MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING INFORMATION FOR WEEK OF

March 16, 2015

In the spirit of public information and inclusion, the attached is a draft of information for Commissioner consideration and discussion at the above briefing.

This information is subject to change, additions and/or deletion and is not all inclusive of what will be presented to the Commissioners.

Please see draft briefing agenda for schedule.

PUBLIC WORKS

5.0 CORRESPONDENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS (None)

8.0 APPROVAL OF ACTION ITEM e Request authorization to use the Letters of Interest to hire and enter into contract for Construction

Inspector Services for the 2015 construction season.

9.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SET FOR A CERTAIN TIME (None)

10. OTHER BUSINESS (None)

DISCUSSION ITEMS: e A TV on County Road/ Haven Lake area ED Little Mission Creek Culvert Project

Attendees: Commissioners: Public Works:

D Randy Neatherlin 0 Brian Matthews D Tim Sheldon D Terri Jeffreys

D Melissa McFadden D Loretta Swanson D Erika Schwender D Others (List)

Other Dept.:

D Diane Zoren D Others (List)

Press: Public:

D KMAS List Below: D Journal D Others (List)

Public Works 450

March 16, 2015

If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide new information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mason County Public Works advertised for Letters of Interest to be submitted for specific services (Construction Project Inspectors, Contract/Fee Appraisers, Construction Material Testing and Timber Management Services) to provide for the 2015 calendar year.

Throughout the year, as the need arises, we can select from this "short list" without re-advertising. Public Works currently has a need for Construction Project Inspectors to support the work schedule for the 2015 construction season.

Recommended Action: I recommend the Board of County Commissioners authorize Public Works, at the March 24, 2015 Commission Meeting, to use The 2015 Letters of Interest list for Construction Project Inspector services and enter into agreement(s). These services are needed for projects scheduled for the upcoming construction season.

3/11/2015

!Viason Suppo Services De

4111\!o Shelton, W/:i, 98584

360.427.9670 ext. 419

VVilliam R. l<ennv, Director

B EFING

March

111 Specific Items for Review o ~~ews r·elease for Housing Authority o Courthouse Security Committee meetings- assign to Chair?

o REET 1, REET 2 & .09 Sales Tax financial review

111 Commissioner Discussion o MacArthur Foundation Grant for reducing use of jail

111 Divisions Reports/ Status Overview - Bill Kenny

Manager

•!• Budget

•!• Central Ops

•!• Human Resources

•!• Risk Management •!• Labor Relations

•!• Boards & Commissions

•!• •!• •!•

DEM

IT

Other

Commissione1·

Administration Ma11agement

Support Services 11nos quisnam redintegro'1

Human

Resources

lnfom1ation

Services

ent

Labor

Relations

Risk

Management

MacArthur Foundation

OVERVIEW

America's reliance on local jail incarceration has grown dramatically over the past three decades. Jail populations have more than tripled since the 1980s. So have cumulative expenditures related to building and running jails. There are now nearly 12 million admissions to local jails annually-almost 20 times the number of admissions to state and federal prisons.

Jails are where our nation's incarceration problem begins. While the primary purpose of local jails is to detain those awaiting court proceedings who are a danger to public safety or a flight risk, they have come to hold many who are neither. Jails too often serve as warehouses for low-risk individuals too poor to post bail, or too sick for existing community resources to manage. Nearly 75 percent of both sentenced offenders and pretrial detainees are in jail for nonviolent traffic, property, drug, or public order offenses. And many in jaii are held there far longer than necessary, due to crowded court dockets and chronic backlogs that delay timely case resolutions.

All this carries significant costs-to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. Just a few days in jail can damage health, degrade economic prospects, interrupt education and employment, jeopardize housing, break up families, increase the likelihood and severity of a sentence of incarceration, and even promote future criminal behavior-making jail a gateway to deeper and more lasting involvement in the criminal justice system. And research shows that all these impacts are disproportionately felt in low-income communities and communities of color.

The overuse of jails is a major driver and core component of over-incarceration that needs to be addressed directly. That's why local policymakers interested in improving public safety, saving money, and promoting stronger, healthier communities are begin'ning to take a hard look at how their jails are used.

Fortunately, every community in America can safely reduce its use of local incarceration while reserving valuable jail resources for offenders who pose significant risk to public safety. Proven strategies include:

1

Policing practices that limit unnecessary custodial arrests; Early screening and assignment of counsel; Pretrial detention decision-making that focuses on assessments of safety and flight risk, not ability to pay; Diversion options that hold offenders accountable without separating them from their jobs and families; Booking, arraignment, case screening, and processing procedures that shorten jail stays by reducing procedural delays; and Reentry practices that better prepare inmates for release and reintegration and serve to reduce reoffending.

www.SafetyAndJusticeChallenge.org ~ Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ~"

~Li SAFETY+JUST!CE i_c~=-'-'J 1 11 CHALLENGE

To support the spread of these and other approaches, and to encourage innovation, the MacArthur Foundation is launching the Safety and Justice Challenge, an initial five-year, $75 million investment in local reform, research, experimentation, and communications intended to create national de.mand for local justice reform as a means of reducing over-incarceration in America. Through the Safety and Justice Challenge, the Foundation will support a nationwide network of selected local jurisdictions committed to finding ways to safely reduce jail incarceration, with a particular focus on addressing disproportionate impact on low-income individuals and communities of color. With help from a consortium of national experts and technical assistance providers, participating sites will rigorously examine how their jails are being used; who is being held there, and what risks they pose to the community; what policies and practices have driven the growth of local jail populations; and what strategies will work to reduce the unnecessary use of jail without compromising public safety.

To advance our knowledge and understanding about the use of jail in America, and to document the experience of local jurisdictions that succeed in building safer, less costly, and more just criminal justice systems, the Foundation will complement the grants it makes to local jurisdictions with investments in research and data analytics. The Foundation will also invest in a robust communications campaign aimed at elevating jail overuse into an urgent national issue, and generating national demand for a more balanced set of approaches to crime and disorder that use incarceration only where necessary, and as part of a flexible range of effective alternatives.

THE COMPETITION

The Safety and Justice Challenge competition will unfold in two rounds.

Round 1: Planning (May-December 2015) Up to twenty selected sites will receive a grant of $150,000 to support an intensive six-month planning process, during which they will rigorously examine how their jails are being used and what strategies will reduce incarceration without compromising public safety. Each site will produce a plan for implementing these reforms.

Each site will be paired with an expert technical assistance partner. Four of the nation's leading criminal justice organizations will provide technical assistance to Safety and Justice Challenge sites­the Center for Court Innovation, the Justice Management Institute, Justice System Partners, and the Vera Institute of Justice. With the support of one of these technical assistance partners, teams from each site will work through a rigorous, fast-paced, data-driven planning process. Sites will be supported in a system mapping exercise to help them describe-using facts and data-how the jurisdiction's criminal justice system currently operates. From there, sites will consider the most promising ways toreduce unnecessary jail use without compromising public safety and, with the help of the technical assistance partner, develop an action plan for achieving reductions. The best implementation plans will set quantifiable impact targets, and chart a credible path for achieving them.

2 www.SafetyAndJusticeChallenge.org ~'

Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ~B

SAFETY+ J USTKIE CHALLENGE

Throughout the planning period, participating sites will have meaningful opportunities to learn from experts and from one another as part of a robust Challenge Network. Delegations from all selected sites will be assembled twice, in-person, during the planning period. Sites will also be invited to attend virtual events, such as webinars with practitioners in other jurisdictions.

During the planning phase, participating sites will: Ensure key staff and agency leaders meaningfully participate in the process; Collect and share data among local partners and with the Foundation; Collaborate with a research team engaged by the Foundation to develop and track performance measures and inform an independent evaluation of the outcomes and impact of the initiative; Identify and agree on priority problems that contribute to the overreliance on jails, and look for achievable solutions that do not compromise public safety; Surface and address racial and ethnic disparities in the way jail is used, administered, and experienced; and Engage affirmatively with the larger goals of the Safety and Justice Challenge by participating in a communications campaign about the appropriate use of jail in America.

At the end of the planning phase, participating sites will have: Demonstrated engagement of local leaders in the planning process, including participation in key planning meetings, and ongoing commitment to the implementation process; Conducted a comprehensive analysis of interagency data to understand the drivers of jail population at each decision point; Committed to reducing the number of people in jail, tackling racial and ethnic fairness head­on, and tracking progress toward achieving those aims through data collection, performance measurement, and evaluation; and Developed a clearly articulated plan for system change, including a compelling logic about how incarceration will be reduced and a realistic implementation plan with measurable and time-sensitive goals, and assigned activities to responsible parties.

Selected jurisdictions will be required to attend a meeting on May 27th and 28th, in Washington, D.C. Grant funds will be applied to cover travel expenses for this meeting.

Round 2: Implementation {2016-2017)

As many as ten jurisdictions will be selected to receive funding to support implementation of the plans developed during Round 1. The Foundation aims to invest in those jurisdictions that:

1. Identify the most promising strategies for safely reducing overreliance on local jails; 2. Produce the most ambitious and credible plans for implementing those strategies; and 3. Demonstrate the availability of and willingness to share identifiable data.

