Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › FINANCE › Unfunded Mandates
Unfunded Mandates by Department

Review of Legislative Mandates Imposed on
King County, 1995-2000

King County Budget Office
October 11, 2000

Contents

I. Introduction
II. The State's Legal Duty to Reimburse Local Governments for the Cost of Mandates Imposed by the Legislature.

III. Analysis of unfunded state mandates imposed on King County. IV. Other State Mandates and Lost Revenues Not Covered By Unfunded Mandate Statute

Unfunded Mandates by Department:

I. Introduction

King County's 2000 Adopted Budget included a proviso that states in part:

      The budget office, in consultation with the prosecuting attorney's office and all county agencies, shall prepare a report that identifies all county programs, functions and increased levels of service mandated by state law on or after July 1, 1995. The report shall identify whether or not each state mandated program or function received federal or state funding and the amount of funding received. The report shall also identify whether or not each state mandated program, function or increased level of service is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of King County.

In accordance with this provision of the 2000 Adopted Budget, the Budget Office has been working with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office and all of the agencies of King County government to identify and quantify the extent of the unfunded state mandates imposed upon the county. This report is not intended to be a commentary on the value or importance of the programs approved by the state legislature. Many of the laws passed since 1995 have addressed important issues of concern to the residents of King County and were strongly supported by King County officials. However, when the state imposes new duties or responsibilities upon local governments, the state must provide local governments with sufficient financial resources.

It must be emphasized that this report is preliminary and the numbers contained within may be subject to later revision. Although the Budget Office has made numerous inquiries to all agencies and departments, not all responded. While these efforts will continue, time limitations prohibited us from including any responses from Cultural Resources, Finance, or Transit. In addition, because of staff limitations, we were dependent upon the agencies to "self-report" their unfunded mandates. Every department was provided with a list of legislation that had been enacted since the 1995 session that may, or may not, have prompted an unfunded mandate. However, it is impossible to know with surety that the items presented herein are exhaustive of all unfunded mandates incurred by the County.

II. The State's Legal Duty to Reimburse Local Governments for the Cost of Mandates Imposed by the Legislature.

Under Washington law, the State of Washington is required to fully reimburse local governments when state legislation results in local governments providing either new services to the general public or an increase in services. The state is not legally prohibited from enacting legislation that imposes additional costs on a local government. However, when the state does enact such legislation and does not reimburse the resulting costs, the state incurs liability for the reimbursement.

    A. Background of the statutory prohibition against unfunded state mandates.

In 1979 the voters approved Initiative 62 (codified as RCW 43.135.060), which limited state spending and imposed restrictions on the state to prevent the state from shifting responsibilities to the local level without adequate funding. A number of lawsuits were brought against the state pursuant to Initiative 62, including an action by King County to recover costs related to the mandatory arrest requirements imposed by the state for domestic violence. This resulted in a settlement for $1.95 million.

In response to King County's lawsuit and a similar suit brought by Tacoma1, the legislature amended RCW 43.135.060 in 1990, to make it impractical for any other jurisdiction to sue the state. However, this amendment was repealed by the voters with the passage of Initiative 601 in 1993, which reinstated the state's obligation to fund any mandate to local government occurring after July 1, 1995, by specific appropriation. When the voters approved Referendum 49 in 1998, the obligation of the state to provide a specific appropriation to fund mandates to local government was amended to allow the state to reimburse the cost of new programs or increases in service levels by making "increases in state distributions of revenue to political subdivisions after January 1, 1998."

In November 1998, twenty counties, including King County, filed an action against the state pursuant to RCW 43.135.060, alleging that the state had failed to fully fund the counties for processing alternative residential placements, children in need of services, at-risk youth and truancy petitions as mandated by chapter 13.32A RCW and chapter 28A.225 RCW (popularly known as the "Becca Bill"). This action was settled between the state and the counties for $4.7 million, including $1.35 million for King County.

    B. Standard for determining whether the state is obligated to reimburse an unfunded mandate.

Not all mandates imposed by the state upon local governments carry a concomitant obligation that the state must reimburse the cost of the mandate. In its current incarnation, RCW 43.135.060 now provides in pertinent part:

    (1) After July 1, 1995, the legislature shall not impose responsibility for new programs or increased levels of service under existing programs on any political subdivision of the state unless the subdivision is fully reimbursed by the state for the costs of the new programs or increases in service levels. Reimbursement by the state may be made by: (a) a specific appropriation; or (b) increases in state distributions of revenue to political subdivisions occurring after January 1, 1998.

