HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012405o� co
�¢gON 0
ti ,4k
�IN
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 24, 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: several people spoke
in favor of the Tri Area sewer system because it is crucial to the South Seven Senior Housing project; a
sewer system in Port Hadlock will bring more businesses and tax dollars into the County; other
governmental entities have been included in the extensive studies and public process on the sewer system
project and more studies aren't necessary; have any new internet sites been blocked to employees since the
end of October when a public records request regarding employee internet usage was submitted?; and
correspondence addressed to one County Commissioner should be listed on the agenda.
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. RESOLUTION NO. 8-05 re: Cancellation of Uncollectible Personal Property Taxes
2. AGREEMENT Interlocal NO. 04-1639A re: Dosewallips River Floodplain Acquisition; Jefferson
County Health Department; Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation; Salmon Recovery
Funding Board (IAC/SRFB)
Approval and Expedition of Liquor License 356045-1R Application; Washington State
Liquor Control Board: Commissioner Sullivan moved to have the Chair sign a letter to the State Liquor
Control Board to expedite the liquor license for the Four Corners Store. Commissioner Rodgers seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 2005
°s
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Re-establishing the Program to Administer the
Community Investment Fund and Changing the Name to the Public Infrastructure Fund: Chairman
Johnson opened the public hearing. County Administrator John Fischbach explained that the original
Community Investment Fund ordinance, adopted in 2002, required that the program be evaluated after two
years or it would sunset. He and the new Economic Development Director were not aware of this
requirement and the ordinance sunset in October, 2004. The Board asked that a public hearing be scheduled
on an ordinance to re-establish the Community Investment Fund program. The County still receives the
revenue from the State, and the proposed ordinance would re-establish the program for disbursement of
these funds.
He and the EDC Director have reviewed the original ordinance and have proposed a few changes, including
a name change from the Community Investment Fund to the Public Infrastructure Fund because the State
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development has a CIF program that is unrelated.
References to WA -CERT were removed and some of the wording was clarified. This ordinance will re-
establish the process that allows agencies to apply for funding for projects to an advisory committee who
then makes a recommendation to the County Commissioners. To date, four projects have been awarded
funding and the amounts have been dedicated. They are: 1) the City of Port Townsend Sims Way
Improvement Project; 2) the Jefferson County Fiber Optics Project; 3) the Port of Port Townsend Road
Improvement Project at Point Hudson; and 4) the PUD #1 Quilcene Well Project.
Commissioner Rodgers explained that in December, 2004, the previous Board of Commissioners passed an
ordinance to designate 50% of the annual revenue from the CIF for the Tri Area Sewer System Project. A
public hearing was held last week on an ordinance to repeal the ordinance passed in December; and the
action was tabled until after the hearing to re-establish the CIF Board and process. Chairman Johnson
reiterated that this hearing is to take testimony on the proposed ordinance to re-establish the CIF Board and
process. Commissioner Sullivan added that, if the ordinance is approved, the Community Investment Fund
Board would review a proposal on the Tri Area Sewer System project and, depending on the other project
proposals submitted, possibly more than 50% of the revenue from the fund could be awarded to the sewer
project. If the Board is re-established, they could have a recommendation to the Commissioners within 30
days.
The Chair opened the hearing for public comment.
Dan Wollam, OlyCAP Executive Director, asked if 50% of the CIF revenues will still go to the Tri Area
Sewer System project if the CIF Board and process are re-established today?
Commissioner Rodgers answered that the proposed ordinance would provide a process by which that
determination could be made. However, there is no assurance that the 50% will still be set aside because the
ordinance passed in December is at risk.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 2005
Y�.
Jim Hagan, Cape George, stated that his understanding is that this hearing is being held in order to legally
re-establish the CIF Board and process. He asked what will happen to the ordinance that was passed in
December designating 50% of the CIF revenues to the sewer project if this proposed ordinance is passed?
John Fischbach stated that there isn't a sewer system project proposal yet, but the County is moving ahead to
develop one within the next few months. If this ordinance is approved, the CIF Board would review the
proposal and make a recommendation to the Commissioners.