Depending on the scope and ambition of the second round proposals, the Foundation expects to make implementation grants to each site that range from $500,000 to $2 million annually over two years, with an option to extend if substantial progress is made. Whether or not sites are selected to

3 www.Sa fetyA n dJ ustice Cha I lenge.org

Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

~ 'SAFETY+ JUSTICE ~" CHALLENGE

receive implementation funding, all Round 1 sites will receive funding to support their continued participation in the Challenge Network.

ELIGIBILITY

Any jurisdiction with governing authority over a local jail or jail system that has at least 50 beds is eligible to apply for grant funding through the Safety and Justice Challenge, including states, cities, counties, judicial districts, and tribes.

HOW TO APPLY

Please submit your application via the MacArthur Foundation's on line platform at www.SafetyAndJustice.fluidreview.com by 8:00 p.m. CST on March 31, 2015. Applications received after the deadline will not be accepted. You may save your work and return to edit your application within the application window before submitting it for review; revisions to submitted applications cannot be accommodated. Applications must be submitted through the MacArthur Foundation online platform; emailed or mailed applications will not be considered. Should you experience any technical difficulties with the online application process, please email Support@fluidreview.com for technical assistance. Direct assistance will be available daily, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. CST.

TO LEARN MORE

The Foundation will hold three (3) live webinars to confirm details about the competition and application process as well as answer questions. The content of these webinars will be identical. The webinars are scheduled as follows:.

Wednesday, February 25 from 11:30 -12:30 CST Thursday, February 26 from 10:00 -11:00 CST Tuesday, March 3 from 3:00 - 4:00 CST

Registration is required to participate in one of these sessions. To register, send an email to SafetyAndJustice@macfound.org and indicate which webinar you plan to attend.

Should you have any additional questions about the application, please send an email to SafetyAndJustice@macfound.org and we will do our best to respond promptly.

4 www.Saf etyAn dJ usticeCha I lenge.o rg

Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

THE APPLICATION

Section 1. Basic Information Please tell the Foundation about your jurisdiction.

1.1. Jurisdiction name 1.2. Jurisdiction type

1.3.

1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7.

a. State b. City c. County d. Judicial district e. Tribe f. Other, please specify

Chief executive's name (e.g., name of mayor, county commissioner, or other office-holder with executive branch authority in jurisdiction) Name of the lead agency, name and title of primary contact at lead agency Jurisdiction population size Jail capacity Overall jurisdiction budget

1.8. Budget for jail operations and facilities

Section 2. Motivation (30%) The MacArthur Foundation's Safety and Justice Challenge is grounded in the premise that jail negatively impacts people who spend time there-even a short time-and therefore should be used when a defendant or offender poses a real public safety risk. The Foundation is motivated by the recognition that, with the right kind of support, local communities can develop, adapt, and model effective ways to keep people out of jail whose risk to public safety can be effectively managed in the community, and provide those who are confined in jails an improved chance to succeed when they go home. Help the Foundation understand why participation in the Safety and Justice Challenge is a top priority in your jurisdiction.

5

2.1. Please explain why the use of jail has emerged as a priority for your jurisdiction. Your answer should address the following (Up to 750 words total):

a. What particular challenges are motivating your jurisdiction's interest in participating in the Safety and Justice Challenge (e.g., jail overcrowding, disproportionate minority contact, high recidivism)? If data is helpful in providing context here, the Foundation encourages.you to include it.

b. If selected to receive grant funding through the Safety and Justice Challenge, what does your jurisdiction hope to achieve in terms of measurable results and/or practice changes?

c. What makes now an opportune time to engage in this work as a system?

2.2. Please provide one or two examples of other collaborative efforts to implement systemic criminal justice reform in your jurisdiction and describe what worked well and what didn't.

www.SafetyAndJusticeChallenge.org ~ Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ~

(If you do not have a pertinent example, please proceed to question 2.3.) Your answer should address the following (Up to 500 words total):

a. What were the goals? b. How was collaboration accomplished, and who was involved? c. Did the initiative achieve its goals? If so, have the achievements been sustained? d. If your jurisdiction is selected to receive a planning grant and participate in the

Safety and Justice Challenge, how will the lessons learned through these prior efforts be integrated into your approach this time around?

Section 3. Leadership and Commitment (40%) Effective jail population management strategies require a system-wide scope. No single stakeholder can impact local jail populations without the support and involvement of their counterparts in law enforcement, prosecutors' offices, the judiciary, pretrial service agencies, probation and parole, the defense bar, and local service providers. Experience demonstrates that in order to yield positive, sustainable results, development of a jail management strategy must meaningfully consider and engage relevant stakeholders from all parts of the criminal justice system.

6

3.1. Who will be the lead agency for this initiative and why is this agency best suited to spearhead a cross-agency planning effort around the use of jail in your jurisdiction? Your answer to this question should address the following (Up to 500 words total}:

a. What will be the most formidable challenges for the proposed effort and how will the lead agency manage them?

b. Has this agency played a cross-agency leadership role in the past? i. If yes, please describe these leadership efforts, relevant outcomes, and any

obstacles the agency encountered. ii. If no, please explain why this agency is in the best position to marshal

consensus, advance a planning process, and ultimately implement an aggressive jail reform strategy.

3.2. What other key stakeholders will be integral to the success of this reform effort, and why? (Up to 250 words)

3.3. Does your jurisdiction have a standing, interdisciplinary criminal justice planning group (e.g., criminal justice coordinating council)? If so, please describe how the group is structured, the composition of the group, its bylaws, and how it receives funding. If your jurisdiction does not have a standing, interdisciplinary criminal justice planning group, what strategies will the lead agency use to ensure the meaningful participation of the stakeholders described in Question 3.2? (Up to 250 words)

3.4. An effective planning process around the appropriate use of jail requires meaningful participation from a cross-section of local leadership-at a minimum, the prosecutor's office, the police/sheriff department, the criminal defense bar and the judiciary. Please demonstrate the commitment of these stakeholders, and any others that you feel will be critical to the success of your efforts. You may choose to do so with a memorandum,

www. Safety An dJ u st ice Cha 11 enge.org Supported by the John 0. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

SAFETY+ JUSTKE CHALLENGE

letter(s) of commitment, or individual testimonials. However you opt to proceed, your response should reflect each core stakeholder's perspective on the following questions (applicants may upload as many or as few letters as deemed necessary to demonstrate leadership and commitment; each letter should not exceed one typed page):

a. How would participation in this initiative benefit your jurisdiction? b. What current policies and practices should be examined as potential

contributors to the inappropriate or unnecessary use of jail in your jurisdiction? What policies or practices within your own agency may need to be examined?

c. How will your agency comply with the Foundation's expectations, including the participation of agenc'{leaders and senior managers in the planning process, data collection and sharing, and commitment to addressing racial and ethnic disparities?

Section 4. Data Capacity (25%) A reform agenda that is anchored in a thorough understanding of relevant data is essential to achieving meaningful and enduring change. Data is needed to understand the facts about how jail is used, why this is so, and to surface variables indicative of whether an individual does or does not present risks to public safety. The Foundation seeks to invest in sites that demonstrate the willingness and capacity to conduct a planning process which is driven by the use and understanding of data .. For the purposes of understanding your site's readiness to effectively tackle a data-driven planning process around the use of jail, the Foundation asks that you answer the following questions about your jurisdiction's data capacity, and also that you provide a representative sample of the criminal justice data you currently collect (see Data Capacity Appendix). Any data provided in the application will be used exclusively for the purpose of evaluating applications and will be treated with the strictest confidentiality by the Foundation.

If selected, grantee sites will be expected to furnish additional data to advance local planning and evaluation of the overall efficacy and impact of the initiative. In particular, selected sites will be expected to provide identifiable, case-level data to the Institute of State and Local Governance at the City University of New York (ISLG), which will be tracking performance measures for the lnitiative.1 Both ISLG and an independent evaluator will have access to identifiable case-level data provided by all sites; other initiative partners will have access only to de-identified case-level data. All data submitted in connection with the Safety and Justice Challenge will be transferred and stored securely, and access will be restricted to project staff.

4.1. If your jurisdiction is selected to receive a planning grant, which individual(s) will be responsible for tracking and sharing data with the Foundation and its partners?

4.2. Please help the Foundation understand the ways your jurisdiction currently collects data, and the availability of data indicators that you believe will be critical to an effective

1 Selected sites will be asked to provide data pertaining to the following key system points: arrest, charge, assignment of counsel, pretrial release, case processing, disposition/sentencing, and post-conviction process/supervision.

7 www.S afety An dJ usticeCha 11 e nge.o rg

Supported by the John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation

SAFETY+ JUSTICE CHALLENGE

8

planning process. In the table below, please indicate the attributes that best describe your

data collection and analytical capacity at the agency level. Please check as many as

applicable.

Table 4.2

Dedicated

analytical/research unit with multiple analysts

Dedicated full-time

analyst/researcher

Dedicated part-time

a na lyst/researche r

IT personnel also responsible for data

Non-research agency staff

(e.g., prosecutor)

responsible for data

Interns collect data

Non-agency personnel (e.g., local researcher) collect

data *Please specify (e.g., criminal justice coordinating council):

4.3. Please answer the following brief questionnaire about your jurisdiction's data capacity:

Is there a mental health flag in your system that allows you to identify

defendants/inmates with mental health diagnoses? **If yes, please specify which of the primary agencies have such a flag available

Does every defendant/inmate have a unique identifier?