The state supreme court has upheld the right of a local jurisdiction to sue the state to recover costs incurred from state mandated new programs or increased levels of service. E.g. State v. Howard, 106 Wn.2d 39, 722 P.2d 783 (1985). The court has adopted a two-part test to determine when the State's obligation to reimburse local governments arises: (1) Is the program or service a responsibility imposed by the Legislature; and (2) Is it a new program or increased level of service under an existing program? See, Tacoma v. State, 117 Wn.2d 348, 360, 816 P.2d 7 (1991). As amended by Initiative 601, a third test has been added: (3) Was the new program or service imposed by the Legislature after July 1, 1995?

If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the State is legally obligated to reimburse the local government for all costs that are direct results of the legislature imposing new programs and/or increased levels of service. See, Tacoma v. State, 117 Wn.2d 348, 364, 816 P.2d 7 (1991). See also, Wash. AGO 1981 No. 5; Wash. AGO 1980 No. 24; Wash. AGO 1980, No. 3. These costs must be presented in some measurable, quantifiable manner. See, Wash. AGO 1987 No. 4.

Finally, the reimbursable costs imposed on a local government are diminished to the extent that the State appropriates specific funds or makes available additional distributions of state revenue in order to compensate for the cost of the mandate.

    C. Procedural requirements for reimbursement of costs

Before a governmental entity may file a suit against the state under the unfunded mandate statute, a claim under RCW 4.92.010 must be filed with the state's risk management office. Pursuant to that statute, the claim is to be accompanied by a statement of the facts on which the claim is based and such evidence as the claimant intends to offer in support of the claim.

Claims of two thousand dollars or less are to be approved or rejected by the risk management office, and if approved shall be paid from appropriations specifically provided for such purpose by law. For larger claims, the risk management office shall recommend to the legislature whether such claims should be approved or rejected. Recommendations shall be submitted to the senate and house of representatives committees on ways and means not later than the thirtieth day of each regular session of the legislature. Claims which cannot be processed for timely submission of recommendations shall be held for submission during the following regular session of the legislature. See, RCW 4.92.010.

This provision may have an effect on the timing of any unfunded mandate claim, since it would appear that the claims must be filed with the risk management office before the regular session begins, or the risk management office could claim that it cannot be processed for timely submission and hold the claim until the next session.

Under RCW 4.92.110, no action shall be commenced against the state for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty days have elapsed after the claim is presented to and filed with the risk management office. The applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced shall be tolled during the sixty-day period. It is commonly understood that an action filed under the unfunded mandate statute falls within the ambit of this provision. Actions that do not comply with this claim-filing provision will be dismissed by the court.

III. Analysis of unfunded state mandates imposed on King County.

 

Cost to County

Revenue

Net

Reimbursable Mandates

$13,107,888

$1,187,894

$11,919,994

Mandates Imposed by State Agencies

$584,943

$248,000

$336,943

Non-Reimbursable Mandates

$13,283,914

$0

$13,283,914

Lost Revenues

$4,341,991

$1,300,000

$3,041,991

Total

$31,318,736

$2,735,894

$28,582,842

A preliminary determination of the extent of unfunded state mandates shows that since July 1, 1995, the legislature has imposed at least $13,107,888 worth of new programs and increased levels of services upon King County. State law (RCW 43.135.060) obligates the legislature to fully reimburse the County for these costs; however, to date, the state has provided only $1,187,894 to pay for these programs.2

In addition to those costs that are the state's legal obligation to reimburse, the Budget Office has identified additional costs imposed upon the County by the State. Revised administrative mandates from the state have cost the County $584,943 to comply, of which only $248,000 was reimbursed. Furthermore, several state laws enacted prior to July 1, 1995 continue to impose significant costs upon the county. For example, the laws requiring the County to provide defense services for indigent clients in dependency cases have cost the County at least $13,283,914 since the middle of 1995. Finally, following the passage of Initiative 695 in 1999 the legislature failed to fully replace lost Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues previously available to the County for the purpose of funding criminal justice efforts. The County was forced to cut $4,341,991 of criminal justice services that had been funded by MVET. The legislature provided only $1.3 million worth of mitigation funds, leaving the County with a shortfall of $3,041,991 and without providing the County with alternative sources of funding.