Jim Hagan, added that this revenue source was set up by the State to assist economically distressed counties.
Jefferson County is a distressed county and isn't sustaining the population. A person earning a median
income cannot afford to buy a home here, which creates an unhealthy economic climate. The UGA was
designated to provide more affordability and the heartbeat of the UGA is the proposed sewer system. The
project is an appropriate use of CIF revenues.
Dan Titterness, stated that he supports the re-establishment of the CIF Board. He thinks that the CIF Board
can use the process to allocate the remaining 50% of the funds as long as 50% goes toward the Tri Area
Sewer System project. His perception of the hearing last week on the repeal of the ordinance to designate
50% from the fund to the sewer system project was that it was moved to table action until after this hearing
but it was never seconded. (It has been confirmed that the motion to table the repealing ordinance was
moved and seconded by review of the digital recording of the January 18, 2005 meeting.)
Catherine Robinson, Mayor of Port Townsend, stated that the City Council has not discussed the re-
establishment of the CIF Board and process, therefore she is commenting as a citizen. Reinstating this fund
is the right thing to do. Representation of the Port, City, PUD, and citizens from each Commissioner
District on the CIF Board is important. The ordinance lists criteria for evaluating project proposals. The CIF
Board did good work when it was in place. Projects, sponsored by several entities, benefitted from their
recommendation. She supports the re-establishment of the CIF Board and process.
Vanessa Brower, Port Hadlock, asked if this hearing is for re-establishing the CIF Board or for repealing the
50% set aside for the Tri Area Sewer System? Chairman Johnson clarified that it is for re-establishing the
OF Board. Vanessa Brower repeated that this hearing is only to change the name to the Public
Infrastructure Fund and re-establish a slightly different structure in the program. Repealing the ordinance on
the 50% set aside is not part of this hearing. She stated that she thinks the Public Infrastructure Fund Board
is a great idea and that the process is fair and reasonable. She also agrees with the decision the previous
Commissioners made in December to set aside 50% of the OF revenues annually for the UGA sewer
project. When the OF ordinance sunset last fall, there was no mechanism in place, and the action that the
Commissioners took was appropriate. Even if the CIF Board had still been in place, the Commissioners
make the final decision on the Board's recommendation. The decision that the previous Commissioners
made was based on information they received to make a decision on allocating OF money for the sewer
project. If the CIF Board and process is re-established, it would be ludicrous to repeal the ordinance setting
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 2005
t
aside the 50% for the sewer system project and then send the proposal back through the newly created Board
in order for them to give the new Commissioners the same recommendation to approve. The
Commissioners have the ultimate authority to accept or deny the recommendation of the CIF Board. The
CIF is an exercise in process for future project proposals unrelated to the UGA There has already been
enough input from the various entities on the UGA and the Tri Area Sewer System project. The County
doesn't need to study this project any longer because it is beyond the conceptual phase.
Chairman Johnson reiterated that the RFP process is moving ahead on this project.
Mr. Stroud, asked if the current Commissioners have the authority to accept the previous Commissioner's
action even though the ordinance had sunset?
Commission Sullivan replied that the current Board could accept the action but the point of contention is
that the law says that this funding needs to be spent for public infrastructure that leads to the creation of new
jobs. It is to be spent in consultation with ports and cities, and the PUD will probably be involved because
of the type of project. Customers doing business in the Tri Area UGA will be from all over the County. It is
important to have two compatible UGAs when it is finished. It is important to bring all the entities together
for these discussions because all the entities need to support the Tri Area sewer system project. He was a
PUD Commissioner when the CIF Board recommended funding for the Quilcene Water System and it felt
very good to have the support from all the entities for the project. Doing a proposal for the CIF Board
brought all the issues of the project forward and increased the checks and balances.
JerrySprickerman, former Chair of the CIF Board and former Chair of the EDC, stated that the CIF process
used to review the four project proposals that were approved was very interesting because the Board was
able to look at job creation. He encouraged the Commissioners to re-establish the CIF Board and process.
Margaret Matheson, Port Hadlock, noted that she was on a County committee regarding the UGA and the
sewer system project. Public hearings were held in the Tri Area and representatives from all the entities the
Commissioners mentioned were present, saw what they were doing, and gave their input. There is no reason
to repeat what has already been done.
