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or improvement of eligible public works systems to meet current standards for existing users, and may include reasonable growth as part of the project. Six types of systems are eligible for funding: domestic water, storm sewer, solid waste/recycling, sanitary sewer, and road, bridge. The interest rate is linked to the percentage of the local match: 15% Local Match = 0.5% Interest Rate 10% Local Match =1% Interest Rate 5% Local Match = 2% Interest Rate The loan term is for the life of the project, or 20 years, howeverprojects must be completed within 48 months after contract execution. The CIF may be used as a matching grant and or loan for eligible public entities provided the project fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.14.370, the result of the project is the creation of new jobs through business expansion and recruitment. Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 7 Modifying Loan and Grant Terms CIF loan and grant the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator shall properly document terms. There may be circumstances that warrant modification of the original terms of the loan or grant. The borrower or grantee may apply for modification using forms provided by the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator and shall clearly state the facts supporting the request for modification. The borrower or grantee shall also provide supporting documentation. The CIF Loan/Grant Administrator shall review and process the request in the same manner as the original application. As with the original loan or grant, final approval rests with the Board of County Commissioners. Any modification to CIF Loan Terms must be in writing and agreed to by the CIF Loan Administrator and the Borrower. The CIF Loan/Grant Administrator may recommend corrective action to the terms of a loan or grant to the Board of County Commissioners without a request from the borrower or grantee, but shall give the borrower or grantee fourteen (14) days notice of any such corrective action. Standard Interest Rates Interest shall be agreed upon at the time of application. OF income will be reinvested into the CIF. The, rate of interest will be based on the local Government Pool Rate as of the last business day of the preceding month. Special Financing Techniques CIF loans and grants shall be part of a larger package involving other funding sources. CIF loans and grants should be used to leverage other funding sources toward the total project financing. Bonding Bonding shall be permitted. Section 4: Collateral and Equity Requirements Collateral may not be required for CIF fund recipients if mutually agreed to by the Administrator and borrower. Generally, CIF loans.shall be made on a direct basis by the loan fund to the borrower. The County shall receive all payments of principal, interest, and penalties. Loans to eligible borrowers will not be secured. However, loans will be general obligations of the eligible CIF fund recipient, committing its full faith and credit. Care will be taken that proper borrowing or grant -funding resolutions are obtained. Loans shall not be made which will cause the jurisdiction to exceed its legal borrowing limits. Fees to Borrowers All customary and usual loan fees may be charged to applicants including, but not limited to, title insurance, escrow, attorney fees, recording fees, and loan origination fee. The Jefferson County Treasurer shall assume the responsibility for loan and grant administration of the funds. The Jefferson County Economic Development Council shall assume the responsibility of application administration for the fund. Final policy making authority for the Community Investment Fund, shall rest with the Jefferson County Board Jefferson County Community Investment Fund page 8 of Commissioners. However, in order to achieve the goals and policies of the CIF, the County shall establish a Community Investment Fund Board. Composition of the Community Investment Fund Board The CIFB shall consist of no more than seven M members. The Public Utility District #1, the City of Port Townsend, the Port of Port Townsend and Jefferson County shall each have the right to appoint one elected official or their representative to serve on the CIFB. The remaining three seats shall be considered at large positions and will be filled as follows: one representative from each Commissioner District will be appointed by the BOCC. At large members to the CIFB will possess some experience or expertise in private sector business development and or financing. The Board of County Commissioners shall signify final approval and appointment of the members of the CIFB by the adoption of a resolution. Criteria For CIFB Members Members of the CIFB should posses the technical knowledge necessary to evaluate project proposals based on their technical and economic development merits. Any person acting pursuant to the CIFB shall comply with all state and local ethical requirements and conflict of interest laws. Responsibilities of Community investment Fund Board The CIFB shall be responsible for making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners who shall have final authority to approve or deny any and all applications. The CIFB may make recommendations for improving the administration of the ClF to the Board of County Commissioners. Community Investment Fund Board Meetings Meetings of the CIFB shall be conducted in accordance with State law and the procedures commonly known as "Robert's Rules of Order." The CIFB shall meet in a timely manner, no more than 30 days after a complete application has been received. Al actions by the Board shall be expressed by motion and/or resolution. Al motions and resolutions, once in final written form, shall be signed as approved by the chairperson on behalf of the CIFB. The CIFB may transact business via teleconference. Teleconference meetings shall be announced in accoNance with state law. A speakerphone shall be utilized during the public meeting to allow members of the public to hear CIFB proceedings and, at the discretion of the Chair, participate in discussions by CIFB members. No representations shall originate from any member of the CIFB utilizing the name of the Community Investment Fund Board to endorse or oppose any issue, unless a majority of the members of the CIFB; approve such position. Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 9 Quorum A quorum shall be considered present for a CIFB meeting when at least fire (5) members are present. Voting The voting on elections, motions, and resolutions shall be by voice vote. In lieu of voice vote, members may request a roll call vote: Any member of the CIFB may request a roll call vote. A majority of affirmative votes by CIFB members present at the meeting are necessary for the exercise of any power or function of the CIFB. Section 5: Loan/Grant Administrator Capacity The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall designate a CIF Loan/Grant Administrator for the Community Investment Fund. The administrative costs associated with the CIF shall be covered by the funds submitted to the County Treasurer's Office as a result of RCW 82.14.370 Section 6: CIF Application Administrator Capacity The Jefferson County Economic Development Council, herein after referenced as the EDC, shall be the Application Administrator of the CIF Fund Program. The EDC shall be compensated for the administrative costs associated with the CIF from funds submitted to the County Treasurer's Office as a result of RCW 82.14.370. Compensation and services provided shall be as outlined in the County's contract services agreement with the EDC. EDC Application Administration Responsibilities The EDC shall provide adequate staffing to carry out the responsibilities of the primary location for information, inquires and coordination relating to funding applications. Applications shall be in accordance with local economic development priorities established by the jurisdictions. Guidelines and application materials shall be available to eligible borrowers. The CIF Application Administratorshall review all preliminary applications for the CIF submitted by eligible borrowers. This review shall determine the suitability of the proposal for funding under these program guidelines and judge the overall integrity of the proposal. Jefferson County Loan/Grant Administrator This function will oversee loan/grant recipient compliance with all conditions required by the CIF. The compliance function will end only upon satisfaction of the loan or completion of the project funded by a grant. All appropriate federal, state and local requirements shall be disclosed to each prospective CIF funding recipient at the time of application. A system will be established to ensure compliance with financial and programmatic responsibilities prior to the issuance of any loan or grant. The Loan/Grant Administrator shall work in conjunction with the Jefferson County Department of Public Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 10 Works to ensure that projects are progressing to full completion. To do this the Loan/Grant Administrator shall have the ability to perform site inspections. The CIF Loan/Grant Administrator and the County Treasurer's Office are responsible for the prudent management of the funds. This role includes substantial responsibilities to ensure that federal, state, and local requirements are met. The responsibilities include an annual review to determine if the CIFB's actions are in compliance with the policies and procedures contained in the CIF plan. Section 7: Loan Selection, Approval Process and Servicing The Jefferson County CIF Loan/Grant Administrator and the Jefferson County Economic Development Council shall develop all forms necessary for implementation of the CIF. The application shall describe the basic eligibility requirements and the selection criteria essential to successful applications. Section 8: Application Review Process - Staff Functions The EDC shall help prepare and review the applications for program objectives, eligibility. requirements, selection criteria, and loan terms with any potential applicant. A written summary of each proposal shall be prepared by EDC to accompany each application. When a completed application is submitted, the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator shall take responsibility for reviewing the application. The CIF Loan/Grant Administrator is responsible for ensuring that each application package submitted to the CIFB for review is complete. Project applicants submitting. incomplete documentation will be noticed within ten (10) business days of receipt. The application shall be checked against eligibility criteria, program objectives, financial feasibility, selection criteria, environmental requirements, civil rights requirements, and other program considerations. The CIF Loan/Grant Administrator may request any additional information not submitted with the application that the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator deems necessary for the CIFB to review the application. A decision by the CIFB to approve or deny a loan or grant application is not appealable However an eligible borrower may submit a proposal more than once. Treasurer's Office Services The Jefferson County Treasurer's Office shall be responsible for monitoring all loan repayment schedules and performance and for reporting delinquent loans. Any loan that is in excess of thirty -days past due must be brought to the attention of the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator. In the case that the Treasurer's Office learns of adverse circumstances that may affect the loan, the Treasurer's Office shall notify the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator. Staff Administrator Monitoring Activities A system for monitoring the progress of each loan and grant shall be in place prior to issuance of the loan or grant, and is the responsibility of the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator. The monitoring system should utilize financial reports from the Treasurer's Jef son County Community Investment Fund Page 11 Office and gather information on project completion and performance. Technical oversight for a project should be in collaboration with the Jefferson County Public Works Department to ensure that projects are proceeding in the agreed upon manner. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan or grant, whether financial or programmatic, shall require the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator to initiate corrective action with the CIF fund recipient. Corrective action plans shall be part of the loan/grant agreement that prepared in writing and shall be signed by the CIF fund recipient. Penalties may be assessed in accordance with the CIF fund recipient's loan or grant agreement. Corrective action plans shall become a legally binding part of the loan or grant agreement between the recipient and the County. In the event of serious failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the program or financial default, the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator shall call an emergency meeting of the CIFB to consider remedial steps. Decisions of the CIFB regarding non -complying loans and grants shall be in writing and appeal able to the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners. The CIF Loan/Grant Administrator shall prepare an annual summary evaluation of the CIF including' financial performance, number of jobs directly created, comparison of projected and actual benefits, recommendations to improve operations, the number of activities financed and their outcomes, the uses made of interest payments, the achievement of environmental goals, benefits of the program, and an evaluation of the program's overall administration. Section 9: Community Investment Fund Administrative Costs Administrative costs for managing the CIF shall be funded by moneys provided to the Jefferson County Treasurer's Office per RCW 82.14.370. CIF funds shall not be spent on the administration of other programs. In those years when CIF income Is to be used for administrative fees, a budget and plan for expending projected CIF income shall be developed by the EDC and the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator, and submitted to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, prior to adoption. Administrative costs shall not exceed five percent (5%) of annual fund proceeds. Section 1 o: Availability of Loans and Grants Proceeds returned to the fund, pending the approval of new loans or grants, shall be held with the Jefferson County Treasurer's Office. The Treasurer's office shall manage the funds in a manner consistent with law and shall return all interest Income to the fund. Section 11: Other Considerations The project must comply with all federal, state, county, and city regulations. Jefferson County Community Investment Fund page 12 Section 12: Two -Year Program Review The CIFB shall perform a of review of the Ordinance two years from the date of enactment. The purpose of the review will be to analyze overall program effectiveness. This Ordinance shall' expire two coal years ubl c hits effective date earing by the BOCC at unless reviewed and readopted after an ad p a time between twenty and twenty-three months after its initial adoption. Section 13: Definitions 1. EDC — Jefferson County Economic Development Council. 2. Emergent Opportunity - A project attracting a business that would significantly Improve the base economy. The business that the project is intended to attract must be prepared to locate in Jefferson County. 3. Improve the Base Economy - The creation of new wealth through primary economic activity (such as manufacturing, or extra -regional trade) as compared to those sectors of the economy that recycle existing wealth such as retail trade or government. 4. In-kind Expenses - The donated or loaned real or personal property, volunteer services, and employee services. 5. CIFB — Community Investment Fund Board. 7. CIF — Community Investment Fund 7. CIF Loan/Grant Administrator - The person(s) charged by the Board of County Commissioners to carry out the duties of the CIF assigned within this ordinance to the CIF Loan/Grant Administrator, and any other duties relating to the CIF assigned by the Board of Commissioners. 8. CIF Application Administrator - The Jefferson County Economic Development Council shall carry out the duties assigned within this ordinance as the Application Administrator. 9. CIF Portfolio - A list of projects that have received CIF funding. The CIF Portfolio should include a job to cost ratio, annual income, and the current fund balance. 10. Local Government Pool Rate — The rate of interest charged for loans as determined by the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) enacted by RCW 43.250.010. 11. Project - The planned construction of a public facility that has applied for CIF funding. 12. Public Facility - Shall include bridges, roads, domestic and industrial water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities, railroad, electricity, natural gas, buildings, structures, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation Jefferson County Community Investment Fund Page 13 Infrastructure, or commercial infrastructure, and port facilities, if listed as an item in the officially adopted county overall economic development plan, or the economic development section of the county's comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of the incorporated area(s) located within Jefferson County. 13. WACERT Ust — A list of projects evaluated and ranked by the local public agencies and submitted to the Jefferson County Commissioners. Upon Commission, adoption the list is forwarded to the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team for review and possible funding. Section 14: Severability If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances are not affected. Section 15: Venue For any lawsuit arising from this Ordinance, any loan granted by the BOCC from CIF funds, or any decision of the CFIB, venue shall lie only in the Superior Court In and For Jefferson County. �o T "« W. . J APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day f � 2002. 44 •t �• JEFFERSO LINTY BOARD OF S S oit, an , , ATTEST: len Huntingford, r tma Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board Daniel Titterness, Member APPROVED AS FORM Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jefferson County community Investment Fund Page 14 JEFFERSON COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 615 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend Washington 98368-2439 in, F C _' 1101 14 E [7U CJo., JAN 1 8 2005 K N January 18, 2005 JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORD BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners, The members of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund Advisory Committee have thoroughly examined and discussed the ramifications of the recently enacted Ordinance No. 20-1220-04. The Committee strongly recommends that this ordinance be repealed. It places needless restrictions on a well-managed program and eliminates potentially valuable projects from consideration. Sincerely, Pe, Barbara McColgan Pastore Chair, Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund Advisory Committee Cc: Jean Baldwin Tel: 360 370-4498 Fax: 360 385-9401