Is that unique identifier common across system points and data systems (e.g., corrections, probation, courts)?

Similarly, does every criminal case have a unique identifier (given that a single defendant/inmate may have multiple arrests/cases)?

Is that unique identifier common across system points and data systems (e.g., corrections, probation, courts)? **If not, please specify how each of the primary agencies uniquely identifies cases

Do you have a centralized system of record or an integrated data system that combines data from the police, prosecutor's office, courts, and corrections?

Are data routinely merged between departments or divisions in your jurisdiction? If so, please specify which ones and how those data are merged (i.e. do staff merge

manually or are systems programmed link files directly?)

www.SafetyAndJusticeChallenge.org ~ .. ~ Supported by the John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation '=='·

SAFETY+ JUST~ CHALLENGE

4.3.1.How is defendant race and ethnicity determined (e.g., self-reported, determined by arresting police officer)? Does this vary across the primary agencies listed above? If so, please describe the approach for as many of them as possible.

4.3.2.How are defendant racial and ethnic categories reported (e.g., black, Hispanic black, Hispanic white, etc.)? Does this vary across the primary agencies listed above? If so, please describe the approach for as many of them as possible.

4.4. To help reviewers understand the data that is currently available in your jurisdiction, please do your best to generate data for 2014 (or the most recent 12-month period for which data are available) on each indicator listed in the Data Capacity Appendix. For each data category (e.g. 1 arrests, jail, bail, etc.), please indicate the source agencv from \AJhich you gathered the

data in the space provided in the template. For example, arrest data may be available through a statewide criminal justice agency, while bail decision data may only be available through the court system. For the application, the Foundation is requesting aggregate data only.

The Foundation understands that not every jurisdiction will be able to provide all of this information at the time of application submission. Lack of comprehensive data will not disqualify applicants at this stage, particularly if your jurisdiction can demonstrate the willingness to work with the Foundation to gather comprehensive data going forward. For any indicators that your jurisdiction is not able to provide at the time of submission, please indicate from the drop-down menu whether you would be able to produce the data with some effort, whether you cannot produce the data without significant assistance, or whether you do not currently collect the data.

Section 5. Budget and Staffing (5%) Sites selected to participate .in Round 1 will receive a $150,000 grant to support activities during the planning period (approximately May 15, 2015 through December 31, 2015). Please detail how your jurisdiction would apply these dollars. When itemizing project staff salaries, please list each individual separately and include the individual's title, annual salary, and percentage of time that will be allotted to the project.

The Foundation will expect each selected site to send a delegation of key stakeholders to two All Sites meetings (one of which is the May 27-28 meeting referenced above); grant funds should be applied to cover travel and lodging expenses for a 4-5 person team.

Grant dollars may not be applied to support lobbying activities.

Administrative fees must be capped at 15%.

9 www. Sa f etyAn dJ u st ice Cha I le nge.o rg

Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Disclaimer and Acknowledgements as to Confidentiality and Intellectual Property

Nothing herein represents a commitment by the MacArthur Foundation to award any grant to any

entity participating in, responding to, or submitting subsequent information in response to this

invitation to submit a proposal for funding. Any grant commitment will be evidenced by a grant

agreement signed by authorized representatives of the Foundation and the grantee.

The Foundation reserves the right to terminate, alter, or suspend this process at any time. By

submitting an application or information pursuant to this invitation to submit a proposal for funding

each applicant shall be deemed to have acknowledged that the Foundation shall have no obligation to make any grant and shall have no liability to any applicant or other person or entity should it determine not to proceed with this process or not to make any grants or program-related

investments. It is further understood that any grant that may be considered pursuant to this process

must satisfy certain legal criteria in the sole discretion of the Foundation.

All information and applications submitted to the Foundation shall become the property of the

Foundation. Information submitted by applicants may be shared with third-parties engaged to assist

the Foundation with the selection process for these awards. The Foundation may also use such information for its internal purposes or in connection with outside studies or research or with

respect to other charitable purposes. The Foundation will not use any information for commercial

purposes or sell the information to third parties. Should an applicant's project be funded, the Foundation reserves the right to post for viewing by the general public the project Abstract, the

description of the project design and methodology, and the size of the total grant award with the

general public. Detailed budget information will not be made public.

Any grant awarded will be subject to the Foundation's policy on intellectual property which is

available on the Foundation's website. In general, the Foundation's policy is to ensure that grant

work product furthers charitable purposes and benefits the public. To that end, the Foundation seeks prompt and broad dissemination of the grant work products at little or minimal cost or, when

justified as described generally in the policy, at a reasonable cost.

The Foundation also encourages openness in research and freedom of access to underlying data by

persons with a serious interest in the research. The Foundation recognizes there may be circumstances where limited or delayed dissemination of grant work product or limited access to

data may be appropriate to protect legitimate interests of the grantee, other funders, principal

investigators or participants in research studies. Such circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by­

case basis.

10 www.SafetyAndJusticeChallenge.org ~

Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation l~,

~-~ cHf CL1~~~USTICE

'$

MacArthur Safety+ Justice Challenge Application Data Capacity Appendix

Appendix: Data Request

12 month Reporting Period Start Date: 12 month Reporting Period End Date:

~Pm r"" ~ ! ll' ,,

To help reviewers understand the data that is currently available in your jurisdktion, please do your best to generate data for 2014 (or the most recent 12-month period for which data are available) on each ind'icator listed below. For each data category {e.g., arrests, jail, bail, etc.), please indicate the source agency from which you gathered the data in the space provided in the template. For example, arrest data may be available through a statewide criminal justice agency, while bail decision data may only be available through the court system. For the application we are requesting aggregate data only. The Foundation understands that not every jurisdiction will be able to provide all of this information at the time of application submission. Lack of comprehensive data will not disqualify applicants at this stage, particularly if your jurisdiction can demonstrate the willingness to work with the Foundation to gather comprehensive data going forward. For any indicators that your jurisdiction is not able

to provide at the time of submission1 please indicate from the drop-down menu whether you would be able to produce the data with some effort, whether you could produce the data with s'1gnificant assistance, or whether you do not currently collect the data.

k:&W,Y:'t-;lf~"f;m • ,

Arrests

Total arrests by top charge severity {felony, misdemeanor, violation,

other) Total arrests by race/ethnicity/gender U of arrests where defendant had: A prior arrest

A prior conviction 1&11ih. " Prosecution

II of cases accepted for prosecution, broken down by:

Charge severity; felony, misdemeanor, less than a misdemeanor

Major crime categories (e.g. persons, property, drugs, etc.)

Deferred prosecutions It of deferred prosecutions

Declined to Prosecute

#of cases declined to prosecute -·· .. . . • .. Jail admissions: most recent lZ month period

II of beds (jail capacity) Total admissions to jail for most recent 12-month period, broken down

by:

Demographics: race and ethnicity, age, and gender

Charge severity: felony, misdemeanor, less than a misdemeanor It of admissions in 2014 (or most recent 12 months) Percent of the 2014 admissions with previous admission(s) to the jail in

past 3 years.

Jail: 1 day snapshot

One-day snapshot of the number of people held in detention !enter date

in te>1t bold, broken down by: Demographics: race and ethnicity, age, and gender

't'·~. • ,11.f>k'.lM• • • .. . , Charge severity: felony, misdemeanor, less than a misdemeanor Average and median length of stay (LOS) for pre-trial detainees-by

charge severity: felony, misdemeanor1 less than a misdemeanor

Bail and Release without Money Bail

11

tF.i: ""

...

ti-:1-;-•

..

' •• llltl'Jllj •l:.lllr ..... ·. .. . ,,,. : ,, n

We can produce this data with some effort {e.g., we can constrnct these reports by looking at a number of reports and putting something together within a day}.

We could produce this data with significant assistance (e.g., the data are collected but putting them together would require

significant matching and analysis). We do not collect this data at this time.

.O ~I 0 I .. . .. . . · ..

·'. '.' .. . .... · ..

.. ... ·'. OIJloh'OllJh • . '· .. · ..

. . ·=·

. .

.. ""

' .

..

• ,111,

:

:

www.SilfetyAndJusticeChullenge.org Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

'1!

CHALLEN~~USTICE Hof defendants released on bail broken down by top charge (felony, misdemeanor, less than a misdemeanor) #of defendants released without money ball broken down by top charge (felony, misdemeanor, less than a misdemeanor)

Average and median bail amounts set and paid by top charge level (felony, misdemeanor, less than a misdemeanor)

Dismissal #of cases disposed at arraignment #of cases dismissed after arraignment

Diversion Hof cases diverted

# of diverted cases that have been successfully completed ttm ~r::r;u.~r.r111 :inro:e."f.ilm.i•I•

Conviction

#of cases resulted in a guilty plea or conviction Sentence

#of convictions resulted in prison sentences If of convictions resulted in jail sentences U of convictions resulted in "time-served" sentences If of convictions resulted in non-incarcerative sentences

;:11.i:lilriHl;}D:Jil-'h:iot• •1111!.li•

Probation #of people on probation in the 12 month period U of people who completed probation in the 12 month period

12

t .. ,~,

......

www.SufotyAndJusticeChal\enge.org Suppor\eclby theJohnD.and Catherinel Hac:ArlhurFounclalion

SAFETY+ JUST!CE CHALLENGE

J st1 r s

1. What is the Safety and Justice Challenge competition?

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation will fund a network of competitively selected

local jurisdictions committed to reducing overreliance on jails in their communities. With help from a

consortium ofnational experts and technical assistance providers, participating jurisdictions will

make policy, practice, and system changes designed to reduce their use of jail incarceration, with a

particular focus on addressing disproportionate impact on low-income individuals and communities

of color. Each jurisdiction will determine the changes it will pursue, based upon a data-driven

assessment of local problems and opportunities. The overall goal will be to achieve positive public

safety returns and improved social outcomes at lower cost.

2. Why focus on jails?

Despite growing national attention to the large number of Americans confined in state and federal

prisons, significantly less attention has been paid to local justice systems and jails, where over­

incarceration begins. While the primary purpose of pretrial holding in jails is to detain those who are

a danger to public safety or a flight risk, they have come to hold many who are neither. Jails too often

serve as warehouses for low-risk individuals too poor to post bail, or too sick for existing community

resources to manage. Many jail detainees are held there far longer than necessary, due to crowded

court dockets and chronic backlogs. Additionally, jail sentences are often imposed on people who

could be safely held accountable in other ways. All this carries significant costs-to individuals,

families, communities, and society at large.

3. Who is eligible to apply for the Safety and Justice Challenge competition?

The competition is open to any jurisdiction with governing authority over a local jail or jail system

that has no fewer than 50 beds. This includes states, cities, counties, judicial districts, and tribes.

4. How many jurisdictions will be selected to participate and at what level of funding?

Up to 20 jurisdictions will be chosen to receive a grant of $150,000 and expert consulting help during

a six-month collaborative planning period, which will take place from May-December 2015. Beginning in 2016, as many as 10 of these jurisdictions will be selected for a substantial second round of funding-between $500,000 and $2 million annually-to support implementation of their plans over

two years, with an option to extend if substantial progress is made.

5. What does a strong RFP application look like?

13

The Foundation seeks to invest in jurisdictions that are interested in improving public safety, saving

money, and promoting stronger, healthier communities. Jurisd.ictions with current or past

involvement in other national criminal justice reform initiatives are encouraged to apply. Strong

applications will demonstrate a jurisdiction's commitment to:

Engage relevant stakeholders from all parts of the criminal justice system;

Collect and share data among local partners and with the Foundation;

Use data to identify priority problems that contribute to the overreliance on jails, and look for achievable solutions that do not compromise public safety; and

www. Sa fetyAndJ u stice Cha 1 lenge.o rg Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

r@§·i-.~-;:_=~ SAFETY+ JUSTICE Lc~~~J cHALLENGE

Surface and address racial and ethnic disparities in the way jail is used, administered, and

experienced.

6. What support (other than grant funding) can participating jurisdictions expect?

The Foundation has engaged four of the nation's leading criminal justice organizations to serve as site

coordinators in Safety and Justice Challenge jurisdictions: the Center for Court Innovation, the Justice

Management Institute, Justice System Partners, and the Vera Institute of Justice. The site

coordinators will help selected sites rigorously examine how their jails are being used; identify

policies and practices that have driven the growth of local jail populations; and craft strategies to

reduce the inappropriate use of jail without compromising public safety. The Foundation will also

make investments in research and communications, and will provide support for an ongoing Safety

and Justice Challenge Network - 20 jurisdictions working to reduce incarceration and improve the

way their local criminal justice systems function. The Challenge Network will stimulate creativity and

facilitate the spread ~f promising innovations in incarceration reduction.

7. Why is the Safety and Justice Challenge a "can't miss" opportunity for my jurisdiction?

Criminal justice professionals are constantly asked to do more with less. The Safety and Justice

Challenge is a unique and significant opportunity to ease these pressures, allowing practitioners to

address how their criminal justice system operates, understand what policies and practices affect jail

populations, and identify and implement new strategies to produce better outcomes. As members of

the Safety and Justice Challenge Network, participating jurisdictions will be positioned as leaders in the field, and will have the opportunity to influence the future of criminal justice practices in

groundbreaking ways.

8. How do I apply? More information, including the request for proposals and information on how to apply, is available

at www.SafetyAndJusticeChallenge.org. Applications must be submitted through the Foundation's

online platform at www.SafetyAndJustice.fluidreview.com; emailed or mailed applications will not be

considered.

9. When is my application due? Applications are due by 8:00 p.m. CST on March 31, 2015.

10. What if I have more questions?

14

The Foundation will hold three live webinars to confirm details about the competition and

application process as well as answer questions. The content of these webinars will be identical. The

webinars are scheduled as follows: Wednesday, February 25 from 11:30 - 12:30 CST

Thursday, February 26 from 10:00 -11:00 CST

Tuesday, March 3 from 3:00 - 4:00 CST

Registration is required to participate in one of these sessions. To register, send an email to

SafetyAndJustice@macfound.org and indicate which webinar you plan to attend.

Should you have any additional questions about the competition or application, please email

SafetyAndJ ustice@macfou nd .org.

www.S afety AndJusti ce Challenge. o rg Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

~ ~

1 5

This page includes a discussion of the real estate excise tax. Also included are links to: (1) the state laws authorizing

the real estate excise tax; (2) frequently asked questions; and (3) various documents, including sample ordinances to

levy the real estate excise tax.

The State of Washington is authorized to levy a real estate excise tax on all sales of real estate, measured by the full

selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages and other debts given to secure the purchase at a rate of

1.28 percent. RCW 82.45.060 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.45.060l. A locally-imposed tax is

also authorized. However, the rate at which it can be levied and the uses to which it may be differs by city or

county size and whether the city or is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). All cities and

counties may levy a quarter percent tax (described as "the first quarter of the real estate excise tax" or "REET

1"). RCW 82.46.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw I default.aspx?cite=82.46.010). Cities and counties that are planning

under GMA have the authority to levy a second quarter percent tax (REET 2). RCW 82.46.035

(http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw /default.aspx?cite=82.46.035). Note that this statute specifies that if a county is required

to plan under GMA, or if a city is located in such a county, the tax may be levied by a vote of the legislative body. If,

however, the county chooses to plan under GMA, the tax must be approved by a majority of the voters.

Statutes

• RCW 82.46.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw /default.aspx?cite=82.46.010) - Tax on sale of real property

authorized - Proceeds dedicated to local capital projects - Additional tax authorized - Maximum rates. The

authority to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax and the permitted uses. Also the authority to

levy a half cent tax for general government purposes if the city does not levy the second half cent of the retail

sales and use tax.

• RCW 82.46.021 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.46.021) - Describes the referendum procedure

for the imposition, repeal, or change in rate of the half percent real estate excise tax that can be levied in lien of

half cent retail sales and use tax.

• RCW 82.46.030 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.46.030) - The remaining proceeds from the

county tax under RCW 82.46.010 (2) shall be placed in a county capital improvements fund. The remaining

proceeds from city or town taxes under RCW 82.46.010 (2) shall be distributed to the respective cities and towns

monthly and placed by the city treasurer in a municipal capital improvements fund.

• RCW 82.46.035 (http:/ /app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.46.035) -Additional tax - Certain counties and

cities - Ballot - Use limited to capital projects - Temporary rescindment for noncompliance. The authority for

levying the second half cent.

a voter-

areas.

2 5

Statute lists

referred to in RCW 82.46.010 (http:/ /app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?

nor·rorn of the real estate excise tax for cities that are

or cities that are under GMA have a

or less.

Cities and counties fall into three categories: 1) those that are not under 2) those that are planning

under GMA. but have a population under 5,000; and 3) those that are planning under GMA and have a population of

5,000 or over.

But Have a

Both groups of entities have the same restrictions on their spending of REET 1 revenues. They must use these funds

"for any capital purpose identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those

listed in RCW 35.43.040 (http:/ /app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.43.040)." RCW 82.46.010

(http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw I defau!t.aspx ?cite=82.46.010 )(2). RCW 35.43.040

a

local improvement district (LID), including streets, parks. sewers. water mains. swimming pools and gymnasiums. etc.

(Note that in chapter 272, Laws of 1994, the legislature clarified its original intent that "local capital improvements"

was intended to include the acquisition of real and personal property associated with such local capital

improvements. This means that land acquisition for parks is a permitted expenditure.)

Capital projects not listed in the LID statute (for example. a fire station, city hall. courthouse or library) are also

permitted uses as long as they are included in the city's or county's capital improvement plan. Expenditures that are

not allowed are such things as the purchase of police cars. Accountants may consider these to be "capital" for

accounting purposes. but they are not "capital purposes" or "local capital improvements." See correspondence

between Allen R. Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County and Philip H. Austin. Senior Deputy

Attorney General.

Documents

• March 2. 1984 letter (/Corporate/media/Medialibrary/SampleDocuments/GovDocs/i7030284.pdf) from Alan

R. Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County To l<enneth 0. Eikenberry. Washington State Attorney

General.

• March 6. 1984 letter (/Corporate/media/Medialibrary/SampleDocuments/GovDocs/w3ag030684.pdf} from

Philip H. Austin. Senior Deputy Attorney General to Alan R.Hancock. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island

County.