Tamer Kirac, EDC Director, stated that the EDC is the agency that will provide technical assistance to the
County and the CIF Board. He clarified that the EDC is very supportive of the Tri Area Sewer System
project because it will enhance economic opportunities in that community. The original CIF ordinance
sunset in October, 2004. The ordinance to set aside 50% of the CIF revenues for the sewer system project
was enacted in December, 2004 is open-ended. As an economic development professional, he thinks there
is a need to review the December, 2004 ordinance. All communities in the County need to have the
opportunity to make proposals for project funding. By convention, administrations usually take on what was
decided by the previous administration. The overall objectives of the program need to be used for the entire
County in the long run.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 2005 ,
k
Commissioner Rodgers stated that, as a member of the previous Board of Commissioners, he feels that he
can speak with authority on the ordinance passed in December, 2004. This ordinance committing funds to
the sewer system was long overdue. The sewer system in the Tri Area will benefit all the communities in
the County because it will encourage new businesses and create more revenue. Tamer Kirac added that
demographics show that Port Hadlock is a central location for commuters throughout the entire County.
Investing funds in that area is very cost effective.
Dan Wollam, Port Hadlock, stated that he is in favor of adopting the ordinance to re-establish the CIF Board
as long as it will not affect the 50% set aside of the CIF revenue for the Tri Area Sewer System. He thinks
that the new CIF Board should take on their responsibilities with the pre -determined set aside for the pre-
existing project. If the CIF Board thought that this was not appropriate, they would have the option to make
a recommendation to the Commissioners, but it would require a separate ordinance and separate action by
the Commissioners to repeal the 50% set aside. The CIF process is important and he supports the ordinance
before the Board today.
Catherine Robinson, Port Townsend, stated that since everyone is commenting about the 50% set aside for
the Tri Area Sewer System, she wants to make sure that the Board received the City of Port Townsend's
comment letter from the hearing on the ordinance that the previous Commissioners approved in December,
2004. She read a portion of the letter that stated "the County shall consult with the City to ensure CIF
expenditures meet the requirements of State law and there has been no consultation on this proposed
dedication of CIF funds." (See permanent record.) The mechanism for this is the CIF Board.
Vanessa Brower, asked to confirm that a letter dated January 19 submitted by OlyCAP Board Chair Judi
Morris is part of the record.
The Commissioners acknowledged that they had read the letter.
Henry Rogers, stated that he thinks Vanessa Brower's testimony clarified the issue. This new ordinance will
replace the old ordinance. Staff must be very vigilant about this new ordinance.
It was noted that a quorum of the 7 member CIF Board was changed from 5 to 4 members and the PUD #1
was included in the composition of the Board. There was also a discussion about the terms of the three
appointed representative's on the Board. The Board agreed on 4 year terms, with staggered terms which
would be four year terms for District 1 and 2 representatives and a 2 year term for the District 3
representative.
Commissioner Rodgers moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 02-0124-05 re-establishing the program to
administer the Community Investment Fund and changing the name to the Public Infrastructure Fund.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 2005 ,
Commissioner Rodgers moved to re -appoint the members of the previous CIF Board, if they are willing, to
the PIF Board in order to expedite the process and allow them to meet at their earliest convenience.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING NOTICE re: Finding and Determination to Declare Certain Personal Property
as Surplus and Authorize Disposal: Central Services Director Allen Sartin asked the Board to approve a
hearing notice to declare broken and outdated computer equipment as surplus and authorize its disposal.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 09-05, and set a hearing for Monday,
February 7, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The Board met in Executive Session from 11:00 to 11:45 a.m. with the County
Administrator, Deputy Prosecutor, Central Services Director, Community Development Director, Senior
Planner and Planning Staff regarding actual litigation. From 12:30 to 1:30 p.m., they also met in Executive
Session with the Human Resources Manager, County Administrator and Consultant Bob Braun regarding
personnel.
The meeting was recessed on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. All three
Commissioners were present. They conducted interviews with the three Superior Court Clerk candidates:
Tammi Rubert, Ruth Gordon, and David Herrington whose names were submitted by the Democratic
Central Committee to replace Marianne Walters who retired on December 31, 2004 before the end of her
term. They then met in Executive Session with the County Administrator regarding personnel from 10:30
to 11:00 a.m.
Appointment to the Elected Office of Superior Court Clerk: Commissioner Sullivan moved
to appoint Ruth Gordon to fill the vacant position of Superior Court Clerk. Commissioner Rodgers
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
AGREEMENT re: Provision of Juvenile Detention Facilities, Jefferson County Juvenile
Services; Kitsap County: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the contract for juvenile detention
facilities with Kitsap County. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 24, 2005
Letter of Supportfor Jefferson County Courthouse Preservation; Senator Jim Hargrove,
Representative Lynn Kessler and Representative Jim Buck: Commissioner Rodgers moved to have the
Chair sign letters to the State Legislators regarding the Courthouse Clock Tower project and funding.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Letter Requesting the Delay of Logging on East Side of Tarboo Bay; Olympic Resource
Management, David Nunes, CEO: Chairman Johnson explained the concerns for delaying the logging,
which is adjacent to DNR conservation property and other designated conservation property. There are
steep slopes and, in order for ORM to log 80 acres, DNR has said that they will need a geotechnical survey.
The Board discussed changes to the draft letter.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to have the Chair sign a revised letter to Olympic Resource Management
requesting the delay of logging on the East side of Tarboo Bay. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
MEETING ADJOURNED
ATTEST: ;
zlie Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
P ' Johnso , Chair
Davi . Su livan, Member
Pa ick M. Ro gers, Member
Page 7
January 19, 2005
Jefferson County Commissioners
P O Box 1270
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Honorable Commissioners;
OF Mat& VIM ��U
IT11 I � (t� [�=
�f
JAN 13-2005
JEFFERSO'1' COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONEr,'
After a meeting with Commissioner Sullivan I reviewed the RCW and current
Rules for Community Investment Funds as it relates to the Tri -area sewer
project. My thoughts are listed below.
• RCW 82.14.370 authorizes rural counties to receive .08% sales tax (from
the State of Washington portion) to finance public facilities serving
economic purposes. (Attached)
• Chapter 130, Laws of 2004 redefines the purposes and stipulations for the
use of funds (Attached)
• Finding — Intent — 1999 c311: found inadequate infrastructure to support
and attract investment was an affliction of counties in Washington.
• Financing sewer facilities is a proper use of the funds
• Consulting with cities and ports is required. Approval is not required.
• Infrastructure within the established UGA that "promotes the creation,
attraction, expansion and retention of business and provide for family
wage jobs" is the purpose of the law. Businesses within the proposed
sewer area are poised to expand. With the help of the EDC/Port new
businesses will be attracted to the area.
• The South Seven project was designed with a build out of up to 90 units.
Jefferson County set the stage and laid the framework for a complete
project. Funding agents approved the first phase based on a 90 -unit
implementation. Over $2.6 million dollars is committed to the first phase,
which includes infrastructure for the build out.
• Recommended County specifications, dramatically increasing the projects
costs (bus stops, additional water lines serving additional community
locations), were included - based on a 90 -unit project. The same
improvements would not have been added to the project with a maximum
of 15 units.
• Potential tenants of South Seven will benefit by the implementation of the
sewer project in the tri -area. Jobs created by business development and
expansion in the area may allow local families to remain in Jefferson
County — working and residing side-by-side. I see this as a symbiotic
relationship.
As Chair of the Board for Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP) I have
seen first hand the result of no job opportunities to our constituents. Many of the
same people struggle to find homes for their families. We are at a crossroads.
We can boldly move forward with plans for the tri -area and create job
opportunities and hope for many. Or, we can move backwards and delay
economic development and put lives on hold while we cross is and dot i's.
I hope you choose the former.
Judi Morris, Chair
Olympic Community Action Programs
CC: T. Dan Wollam, Executive Director OlyCAP
RESOURCE SUBSIDIARY ACCOUNTS
Account Definitions
(313) RETAIL SALES AND USE TAXES (Summary Account)
Taxes imposed upon the sale or consumption of goods and/or services generally, with few or limited
exemptions. Include sales taxes levied by the governmental unit even though collected and distributed
by the state after deduction of a handling fee. The net amount received should be reflected in the
account. (Chapter 82.14 RCW)
Note: Account 313 should not include any interest earnings. Use Account 361.90.
313.10 LOCAL RETAIL SALES AND USE TAX
(RCW 82.14.060)
313.16 Emergency Communication Tax
(RCW 82.14.420) To be used solely for financing, design, acquisition,
construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing,
reequipping, and improvement of emergency communication systems and
facilities.
313.17 Zoo, Aquarium And Wildlife Facilities Sales And Use Tax
(RCW 82.14.400) To be used solely for financing, design, acquisition,
construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, re-
equipping, or improvement of zoo, aquarium and wildlife preservation and a
display facilities that are currently accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association. Also, can be used for parks as defined in RCW 82.14.400.
313.18 Rural County Sales And Use Tax
(RCW 82.14.370) The money collected should only be used for financing public
facilities in rural counties. "Public facilities" and "rural counties" are defined by
RCW 82.14.370(3) and (5).
313.19 Public Facilities Sales And Use Tax
(RCW 82.14.390) The sales and use tax imposed by the public facilities district.
The money collected should only be used for financing a regional center as defined
by RCW 35.57.020.
(313.20) LOCAL RETAIL SALES AND USE TAX - TRANSPORTATION (Summary Account)
Tax collected and distributed by the state, restricted for public transportation system and/or
high capacity transportation.
313.21 Public Transportation Systems
(RCW 82.14.045)
313.30 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX
(Chapter 67.28 RCW) Funds distributed are to be used solely for the purpose of paying all or
any part of the cost of tourism promotion and acquisition or operation of tourism — related
facilities (RCW 67.28.1815).
313.50 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX - CONVENTION/'TRADE CENTER
(RCW 67.40.100) Can be imposed only by the city incorporated before 1982 with a
population over 60,000 located in the county with a population over one million (other than
Seattle).
313.60 NATURAL GAS USE TAX
(RCW 82.14.230)
EFF DATE SUPERSEDES
01-01-04 01-01-03
BARS MANUAL: VOL PT CH PAGE
1 1 3 5
Page 1 of 3
RCW 82.1.4.370
Sales and use tax for public facilities in rural counties.
(1) The legislative authority of a rural county may impose a sales and use tax in accordance with the
terms of this chapter. The tax is in addition to other taxes authorized by law and shall be collected from
those persons who are taxable by the state under chapters 82.08 and 82,12 RCW upon the occurrence of
any taxable event within the county. The rate of tax shall not exceed 0.08 percent of the selling price in
the case of a sales tax or value of the article used in the case of a use tax, except that for rural counties
with population densities between sixty and one hundred persons per square mile, the rate shall not
exceed 0.04 percent before January 1, 2000.
(2) The tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section shall be deducted from the amount of tax
otherwise required to be collected or paid over to the department of revenue under chapter 82.08 or
82.12 RCW. The department of revenue shall perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the
county at no cost to the county.
(3)(a) Moneys collected under this section shall only be used to finance public facilities serving
economic development purposes 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 36.70A040. 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.'p
�
A
(b) In implementing this section, the county all consult with cities, towns, and port districts located
within the county and the associate develoent organization serving the county to ensure that the
expenditure meets the goals of chapter 130; Laws of 2004 and the requirements of (a) of this subsection.
Each county collecting money under this section shall report to the office of the state auditor, no later
than October 1st of each year, a list of new projects from the prior fiscal year, showing that the county
has used the funds for those projects consistent with the goals of chapter 130, Laws of 2004 and the
requirements of (a) of this subsection. Any projects financed prior to June 10, 2004, from the proceeds
of obligations to which the tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section has been pledged shall not
be deemed to be new projects under this subsection.
(c) For the purposes of this section, (i) "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; and (ii) "economic
development purposes" means those purposes which facilitate the creation or retention of businesses and
jobs in a county.
