My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2023-12-11-minutes-public-works-study-session
>
Meetings
>
2023
>
12. December
>
2023-12-19 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
2023-12-11-minutes-public-works-study-session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2023 12:41:08 PM
Creation date
12/14/2023 12:21:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
12/19/2023
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Item
Approve Minutes
Order
1
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
112272
Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the formulation of a countywide district. It is unlikely that amending the legislation <br />allowing partial county formulation is likely, given the amount of Public Facility Districts <br />already formulated in the state. A more likely approach would appear to be further <br />amending formulation options allowing combinations of cities and the county. The issue <br />with the recently passed E2SSB 5001 legislation is that the city/county joint PFD can <br />only occur in counties with a population of one million. It appears the recent change <br />favors urban counties and not rural central Washington counties. This seems to be the <br />easiest constraint to amend — reducing the minimum county population of one million to <br />a level meeting rural central Washington county populations — allowing city/county <br />district boundaries that do not require the entire county participate in the district. The <br />thinking is, why would a voter in Vantage pay for recreation center in Cle Elum? <br />The second option is a countywide Parks and Recreation District. A review of Chapter <br />36.69 RCW (EXHIBIT 2) suggests, to staff, that the desired boundary of a bonding <br />district encompassing the school districts of Cle Elum, Roslyn and Easton is achievable <br />using the 36.69 legislative tool. The legislation also allows the use of local improvement <br />districts within a defined Parks and Recreation district boundary affording increased <br />flexibility supporting multiple recreational facilities inside of a single district boundary. <br />The legislation does not allow sales and use tax that is available through the Public <br />Facility legislation. Other revenue generating options are afforded in RCW 36.69 and <br />staff desire vetting them for potentially meeting the needs of the proposed UKCCC. Staff <br />also desire to work with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office on the front-end of legislative <br />evaluation, ensuring staffs read on the legislation is supported by legal counsel. <br />FISCAL IMPACTS: <br />Fiscal impacts are not determined at this time. <br />ATTACHMENTS: <br />EXHIBIT 1: E2SSB 5001 <br />EXHIBIT 2: RCW 36.69 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2023 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.