HomeMy WebLinkAbout080624 email - RE_ PLDD (0002)Hi Jessie,
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Our first impression when reconsidering this assessment process was the potential inclusion of a map as well. Unfortunately the term ‘Zone’ is
a bit of a misnomer. There are not separate ‘Zones’ (large areas) with distinct boundaries that can easily be mapped. Rather, every parcel within the District belongs to a zone. Therefore,
although not impossible, a map would have to include every parcel within the Drainage District boundary and (perhaps) color code each parcel separately based upon its ‘Zone’.
Again, the County’s role in this process is limited to County Commissioner approval of the assessment methodology (every four years), as well as annually collecting the fees for the
Drainage District. I think the last point in your message below would be helpful, and encourage you to continue this conversation with the Drainage District. I have copied them on this
message.
-Eric
________________________________________________________
Eric Kuzma, Asst. Public Works Director / Eng. Services Manager
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
623 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
360.385.9167 – 360.301.6783 (c)
From: hi@jessieshort.com <hi@jessieshort.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 10:27 AM
To: Eric Kuzma <EKuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Re: PLDD
Thank you Eric. I was able to find the Appendix on the website, but I'm assuming most people are not as familiar with the website or how to find these documents. I'm attaching what was
sent in the mail. As you can see the Tables are included but not the example assessments. It is also unclear which zone a property is located in. A map with outlines of the areas would
be helpful for reference.
I think most importantly the mailing needs to explicitly state that it's a NOTICE as the tables provide totals and are titled Assessment, which makes it seem like it is a bill. It also
could be clearer that the Drainage District assessment is collected in property taxes.
Thanks,
Jessie
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:20 PM Eric Kuzma <EKuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:EKuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us> > wrote:
Hi Jessie-
I sincerely appreciate your contacting us with your comments/concerns. The County’s role in this process is limited to County Commissioner approval of the assessment methodology (every
four years) as well as annually collecting the fees for the Drainage District. Although the person leading this process for the County is currently on vacation, I’m happy to answer
any questions.
I accordance with RCW ( https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=85.38 ) the Port Ludlow Drainage District, working with an engineering consultant, originally created the assessment
system. I fully agree that the system is confusing, but know that it has also not changed since its creation 24 years ago.
Coincidentally, because of its complexity, the County worked to clarify the explanation this year; unfortunately I don’t think there is a great way to simplify it further. If you have
any suggestions, we’re happy to consider them.
Thanks,
Eric
________________________________________________________
Eric Kuzma, Asst. Public Works Director / Eng. Services Manager
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
623 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
360.385.9167 – 360.301.6783 (c)
From: hi@jessieshort.com <mailto:hi@jessieshort.com> <hi@jessieshort.com <mailto:hi@jessieshort.com> >
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 11:04 AM
To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Subject: PLDD
The notice that was mailed out to residents regarding the PLDD Public Hearing was incredibly confusing. I have heard from neighbors that they thought it was a new assessment and they
would be owing $650.
Also, the documents attached to the Agenda Request were NOT the same as what was mailed. Parts of page 5 of the attachment (which included an example with the 2024 values) was not
in the mailing.
I am attaching a screenshot of a NextDoor posting.
This is a nitpicky item but the mailing was printed single sided which could have been printed double sided to reduce weight save costs of materials.
I do not disagree with the assessment, I just think the entire thing was badly explained. It may be that the legalese is required, but a brief summarization in layman's terms could
have also been included.
Jessie Short
NB Port Ludlow resident