(4) No tax may be collected under this section before July 1, 1998. No tax may be collected under this
section by a county more than twenty-five years after the date that a tax is first imposed under this
section.
(5) For purposes of this section, "rural county" means a county with a population density of less than
one hundred persons per square mile or a county smaller than two hundred twenty-five square miles as
determined by the office of financial management and published each year by the department for the
period July 1 st to June 30th.
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewHtml.asp?Action=Html&Item=O&X=118134... 1/18/2005
[Substitute Senate Bill 61131
SALES AND USE TAX—RURAL COUNTIES
AN ACT Relating to the use of rural county sales and use tax proceeds; amending R
82.14.370; and creating a new section.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the legislature in enacting't
2004 act to reaffirm the original goals of the 1997 act which first provio'
distressed counties with the local option sales and use tax contained inD el
82.14.370. The local option tax is now available to all rural counties and`
continuing legislative goal for RCW 82.14.370 is to promote the
cr
.,cion. and retention of businesses and provide for family wage
;RCW 82.14.370 and 2002 c 184 s 1 are each amended to read as
'legislative authority of a rural county may impose a sales and use
ance with the terms of this chapter. The tax is in addition to other
zed by law and shall be collected from those persons who are
the state under chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RCW upon the occurrence of
e event within the county. The rate of tax shall not exceed 0.08
the selling price in the case of a sales tax or value of the article used in
of a use tax, except that for rural counties with population densities
sixty and one hundred persons per square mile, the rate shall not exceed
nt before January 1, 2000.
a tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section shall be deducted
amount of tax otherwise required to be collected or paid over to the
ent of revenue under chapter 82.08 or 82.12 RCW. The department of
shall perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the county at no
the county.
)jt Moneys collected under this section shall only be used ((€er- the
)) to finance public facilities serving economic development
s in rural counties. The public facility must be listed as an item in the
ally adopted county overall economic development plan, or the economic
lopment section of the county's comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive
of a city or town located within the county for those counties planning
er RCW 36.70A.040. For those counties that do not have an adopted overall
nomic development plan and do not plan under the growth management act,
`public facility must be listed in the county's capital facilities plan or the
Vital facilities plan of a city or town located within the county.
Lb) In implementing this section, the county shall consult with cities, towns,
d port districts located within the county and the associate development
Ianization serving the county to ensure that the expenditure meets the 2oals of
goals of this act and the requirements of (a) of this subsection Any Projects
financed prior to the effective date of this act from the proceeds of obligations to
which the tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section has been pledged
shall not be deemed to be new projects under this subsection.
Oc,) For the purposes of this section, D "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: and GO
"economic development purposes" means those purposes which facilitate the
creation or retention of businesses and jobs in a county.
(4) No tax may be collected under this section before July 1, 1998. No tax
may be collected under this section by a county more than twenty-five years
after the date that a tax is first imposed under this section.
(5) For purposes of this section, "rural county" means a county with a
population density of less than one hundred persons per square mile or a county r
smaller than two hundred twenty-five square miles as determined by the office"
of financial management and published each year by the department for the
period July 1 st to June 30th.
Passed by the Senate February 17, 2004.
Passed by the House March 3, 2004.
Page 2 of 3
[2004 c 130 § 2; 2002 c 184 § 1; 1999 c 311 § 101; 1998 c 55 § 6; 1997 c 366 § 3.]
NOTES:
Intent -- 2004 c 130: "It is the intent of the legislature in enacting this 2004 act to reaffirm the original
goals of the 1997 act which first provided distressed counties with the local option sales and use tax
contained in RCW 82.14.370. The local option tax is now available to all rural counties and the
continuing legislative goal for RCW 82.14.370 is to promote the creation, attraction, expansion, and
retention of businesses and provide for family wage jobs." [2004 c 130 § 1.]
Finding -- Intent -- 1999 c 311: "The legislature finds that while Washington's economy is currently
prospering, economic growth continues to be uneven, particularly as between metropolitan and rural
areas. This has created in effect two Washingtons: One afflicted by inadequate infrastructure to support
and attract investment, another suffering from congestion and soaring housing prices. In order to address
these problems, the legislature intends to use resources strategically to build on our state's strengths
while addressing threats to our prosperity." [1999 c 311 § 1.]
Part headings and subheadings not law --1999 c 311: "Part headings and subheadings used in this act
are not any part of the law." [1999 c 311 § 601.]
Effective date --1999 c 311: "Sections 1, 101, 201, 301 through 305, 401, 402, 601, and 605 of this act
take effect August 1, 1999." [1999 c 311 § 604.1
Severability -- 1999 c 311: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance
is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or
circumstances is not affected." [1999 c 311 § 606.]
Intent --1997 c 366: "The legislature recognizes the economic hardship that rural distressed areas
throughout the state have undergone in recent years. Numerous rural distressed areas across the state
have encountered serious economic downturns resulting in significant job loss and business failure. In
1991 the legislature enacted two major pieces of legislation to promote economic development and job
creation, with particular emphasis on worker training, income, and emergency services support, along
with community revitalization through planning services and infrastructure assistance. However even
though these programs have been of assistance, rural distressed areas still face serious economic
problems including: Above-average unemployment rates from job losses and below-average
employment growth; low rate of business start-ups; and persistent erosion of vitally important resource -
driven industries.
The legislature also recognizes that rural distressed areas in Washington have an abiding ability and
consistent will to overcome these economic obstacles by building upon their historic foundations of
business enterprise, local leadership, and outstanding work ethic.
The legislature intends to assist rural distressed areas in their ongoing efforts to address these difficult
economic problems by providing a comprehensive and significant array of economic tools, necessary to
harness the persistent and undaunted spirit of enterprise that resides in the citizens of rural distressed
areas throughout the state.
The further intent of this act is to provide:
(1) A strategically designed plan of assistance, emphasizing state, local, and private sector leadership
and partnership;
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewHtml.asp?Action=Html&Item=O&X=118134... 1/18/2005
Page 3 of 3
(2) A comprehensive and significant array of business assistance, services, and tax incentives that are
accountable and performance driven;
(3) An array of community assistance including infrastructure development and business retention,
attraction, and expansion programs that will provide a competitive advantage to rural distressed areas
throughout Washington; and
(4) Regulatory relief to reduce and streamline zoning, permitting, and regulatory requirements in order
to enhance the capability of businesses to grow and prosper in rural distressed areas." [1997 c 366 § 1.]
Goals --1997 c 366: "The primary goals of chapter 366, Laws of 1997 are to:
(1) Promote the ongoing operation of business in rural distressed areas;
(2) Promote the expansion of existing businesses in rural distressed areas;
(3) Attract new businesses to rural distressed areas;
(4) Assist in the development of new businesses from within rural distressed areas;
(5) Provide family wage jobs to the citizens of rural distressed areas; and
(6) Promote the development of communities of excellence in rural distressed areas." [1997 c 366 § 2.]
Severability --1997 c 366: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance
is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or
circumstances is not affected." [1997 c 366 § 11.]
Captions and part headings not law --1997 c 366: "Section captions and part headings used in this act
are not any part of the law." [1997 c 366 § 12.]
http://search.leg.wa. gov/pub/textsearchNiewHtml.asp?Action=Html&Item=O&X=118134... 1/18/2005
January 4, 2005
City of Port Townsend QoRTrO�
Office of the City Manager
Waterman -Katz Building ,':'
181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 3854290
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 LTAG 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.
I ,v.:;-�...;,�'..-�cd�•.:.. �"" ---=,kms^•.,..•.--- ''.��-i.. . �'_ ...:. ., s .�- n'�.«�� �-~� :... .: �:.: � _, -:. � :'.. .�+
A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT
Board of County Commissioners
John Fischbach, County Administrator
Please call with any questions.
SincerVT
7 4
David Q Timmons
City Manag4
January 4, 2005, Page 2
cc: City Council (enclosing copies of the proposed ordinance, and Ord. 11-1021-02)
City of Port Townsend TTo�
Office of -the City Manager o
Waterman -Katz Building
181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 983681
(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,
David Timmons tJ
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