• MRSC sample ordinance (/Corporate/media/Medialibrary/SampleDocuments/Ords/reetord1.pdfl to levy the

first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for cities that are not planning under the Growth Management Act

(GMA) or for cities that are planning under GMA but which have a population of 5,000 or less.

• MRSC sample ordinance (/Corporate/media/Medialibrary/SampleDocuments/Ords/reetord4.pdf) to levy the

percent of the real estate excise tax for counties that are not planning under the Growth

for counties that are which have a of or less.

3 5

These of their real estate excise tax '"',."''"h'

projects that are listed in the capital facilities element of their

(http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw /default.aspx?cite=82.46.010)(6). RCW defines "capital projects" as:

for construction. replacement. or of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational

law enforcement facilities; fire administrative facilities ... . .

• MRSC sample ordinance (/Corporate/media/Medialibrary/SampleDocuments/Ords/reetord2.pdfl to levy the

first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for all cities that are planning under GMA and have a population of

more than 5,000 .

• MRSC sample ordinance (/Corporate/media/MediaLibrary/SampleDocuments/Ords/reetord5.pdf) to levy the

first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for all counties that are planning under GMA and have a

population of more than 5,000.

to

RCW 82.46.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/ default.aspx?cite=82.46.010)(7) allows cities and counties to use REET

1 revenues for operations and maintenance (O&M) of existing capital projects that are listed in RCW 82.46.010(6) -

see question 3 above. There is a limit, however, on how much can be spent on O&M. The maximum amount of REET

1 that may be spent on O&M is the greater of $100,000 or 35 percent of the available funds. not to exceed $1

million per year. This legislation sunsets on December 31. 2016.

Spending the Second Quarter Percent -- 2

This part of the real estate excise tax may only be levied by cities and counties that are required to or choose to plan

under the Growth Management Act. All cities and counties that levy this tax face the same provisions, whether their

population is greater or less than 5,000.

For this quarter percent of the real estate excise tax, "capital project" means those:

public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. RCW 82.46.035

.. (11,!tf>Jl~R'?J'=fC~!~a.ggy (~cw/ def~uJt,.a?gx_? cl!~=-~ 2. ~~:Q~_?H~L--.. ····--· ............ ·--·--······--···-Note that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts, although it is a permitted use for

street, water, and sewer projects.

RCW 82.46.035 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.46.035)(7) allows cities and counties to use REET

2 revenues for operations and maintenance (O&M) of existing capital projects, as defined in the paragraph

above.There is a limit, however, on how much can be spent on O&M. The maximum amount of REET 2 that may be

spent on O&M is the greater of $100.000 or 35 percent of the available funds, not to exceed $1 million per year.

Counties

kinds REET 1 revenues.

listed in RCW

sunsets 011 December 6

4 5

RCW 82.46.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.asox?cite=82.46.010)(3)

Cities and counties that are not levying the optional half-cent sales tax under RCW 82.14.030

(http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw /default.aspx?cite=82.14.030)(2) have the option of levying an additional one-half

percent real estate excise tax. These receipts are not designated for capital projects. They are a general fund revenue

for city operating expenditures. Only two cities, Asotin and Clarkston, have chosen to do this. From a financial

standpoint, the optional half-cent sales tax will probably bring in more revenue than this additional one-half percent

real estate excise tax. For border cities and counties, however, who do not feel they are able to levy the optional

sales tax. this tax is a revenue option.

The of this tax, a change in rate, of the tax is to the referendum in

RCW 82.46.021. (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw I default.aspx ?cite=82.46.021)

A county legislative authority may submit a ballot proposition to the voters for an additional real estate excise tax on

each sale of real property in the county at a rate not to exceed 1 percent of the selling price. The revenue from this

tax is restricted to the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas. Conservation areas are defined in RCW

36.32.570 as:

land and water that has environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural. scientific, historic, scenic, or low-intensity recreational value for existing and future generations, and includes, but is not limited to, open spaces, wetlands, marshes, aquifer recharge areas, shoreline areas, naturals areas, and other lands and waters that are if0p()rtant t() er~serve~fl()~a and fauna.

The property buyer, rather than the seller, pays this tax. RCW 82.46.070. (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?

cite=82.46.070) Only San Juan County has levied this tax to date.

Accounting for These Funds

Because this revenue source has a dedicated purpose, it must be accounted for separately in a capital projects fund.

Those cities and counties that are planning under GMA and levying both REET 1 and REET 2 need to keep track of

each of these revenues separately because the uses to which they may be put are different. RCW 82.46.030

(http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.46.030)(2) and RCW 82.46.035

(http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw I default.aspx?cite=82.46.035)(4). Although no special direction is given in the statutes as

to how to account for funds collected under RCW 82.46.070 for conservation areas, these should be kept in a

separate fund also.

the

5 5

(http://www.researchcouncil.org/ docs/PDF /WRCGrowthlandUse/WARealEstateExcise Tax.pdfl ,

Research Council PB 05-05 March 2000

• MRSC Inquiries - Finance (/getdoc/dab99d58-5d88-4da8-8bcb-d2321928094e/Finance.aspx)

Last Modified: January 22, 2015

© 2015 MRSC of Washington.All rights reserved. Privacy & Terms (/getdoc/18b60b0a-f09d-4b7a-972f-2fcde5149c02/Privacv-and-T erms.aspx). - - · ·

Find Your Legislator Visiting the Legislature Agendas, Schedules and Calendars Bill Information Laws and Agency Rules Legislative Committees Legislative Agencies Legislative Information Center E-mail Notifications Civic Education History of the State Legislature

Congress - the Other Washington TVW Washington Courts OFM Fiscal Note Website

use tax 1 4

RCWs >Title 82 >Chapter 82. 14 >Section 82. 14.370

<< 82. 1 370 >>

in

(1) The legislative authority a rural county impose a sales and use tax in accordance with the terms this chapter. The tax is in addition to other taxes authorized by law and must be collected from those persons \lvho are taxable by the state under chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RC\/'J upon the occurrence of any taxable event within the county. The rate of tax may not 0.09 the selling in the case a sales tax or

in the case use between

(2) The tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section must 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 must perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the county at no cost to the county.

(3)(a) Moneys collected under this section may only be used to finance public facilities serving economic development purposes in rural counties and finance personnel in economic development offices. 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 ;16.70A040. 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.

(b) In implementing this section, the county must consult with cities, towns, and port districts located within the county and the associate development 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 must report, as follows, to the office of the state auditor, within one hundred fifty days after close of each fiscal year: (i) A new projects begun

that the has

use tax 2

sewer storm sewer railroads, electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, research, testing, training,

incubation facilities in innovation partnership zones designated under 43.330.270, buildings, structures, telecommunications infrastructure,

infrastructure, or infrastructure, facilities in the state of Washington.

(ii) "Economic development purposes" means those purposes which facilitate the creation or retention of businesses and jobs in a county.

county.

(4) No tax may be collected this section before July 1, 1998.

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, 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.

(b) For counties imposing the tax at the rate of 0.09 percent before August 1, 2009, the tax expires on the date that is twenty-five years after the date that the 0.09 percent tax rate was first imposed by that county.

(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 1st to June 30th.

[2012 c 225 § 4; 2009 c 511 § 1. Prior: 2007 c 478 § 1; 2007 c 250 § 1; 2004 c 130 § 2; 2002 c 184 § 1; 1999 c 311 § 101; 1998 c 55 § 6; 1997 c 366 § 3.]

c "This act takes effect August 1, 2007." [2007 c 478 § 2.]

Intent~~ 2004 c 130: "It is the intent 2004 act to reaffirm the original goals

the local

the legislature in enacting this the 1997 act which first provided

and use tax

l use tax

on our state's strengths prosperity."[1999c311§1.]

to use resources "''r'"""'"'

addressing threats to our

not -- 1 c headings and subheadings used in this act are not any part law."[1999c311 §601.]

3

-- 1 c 1: "Sections 1, 101, 201, 301 through 305, 401, 402, 601, and 605 of this act take effect August 1, 1999." [1999 c

1 § 604.]

-- 999 this act or its application to any person or is held invalid, the remainder the act or the application prov1s1on to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1999 c 1 § 606.]

-- 1 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 enterprise that resides in

areas state.

this is

use tax 4 4

(4) Regulatory relief to reduce and streamline zoning, permitting, and regulatory requirements in order to enhance the capability businesses to in distressed areas." [1997 c 366 § 1.]

primary goals chapter 366, Laws 1997 are to:

(1) ongoing business in rural distressed areas;

in 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.]

,l

"Basic" 0.5 Percent Sales and Use Tax

A county (and city) legislative authority may impose, by resolution or ordinance, a sales and use tax at the rate of 0.5 percent on any taxable event within the county.81 The resulting revenues are not restricted and may be used for general county purposes. If both a county and a city within tl1e county impose this tax, then the city rate can be no higher than 0.425 percent. And, the county must give a credit against its tax for any tax imposed by the city.82

This means that goods purchased within a city are not taxed by both the city and the county; they are only taxed once. However, the city receives only 85 percent of the revenue (0.425/0.500 = .85). The remaining 15 percent from sales made in a city goes to the county. Another way to think about it is that the county tax rate is 0.5 percent in the unincorporated areas and 0.075 percent

.vvv-..... ..,."·" = 0.075) in the incorporated areas.

0.5 Percent Sales and Use Tax Half

A county (and city) may impose an additional sales tax, in 0.1 percent increments, up to a rate of 0.5 percent. This optional sales tax may be imposed by a majority vote of the legislative authority, but it is subject to a referendum.84 The resulting revenues are not restricted by statute.

If a city and a county both impose the optional sales tax at the same rate, then the county receives 15 percent of the revenue from sales in the city. If a city imposes the tax at a lower rate than the county (for example, assume that the city rate is 0.3 percent and the county rate is 0.5 percent), then the county will receive 15 percent of the revenue from the 0.3 percent city tax, but all the revenue generated in the city from the remaining 0.2 percent of the county tax. Conversely, if the city rate is higher than the county rate, then the county receives 15 percent of only a portion of the city revenue. If the city rate, for example, is 0.5 percent and the county rate is only 0.3 percent, the

79 ln this section, "sales tax" refers to "sales and use tax" unless otherwise noted. 80RCW 82.14.030(1 ). The Department of Revenue calls this tax the "basic" 0.5 percent in its reports. It is also

commonly called the "first half cent" to differentiate it from the "second half cent." 81 The Department of Revenue charges a one percent administrative fee, so the county nets 0.495 percent.

RCW 82.14.050. We will ignore the administrative fee in our discussion. 82RCW 82.14.040. 83RCW 82.14.030(2). 84RCW 82.14.036. This referendum procedure must specify that a petition may be filed within seven days of

the passage of the ordinance with the filing officer (e.g., the clerk). Within 10 days, the filing officer must confer with the petitioner as to the form and style of the petition and write a ballot title. Then the petitioner has 30 days to gather the signatures of at least 15 percent of the registered voters. If sufficient valid signatures are submitted, the referendum is voted on at a general or special election, which must take place no more than 120 days after the signed petition has been filed.

for

will get 15 percent of the revenue earned in the city from a rate of 0.3 percent, and the city will keep all the revenue earned from the remaining 0.2 percent of the optional tax.85

As of our date of 36 counties were levying the full second half-cent tax and Asotin was levying a portion of the second half cent. Klickitat and Skamania were the only

counties not levying the optional tax.

O. 1 Percent Criminal Justice Sa/es and Use

County commissioners or councils may vote, by resolution or ordinance, to levy a county-wide 0.1 percent sales tax for criminal justice purposes. The tax is subject to the same referendum provisions as the second half percent sales tax.87 Ten percent of the funds collected are distributed to the county, with the remainder allocated to the cities and the county on the basis of population.

For example, if the criminal justice revenues were then the county would get 1 O percent off the top. if the total county population was 1 and the unincorporated

population was 40,000, since it has 40 percent (40,000/100,000) of the total population, it would get another $180,000 (40 percent of the remaining $450,000 left to be allocated) for a total of $230,000. A requirement that these funds not supplant existing funding was repealed by the legislature in 2010.88

The legislature has defined "criminal justice purposes" in this statute to be:

activities that substantially assist the criminal justice system, which may include circumstances where ancillary benefit to the civil justice system occurs, and which includes domestic violence services such as those provided by domestic violence programs, community advocates, and legal advocates.

Thirty-two counties were imposing this tax at the time of publication of this document.

Optional 0.1 Percent Juvenile Detention Facility Sales and Use Tax89

A county legislative authority with a population of less than one million may submit a proposition to the voters for a sales and use tax of 0.1 percent for the financing, design, acquisition, construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, reequipping, and

85AGO 2006 No. 18 has a more comprehensive explanation of how the county and city rates interrelate under different scenarios.

86RCW 82.14.340. 87See footnote 84 for the referendum procedure. 88Ch. i 27, Laws of 2010. This legislative action was primarily a "housekeeping" measure. Since the base year

for measuring supplanting was 1989, it is unlikely that any county or city was currently using these funds to supplant other expenditures.

89RCW 82.14.350.

improvement of juvenile detention facilities and jails. This tax is in addition to the other sales and use taxes allowable by statute. Counties are authorized to enter into joint ventures to co-locate a facility.

Fourteen counties were imposing this tax at the time of publication of this document.

Percent Sales for E-91

A county may ask the voters to approve a ballot measure to levy a 0.1 percent tax for the costs associated with financing, design, acquisition, construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, reequipping, and improvement of emergency communication systems and facilities. Counties may develop joint ventures to collocate the systems.

Fourteen counties were imposing this tax at the time of publication of this document

county legislative body may submit a ballot proposal to a countywide vote for a sales tax increase of up to 0.3 percent. Sales of motor vehicles or leases of motor vehicles for up to the first 36 months are exempt from the tax. The proposal must be approved by a majority of the voters at a primary or general election.

The text of the ballot measure must state the purposes for which the funds will be used. At least one-third of the money must be spent for "criminal justice purposes, fire protection purposes, or both" with no restrictions on type of use for the remaining two-thirds.91 "Criminal justice purposes" is defined as:

activities that substantially assist the criminal justice system, which may include circumstances where ancillary benefitto the civil justice system occurs, and which includes domestic violence services such as those provided by domestic violence programs, community advocates, and legal advocates.

Sixty percent of the funds are distributed to the county, with the cities in the county getting the remaining 40 percent on a per capita basis. The cities must spend the portions they receive in accordance with the uses stated in the ballot measure.

Legislation passed in 201092 amended this statute. It removed language that prohibited supplanting of existing funding. It also extended, in some circumstances, the authority of cities to levy this tax at a rate not to exceed 0.1 percent, effective January 1, 2011.

The total rate of this tax may not exceed 0.3 percent. Therefore, if a county is levying this tax at a rate of 0.3 percent, then no city in that county may levy this tax. However, if a county is levying

90RCW 82.14.420. 91 RCW 82.14.450(4), as amended by ch. 551, Laws of 2009. 92Ch. 127, Laws of 2010, §1.

Guide

this tax at a rate of less than 0.3 percent, a in that may submit a ballot measure to the voters at the primary or general election to impose this tax at a rate not exceeding 0.1 percent, to be effective no sooner than 1, 2011.93 The ballot measure must state the uses: at least one-third of the revenue must be used for criminal justice purposes, fire protection purposes or both. Sales of motor vehicles or leases of motor vehicles for up to the first 36 months are exempt from the tax, just as they are from a county tax.

If a county adopts a resolution or ordinance to levy this tax after a city in the county has done so, then the county must give a credit against the county tax for sales within the city to the extent that the sum the city and county tax rates would exceed 0.3 percent. For example, if a city is levying the tax at a rate of 0.1 percent and the county passes a 0.3 percent tax, then the total tax paid in the city will be 0.3 percent, with 0.1 percent being the city tax and 0.2 percent being the county tax, since there is a credit against the county for the city tax. If the city is levying a 0.1 percent tax and the county levies a 0.2 percent tax, then the total in the city is 0.3 percent, while it is only 0.2 percent in the unincorporated area of the county.

Fifteen percent of the proceeds of any tax levied by the city must be given to the county.94

Kittitas, Spokane, Walla Walla, Whatcom, and Yakima counties are currently levying this tax.

A county legislative authority may levy a tax of 0.1 percent for the operation or delivery of chemical dependency or mental health treatment programs and services and for the operation or delivery of therapeutic court programs and services. "Programs and services" includes, but is not limited to, treatment services, case management, and housing that are a component of a coordinated chemical dependency or mental health treatment program or service.

Until the 2009 legislative session, all the funds had to be spent on new or expanded programs, with no supplanting allowed. (Spending on services and programs previously supported by lapsed federal funding is not considered supplanting.) However, 2009 legislation96 allows a county (or city) to use these funds to supplant existing funds for five years according to the following schedule: Up to 50 percent may be used to supplant existing funding in calendar year 201 O; up to 40 percent may be used to supplant existing funding in calendar year 2011; up to 30 percent may be used to supplant existing funding in calendar year 2012; up to 20 percent may be used

93The rules that apply when a county levies the public safety sales and use tax before a city in the county levies it apply when a county and city in the county adopt resolutions/ordinances to submit, on the same date, ballot propositions to the voters to levy the tax. RCW 82.14.450(2) (b), as amended by ch. 127, Laws of 201 O, §1.

94RCW 82.14.450(7). Note that the "sharing with the county" provision works differently for this tax than for the "optional" sales and use tax levied under RCW 82.14.030(2) as discussed on page 24-25. In the case of the "optional" sales and use tax, the county receives a share only if its tax rate is equal or greater than the city tax. In the current case, however, if the city levies a 0.1 percent public safety tax and the county levies no tax, the county still receives 15 percent of the city revenues.

95RCW 82.14.460. the base for supplanting might be different for other taxes depending on the language in the statute."

96Ch. 551, Laws of 2009. Some language allowing some cities to levy this tax was added in 201 O. Ch. 127, Laws of 2010.

to supplant existing funding in calendar year 2013; and up to i O percent may be used to supplant existing funding in calendar year 2014. Tl1e base year for measuring supplanting for this tax is the calendar year before the new tax took effect.97

If a county with a population of over has not levied this tax by January i, 2011, any city with a population of over may levy this tax. If the county subsequently levies the tax, it must provide a credit for the city tax against the county tax.98

Fourteen counties were levying this tax at the time of publication of this document.

Counties, along with cities, may form transportation benefit districts under ch. 36.73 RCW to acquire, construct, improve, provide, and fund transportation improvements. One funding option is a voter-approved 0.2 percent sales tax. The sales tax may be levied for an initial 1 O years and renewed for another 1 O years with a vote. If used to pay debt service on a bond, a sales tax may be levied for more than 1 O years.99 See pages 76-77 for more information on transportation benefit districts.

The funds must be spent on transportation improvements as set forth in the district's plan. "Transportation improvement" is defined as:

a project contained in the transportation plan of the state, a regional transportation planning organization, city, county, or eligible jurisdiction as identified in RCW36.73.020(2). A project may include investment in new or existing highways of statewide significance, principal arterials of regional significance, high capacity transportation, public transportation, and other transportation projects and programs of regional or statewide significance including transportation demand management. Projects may also include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of these facilities or programs.100

Transit Sa/es and Use Tax101

Cities, counties, and public transportation benefit areas (PTBAs) may levy up to 0.9 percent sales and use tax for public transportation purposes. This authority was increased from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent by the 2000 legislature in response to the difficulties in which transit districts found themselves after one of their main funding sources, the motor vehicle excise tax, was repealed.

97 Jan Jutte, Director of Legal Affairs, Washington State Auditor's Office. "RE: Base year to measure supplanting under RCW 82.14.460." Email to Judith Cox, Public Finance Consultant, MASC, April 1, 2010. The base for supplanting for other taxes may be different depending on the language in the statute.

98Ch. 127, Laws of 2010. In practice, this provision applies only to Pierce County and the cities in it. 99RCW 82.14.0455 and RCW 36.73.040(3)(a). 100RCW 36.73.015(3). 101 RCW 82.14.045.

for

(or with a transit system, municipal corporation, public transportation benefit area, high capacity transportation corridor area, or regional transit authority) may ask the voters to levy up to a 1 .0 percent sales and use tax specifically for high capacity transportation systems. The tax must be approved by a majority vote. However, a county levying the 0.; percent criminal justice sales and use tax under RCW 82.14.340 may only levy 0.9 percentfor this tax. This tax is in addition to the other sales and use taxes allowable by statute. The Regional Transit Authority (known as Sound Transit), covering parts of Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties, currently levies this tax at a rate of 0.9 percent.

Public Facilities District

A sales and use tax not to exceed 0.2 percent may be imposed by the governing board of a public facilities district established under chapter 36.100 RCW or chapter 35.57 RCW, with approval of a majority vote of the voters within the district. The proceeds may be used for financing, design, acquisition, construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, and reequipping of its public facilities. Spokane County is the only entity imposing this tax.

Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax

The county legislative authority of a rural county104 may levy up to an additional 0.09 percent sales tax to finance public facilities105 dedicated to economic development purposes and finance personnel in economic development offices. Note that "economic development purposes" specifically refers to "the creation and retention of businesses and jobs."106 This tax is credited against the state's 6.5 percent sales tax and therefore does not increase the tax to the consumer.

The public facilities authorized under this tax must be listed in an adopted county overall economic development plan, or the economic development section of the county's comprehensive plan, or

102RCW 81 .104.170. 103RCW 82.14.048. 104"Rural county" is defined as "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 1st to June 3oth." RCW 82.14.370(5).

105RCW 82.14.370(3)(c)(i). "Public facilities" are defined as "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."

106RCW 82.14.370(3) (c) (ii). "Economic development purposes" are defined as "those purposes which facilitate the creation or retention of businesses and jobs in a county."

"Economic development office" is defined as "an office of a county, port districts, or an associate development organization as defined in RCW 43.330.010, which promotes economic development purposes within the county." RCW 82.i4.370(3)(c)(iii).

Guide

the comprehensive plan of a city or town within the county for those counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Counties not planning under the GMA and not having an adopted overall economic development plan must use the proceeds for public facilities listed in the capital facilities plan of the or of any or town within the

Counties must consult with cities, towns, port districts, and the associate development organization serving the county to ensure the funds are spent in accordance with the requirements stated above. Counties must make a report to the state auditor within 150 days of the end of the calendar year, listing the new projects begun during the year, showing that the expenditures meet the statutory requirements, and also showing any continued expenditures on projects begun in prior years.

A county may collect this tax for no more than 25 years after it is first imposed. However, those counties levying the tax at a rate of 0.09 percent before August 1, 2009, may continue to levy it for 25 years from the date that the 0.09 rate was first imposed.107

A public facilities district impose a sales and use tax not to exceed 0.033 percent, depending on the date of creation of the district, the date on which it commences construction of a new regional center or improvement or rehabilitation of an existing new regional center, and the population of the district. The criteria for districts that may impose this tax are set out in RCW 82.14.390(1).

The tax is credited against the state sales and use tax and therefore is no additional burden to the consumer. The tax rate may increase up to 0.037 percent if, within three fiscal years of July 1, 2008, the Department of Revenue determines that, as a result of RCW 82. i 4.490 and 2007 amendments to RCW 82.14.020109

, a public facilities district's sales and use tax collections for fiscal years after July i, 2008 have been reduced by a net loss of at least 0.50 percent from the fiscal year before July i, 2008.110

The tax expires when the bonds for the regional center and related parking are retired but not more than 25 years after the tax is first collected. The tax proceeds must be expended for purposes found in RCW 35.57.020 and must be matched by other public and/or private sources in an amount equal to thirty-three percent of the amount collected.

Other Sales and Use Taxes

Other sales tax authority exists for unique situations. King County may levy a sales tax for both Safeco Field and the new football stadium, which is credited against the state tax.111 King County

107RCW 82.14.370(4). 108RCW 82.14.390. 109This statute and the 2007 amendments have to so with the change in "sourcing" sales tax revenue to the

jurisdiction at the point of delivery from the point of sale. See the discussion of sales tax streamlining on pages 33. 110RCW 82.14.390(2). 111 RCW 82.14.0485 and RCW 82.14.0494.

A

Mason Countv-Rural,Counties {.99) Fund CapitaMmRr:ove!Jilents Alan ;@ ·.1/08/1

11 JI -. '·~2017 ... h ·. ~ 2018 2015 ·- 2016 . It. •.;2019 IL 2020 11 2015-2020 ==-Total

ZSEW!ZX I :. - " ~ . L .:a f i

Revenues/Resources

Beg inni ng Balance $480,287 $450,085 $441,452 $512,389 $594,905 $689,001 $480,287

Rural Counties Sales & Use Tax 510,000 H 530,ooo]I ~;" -s4o;opo IL ~;.,- · . 550,oo~I --56_2; 000 11 570,000 ll 3,260,000

Interest Income 480 490 500 520 540 560 $3,090

Total Resources $990,767 11 s9so,51s ll s9·s1,•95-;=}i "-~$1;062,909.-JI b,~55,445 JI s1,259,561 JI s3,7431377

Expenditures/Uses

lnterfund Chg for Services ' $68;0~0·11 $68°,00-0 ll G - • . $~ I L ,.-: • ·., << $0 lF··· . .-·. $01r $0 Ji Economic DeveloEment Council $-136,000

Capita l Improvement Projects:

Belfair Wastewater Water Reclamation S~stem 350,000 11 350,000 11 350,000 11 350,000 11 350,000 11 350,000 11 $21100,000

Mason Cou nty UGA

City of Shelton Regiona l Sewer . 122,682 II -121;123 H -· -~ .119;563 if -':.:~;(-...,,., 118,004 H" ;116,444 ll · - ,. 114,922 H $]12,738

Total Planned Expenditures $540,682 $539,123 $469,563 $468,004 $466,444 $464,922 $2,948,738

Total Ending Fund Balance s450,085JI $441t45"i'll $512,389]1 ~ ... sS34,905 ]I · $689,ooi]I $794,639 H $794,639

Total Uses $990,767 $980,575 $981,952 $1,062,909 $1,155,445 $1,259,561 $3,743,377

Mason County agreed to make annual paymentsfor.20 years'to: CityofSh~ltonfor.Region~l'.Sellt_er .. fir!ftpayment is in 2001·and th_e last paymentis 2026.

Under current funding legislation, the .09 Sales Tax Credit for Rural Counties will end in the year 2032.

November 51 2013 Mason County Commissioners approved an additional $23.51000 for 203.3 & an additional $$3.251000 for 203.41 and $3501000 for 203.5for the Belfair Wastewater Water Reclamation System.

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-,

There is not a formal award through the .09 process for these amounts.

2014 2015 2016 2017 I 2018 2019 2020 I 2015-2020

Budgeted Actual Budgeted Antici11ated Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Pla n Total Beginning Fund Balance 350-000-000 $348,473 $2,453,532 $1,761,095 $1,211,786 $537,714 ($0) ($0) ($0) $0 $1,211,786

*Reserved Fund Balance $215,011 $215,011 $215,011 $215,001 $215,011 $2 15,011 $215,011 $215,011 $215,011 $215,011 Total Beginning Fund Ba lance $563,484 $2,668,543 $1,976,106 $1,426,787 $0 $752,725 $215,011 $215,011 $215,011 $215,011 $1,426,797

REET 1 Fundi ng Budgeted $873,000 $554,599 $425,000 $425,000 $575,000 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 $3,700,000 -Interest Income $2,500 $2,069 $1,000 $1,000 $1,505 $430 $430 $430 $430 $4,225 Grant Funding - Courthouse Improvements $117,000 $117,000 Grant Funding - Memoria l Hall Improvements $200,000 $200,000 Grant Funding - Sheriff Firearm Range $213,000 $213,000 Loan Funding - Jail Im provements $517,000 $495,000 $495,000 QECB Bonds $1,610,000 $0

Depart of Commerce Grant $499,950 $499,500 $0 PUD Rebate $75,000 $0 Bond Funding - control upgrade and DSU $600,000 $0 Transfer in From Swift & Certa in $146,000 $146,000 $146,000 $146,000 $146,000 $584,000 Add 'I Fund ing Req uired for Plan $2,130,000 $2,017,920 $568,542 $782,725 $217,645 $5,716,832

Tota l Resources $4,740,934 I $3,724,111 $2,548,106 $1,998,787 $2,625,000 $3,810,150 $1,529,983 $1,794,166 s1,34v;o86 I $965,441 I $12,456,854

Ex11enditures[Uses

lnterfund Payment for Services $2,100 $1,185 $2,100 $2,100 $2,100 $2,100 $2,100 $10,500

ER&R Loan - Purchase of Lower Portion Building #18 (Pmts 2011-2031) $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $37,924 $227,544 Bond Debt Service 2008 GO Bonds 3rd & Pine $3 11,511 $268,474 $304,512 $304,512 $297,511 $280,511 $273,861 $272,449 $275,868 $1,704,712 Energy Project Jail Payment $91,215 $0

Transfer out to Jail Bond Fund 250 $270,672 $294,672 $294,604 $289,437 $289,269 $142,602 $140,134 $1,450,719 Transfer out to Faciliti es - Maintenance Allowance $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000

$442,750 $307,584 $713,108 $737,108 $0 $732,140 $609,972 $603,155 $455,075 $456,026 $3,593,475

Ca11ital lm11rovement Projects: Oakland Bay Park Property Acqu isition $425,000 $425,000 Shelton to Belfair Trail $0 $0 Trail Development $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000 Sheriff's Office Evidence Facility $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 $500,000 Sheriff & Public Firearms Ra nge $25,000 $1,250,000 $1,275,000 Bui lding #1 Improvements $22,000 $22,000 $79,000 $281,000 $382,000 Bui lding #3 Improvements $300,000 $300,000 $154,000 $121,000 $575,000 Bui lding #4 Improvements $131,000 $60,000 $191,000 Bu il ding #6 Im provements $40,000 $40,000 $53,000 $93,000

Bui lding #7 Improvements $2,000 $2,000 Building #8 Improvements $156,000 $156,000 $434,000 $80,000 $670,000 Bui ldi ng #9 Improvements $56,000 $56,000 Jai l Improvements $495,000 $93,000 $80,000 $668,000 Ja il Improvements JCI $2,081,190 $1,668,859 $412,33 1 $412,331 Courthouse Improvements $303,000 $26,208 $1,221,000 $234,000 $261,000 $1,716,000 Juven il e Detention Improvements $32,000 $77,000 $33,000 $110,000 Sheriff's Office Improvements $8,000 $8,000 $152,000 $332,000 $492,000 Publi c Works Build ing #1 Improvements $15,000 $15,000 Memoria l Hall Improvements $425,000 $425,000

Jail- DSU Cells $300,000 $293,525 $96,623 $96,623 Jail Control Panel $300,000 $1,748 $0

$3,692,190 I $1,990,341 $0 $508,954 $2,625,000 $2,863,000 $705,000 $976,000 $676,000 $50,000 $8,403,954

Total Planned Expenditures $4,134,940 I $2,291,924 $713,108 $1,246,062 $2,625,000 $3,595,140 $1,314,972 $1,579,155 $1,131,075 $506,026 I $11,997,428 Ending Fund Ba lance $605,994 $1,426,787 $1,834,998 $752,725 $0 $215,011 $215,011 $215,011 s215,011 I $459,416 I $459,416

Total Uses $4,740,934 I $3,724,111 $2,548,106 $1,998,787 $2,625,000 $3,810,150 $1,529,983 $1,794,166 $1,346,086 $965,441 $12,456,844

*Emergency GO Bond Payment Fund Only

2008 GO Bond for 3rd & Pine Bu ilding- Interest only Payment until 2013. Full Payments from 2013 on .

Purchase of lower half of Building from Road Fu nd is $609,197.30@ 2.27% fo r 20 years payment scheduled to be $37923.96. Payments begin 2011 and end 2031.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015 - 2020 Plan Act ual Budgeted Antici~ated Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Total

Beg Fund Balance 351-000-000 1,087,686 877,556 1,063,017 1,370,023 0 0 0 0 0 1,370,023 REET 2 Funding Budgeted 325,000 554,599 425,000 425,000 575,000 600,000 650,000 700,000 750,000 3,700,000 Int erest Income 4,550 964 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 2,500

Total REET 2 1,417,236 1,433,119 1,490,517 1,797,523 0 575,000 600,000 650,000 700,000 750,000 5,072,523

Other Revenue Sources REET 2

Sunset Bluff Park Acquisit ion & Dev 375,000 375,000 Watson Wil dwood County Park 0 Union Boat Ra mp 9,41 6 300,000 300,000 600,000 Sa ndh ill Park RCO Grant 175,000 175,000 Harvey Rendsland Park 117,000 117,000 Phill ips Lake 0 Oakland Bay Pa rk 75,000 75,000 Menards Landing 0 MCRA Improvements 250,000 375,000 250,000 625,000 Mason Lake Boat Launch Renovat ions 0 Jacoby Pa rk Boat ing RCO Grant 30,000 30,000 740,000 770,000 Foothi lls County Park 0 Coulter Creek Park 1,130,000 1,130,000 Walker Park Improvements 0 North bay Trail 400,000 I 0

Allyn by t he Bay Park 0

Kennedy Creek Trail Project 70,000 70,000 Union Pa rk Improvements 500,000 500,000 NM Soccer Football Field 0 Water Spraypa rk Grant 250,000 250,000 Be lfa ir Skatepark RCO Grant 150,000 150,000 Add 'I Funding Required fo r Plannnnn 75,000 1,725,000 173,000 148,000 125,000 2,246,000

680,000 I 9,416 0 0 1 1,075,000 3,552,000 I 1,058,000 648,ooo I 750,000 I 0 1 7,083,000 Total Resources 2,097,236 1,442,535 1,490,517 1,797,523 1,075,000 4,127,000 1,658,ooo I 1,298,000 1,450,000 750,000 12,155,523

.. •

C:\Users\fpinter\Desktop\CFP\1 08 15 REET 2.xls1 08 15 REET 2.xls 3/12/2015

,....- - - --- -~-----, l

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 I 2020 2015 - 2020

Plan Actual Budgeted AnticiE!at ed Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Tota l

ExE!endituresLUses

Capital Improvement Projects:

lnterfund Chg for Svcs/Budget & Fin 2,100 0 Sunset Bluff Park Acquisition & Dev 16,925 750,000 750,000 Watson Wildwood County Park 0 40,000 40,000 Union Boat Launch 55,587 400,000 400,000 800,000 Sa ndhill County Park 300,000 350,000 350,000 Harvey Rendsland Park Plan/Design 0

' 234,000 234,000

Ph illi ps Lake Park 10,000 10,000 10,000 Oakland Bay Park 0 75,000 75,000 Menard's Landing Park 0 100,000 100,000 Mason County Recreation Area 500,000 575,000 575,000 (75,000) 500,000 1,000,000 Mason Lake County Park 0 258,000 258,000 Jacoby Park 45,000 45,000 850,000 200,000 1,095,000 Foothills County Park 30,000 30,000 30,000 Coulter Creek Park Acquisition & Development 1,260,000 1,260,000 Wa lker Park 298,000 298,000 Northbay Trail Development 0 800,000 195,000 995,000 Allyn by t he Bay Park 50,000 50,000 50,000 l<ennedy Creek Trai l Project 600,000 70,000 670,000 Union Park 0 368,000 368,000 NM Soccer Football Field 1,000,000 I 1,000,000 Water Spraypark 0 500,000 500,000 Belfair Skatepark 0 300,000 300,000 D1·ainage/Nordstrom 10,000 0 Truman Glick Memoria l Park 0 0 Harvey Rends land Park 0 0 Sheriff and Public Firearms Range 25,000 0 Transfer Out to facilities 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

Sidewa lks,parking lots, 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total All Expenditures 1,047,100 72,512 685,000 685,000 1,075,000 4,127,000 1,658,000 1,298,ooo I 1,450,000 I 01 10,293,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,05o,u6 I 1,370,023 805,517 1,112,523 I 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 1,862,523

Total Uses 2,097,236 1,442,535 1,490,517 1,797,523 1,075,000 4,127,000 1,658,000 1,298,000 1,450,000 750,000 12,155,523

Notes: Interest is computed on the actual balance ofthe fund (Beginning Balance & Mont hly Revenue) at a rate of 1.4% through 2017 Not es: Any Reserve funds for fi nancial obligations are cons idered part of beginning fund balance & allocated during the previous year's budget process. They are then expended during that budget year and should be

included in the interest computation . GO bond is paid in June and December.

C:\Users\fpinter\Desktop\CFP\1 08 15 REET 2.xls1 08 15 F~EET 2.xls 3/12/2015