2017-03-27-minutes-public-works-study-session

Home Browse Search

BACKGROUND: Since creation of the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District (District) in 2012, affairs of the District have been managed by the District Administrator. Prior to 2016, that duty was managed by the County Road Engineer. Upon hiring Lucas Huck as County Road Engineer (summer 2016), the duty of District Administrator passed to the Public Works Director via a written notice to the County Road Administration Board. Day to day management of the District by the Director has proven successful. The issue of developing a District Capital Facility Plan (CFP) remains as a key work item in 2017. Since formulation of the District, numerous District activities have identified multiple possible projects for CFP implementation. Prioritizing possible District actions is at the core of defining a preferred decision making structure for the District. DISCUSSION: Staff is proposing two alternative management structures pursuing Capital Facility Plan creation: "Strong Board" or "Citizen Advisory Committee". This briefing provides pros and cons to each of the suggested management models. "Strong Board" This model provides maximum "hands on" ability for the Board defining how projects are evaluated and selected for implementation. The Board uses significant influence over the District Administrator directing selection and prioritization of District projects for implementation. While this model provides efficiencies defining projects, it is subject to constant and ongoing disruption as priorities are influenced by special interest groups residing in each commission district. Constituents are expected to lobby individual Commissioners throughout the year for preferred projects on preferred implementation schedules. Shifting or changing priorities are expected to create confusion for District staff charged with CFP delivery. While there are abilities to set expectations within the model minimizing special interest interference, the model is subject to political process and affords very little decision making insulation for the Board. Rate payers may also feel "left out" of the decision making process. The model also increases the opportunity for special interest groups to claim lack of representation in process when "pet" projects are not represented in the CFP. A "strong board" provides relatively rapid decision making and is expected to be the most rapid model developing the District's first CFP. One unintended consequence of the model is the potential for dividing the Board. Competition amongst special interest groups will likely compel advocacy for projects amongst Commission districts. Were a consistent voting block to develop amongst the Board, an unhealthy decision-making environment could evolve. Rate Payer Advisory Board The key advantage of this model is political insulation for the Board_ The advisory board (AB) develops recommendations regarding all aspects of District operation and CFP implementation. The District Administrator functions as liaison for Board dealing with AB recommendations. A wide range of interests are represented developing project ranking criteria and project prioritization. The AB is expected to develop CFP "Hiles of procedure" for annual evaluation. In this way, all rate payers have access to a transparent decision making process annually. Rate payers make decisions about rate payer projects. The Board is not bound by any decision or recommendation by the AB. The District Administrator will at times, negotiate for outcomes defined by the Board, recognizing the Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT