Human services, auditors discuss whether Franklin County must remit housing surcharge after opting out of state program

Human services director Kyle and Auditor Jeff Beaton told Franklin County commissioners the county needs legal and state clarification about how locally collected document‑recording surcharges must be handled after the county signaled non‑participation in the consolidated homeless grant program.

Kyle explained that the county has both: (a) a consolidated homeless grant (CHG) contract that Benton County executed with the Department of Commerce and which includes services affecting both Benton and Franklin Counties, and (b) local dollars collected via a statutory surcharge on document recordings (the “doc recording fee” portion authorized in state law) that are tracked separately.

Kyle said Commerce had emailed that it executed a contract with Benton County that runs through June 30, 2027, and that Benton County remains responsible to fulfill the terms of that CHG contract. He said Commerce will provide Franklin County an opportunity to opt back into the consolidated homeless grant for the next contract period (2027–2029). Kyle advised commissioners he is uncertain whether unspent local doc‑recording fee balances in Franklin County must now be remitted to the state treasurer after the county adopted a resolution declining participation.

He read part of the RCW cited by Commerce staff: “If such a resolution is adopted, all of the funds otherwise due to the County under RCW 43.185C.060, shall be remitted monthly to the state treasurer for deposit in the homeless housing account, without any reductions by the County for collecting or administering the funds.” Kyle said that language suggests remittance of the monthly funds, but the statute is not explicit about any existing balance in county accounts and raised the need for further legal guidance.

Auditor Beaton and Human Services staff confirmed that consolidated homeless‑grant (state contract) dollars are reimbursement‑based: the county processes vouchers and then submits billing to Commerce to be reimbursed. By contrast, local doc‑recording surcharges are collected in the county’s accounts at the time of recording. Kyle and Beaton recommended further follow-up with Commerce and legal counsel to determine whether any balance now on hand should be remitted and how to administer funds going forward.

Kyle also described operational changes: while Benton and Franklin counties had a shared MOA for homeless‑services administration, recent edits to the MOA and questions over indemnification and administrative fees prompted Franklin County staff to pause some joint activities and request clarifications. Commissioners discussed the policy tradeoffs; one commissioner said county funds used by Commerce would still be spent on services but administered externally if remitted to Commerce.

Ending: County staff said they will follow up with Commerce and with legal counsel for a definitive determination about remitting local doc‑recording funds and will provide the board with recommendations on how to proceed.