Though not technically an unfunded mandate, the County has been adversely affected over the last few years in the loss of state-sanctioned revenues. This is especially true in the area of criminal justice agencies. In 1991 the legislature passed a sales tax increase specifically set up for local jurisdiction to use for their criminal justice efforts. After almost ten years, the revenues generated by this funding source have been greatly reduced. At the same time, there has certainly been no reduction in the demand for criminal justice services by the residents of King County. In fact, the public has overwhelmingly supported the imposition of additional sanctions on criminals. The County has responded to these demands, and used the additional resources made available by the state in setting up special programs within the courts, the Sheriff's Office and the Office of Prosecuting Attorney to deal with issues such as illegal drug use and domestic violence. However, given the passage of I-695, and the legislature falling far short in making the County whole for the loss of revenue that resulted, the County is left to make hard choices about the prioritization of stagnant revenue streams.

Two other subsets of state-imposed mandates have been included in this report. The first, mandates imposed by state agencies, while not meeting the strict legal definition of a mandate passed on to the County by the legislature, nevertheless have had to be funded by the County. The other, as was mentioned earlier, are the costs of state programs imposed prior to July 1, 1995, such as dependency costs.

A final observation is that few of the mandates imposed by the legislature on the County involve decisions that were within the County's authority to enact. The budget proviso requesting this report contained language asking the Budget Office to "identify whether or not each state mandated program, function or increased level of service is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of King County." After consultations with Council Staff, this provision is being read to ask whether the County could have enacted the program mandated by the legislature.

Most of the unfunded mandates involved programs that are within the exclusive purview of the state. Although Article 11, §11 of the Washington state constitution allows that "[a]ny county, city, town or township may make such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," programs such as district court jurisdiction do not fall within the County's ability to legislate upon. Out of the total of $13.1 million of reimbursable unfunded mandates, only $1.2 million involve decisions that King County could have voluntarily imposed.

    A. Unfunded mandates by type of agency.

 

Cost to County

Revenue

Net

Criminal Justice Agencies

$11,109,917

$722,474

$10,387,443

Non-Criminal Justice Agencies

$1,997,971

$465,420

$1,532,551

Total

$13,107,888

$1,187,894

$11,919,994

Criminal justice agencies have provided the bulk of the unfunded mandates imposed by the state. We have identified a total cost to the County's criminal justice agencies of $11,109,917 in new programs, expanded services and lost revenues as a result of actions by the legislature. Since July 1, 1995, the state has provided only $722,474 to fund these mandates, leaving the County to pick up $10,387,443 in order to meet those obligations imposed by the legislature. Non-criminal justice agencies also were forced to spend $1,997,971 in order to meet legislative mandates while receiving only $465,420 from the state. This left $1,532,551 unfunded by the state for programs and services provided by non-criminal justice agencies.

    B. Unfunded mandates by select policy area.

 

Cost to County

Revenue

Net

Domestic Violence Laws

$3,495,541

$0

$3,495,541

Drug &/or Alcohol Laws

$1,857,054

$0

$1,857,054

Increased Training Time of Sheriff's Recruits

$1,236,060

$0

$1,236,060
Sexual Offenders

$951,963

$73,066

$878,897
Surface Water Standards

$844,000

$254,000

$590,000
Weapons Permits

$946,892

$629,678

$317,214

By policy area the largest expenditures came about as a result of changes in domestic violence laws. The Sheriff's Office, District Court, Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention spent $3,495,541 in order to meet new and expanded statewide domestic violence laws. In addition, the District Court lost a significant funding source in 1995 when the legislature waived the filing fee for domestic violence related protection orders. Holding the filing fee at its pre-1995 level ($20), the lost revenue to the County is $470,880. The legislature provided no funding to meet requirements imposed upon the county.

Changes in the laws affecting the enforcement, adjudication and incarceration of those offenders involved in drug and/or alcohol related cases had a significant affect on county agencies as well. This is especially true of the lowering of the legal blood alcohol level for driving under the influence cases. The jail and courts found $1,857,054 in additional expenses resulting from the legislature's actions in drug and alcohol cases. As with the domestic violence cases, the state provided no additional funding to offset the increased jail time and court cases resulting from their actions.

Next in the order of magnitude was the County's response to new and expanded restrictions and reporting requirements for sexual offenders. In response to more stringent monitoring and public notification requirements for sex offenders imposed by the state legislature, the Sheriff's Office has incurred $951,963 in additional expenses. This has been partially offset by a mere 7.6% ($73,066) the Department has received from the state. The remaining $878,897 is picked up by the County's current expense fund.

Due to the listing of the Puget Sound chinook salmon and bulltrout as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government has significantly increased the requirements for the issuance of permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The state has amended its own Clean Water Act to comply with these federal mandates. The result is that the County Roads Section has seen a large jump in the review and documentation required before the necessary permits can be issued. An early estimate of the fiscal effects of these new mandates indicate that the County Roads Fund will have to absorb an additional $844,000 in costs as a result of these changes. The charges are partially offset by $254,000 in state and federal funding. This leaves a shortfall of $590,000 that will have to be covered by the County Roads Fund.

The final broad policy area within the criminal justice agencies was the more strict and thorough background checks for a variety of weapons permits. The Sheriff's Office has spent $946,892 in order to meet the new state laws. This has been partially offset by the $629,678 the Department is allowed to collect in the form of permit fees from applicants. It should be noted that the county is required to turn over to the state 100% of the permit fees it receives from gun owners and dealers. The state then reapportions some of the $60 fee gun owners pay to the County. However, the state keeps all of the $125 paid by those applying for a dealer's license.

Other large unfunded mandates that were identified include the $1,236,060 in additional expenses the Sheriff's Office incurs as a result of the state almost doubling the amount of time a new recruit must spend in the state-operated police academy before they can become a sworn officer. The legislature broadened the scope of crimes committed by sixteen and seventeen-year olds that are required to be tried as adults, and incarcerated in the County jails. This has forced DAJD to spend $753,900 without compensation from the state.

Finally, expanded public disclosure requirements have resulted in $756,134 in added expense to the Sheriff's Office, while the legislature has not allowed any increases in the cost per sheet the Department can charge, 15 cents per page copied. So, while the much greater demand for law enforcement records has resulted in greater revenues, the $19,730 brought in by the Sheriff's Office accounts for less than 3% of the cost of fulfilling the requests.

IV. Other State Mandates and Lost Revenues Not Covered By Unfunded Mandate Statute

The County undertakes many programs and services that the legislature considers essential, without the state mandating that the county provide them. The legislature does provide some amount of funding to offset the costs of the county's operations. However, the level of state provided funding is often so low as to be inconsequential and the county is left to find the means to operate the program or service entirely on its own. Three examples of the insufficient level of state funding to carry out state programs and services that do not meet the technical requirements of the unfunded mandate legislation are the financing of the treatment of alcoholics, drug addicts and the mentally ill, indigent dependency defense, state administrative code costs and the loss of revenue from I-695.

A look at the financing of the operation of the County's Cedar Hills Treatment Facility is instructive in pointing out how small the state's contributions can be to such programs. The Department of Community and Human Services and Public Health are budgeted to spend $4,395,471 in 2000 to operate the Cedar Hills Treatment Facility. The state provides less than half of the funding necessary to operate the facility, $2,141,651 through four contracts with the County. The remainder is covered by contract with other local governments ($479,724) and County funds ($1,180,628). The contracted number of beds is currently 166; the facility is licensed for 208. If the County were to fill every bed that was licensed, and DCHS officials are confident that there is more than enough demand to do so, costs would be increased to almost $5.5 million. With additional state funding seriously in doubt, the County's share for providing all the treatment services that are currently licensed would be nearly $2.9 million annually.

A limiting factor inherent in the definition of what constitutes an unfunded mandate is the time-frame requirements of the statute. There are innumerable county programs and services that are provided with little or no state funding that are mandated by state laws that took effect prior to July 1, 1995. As a result, these programs are not reimbursable under the unfunded mandate statute and the County is left without legal recourse to compel state funding. An prime example of this is provided by the County's defense of indigent defendants in dependency cases.

The state requires that indigent defendants in dependency cases be provided legal counsel. Welfare of J.D., Matter of, 112 Wn.2d 164, 769 P.2d 291 (1989). This is a significant expense to the County with no offsetting revenue from the state. Over the last five-and-a-half years, the adopted budget for the Office of Public Defense (OPD) to provide these services is $13,283,914. While the mandate from the state to provide these services pre-dates the July 1, 1995 cut-off date, the magnitude of the expense, which is more than the identified reimbursable unfunded mandates, and those mandates imposed by state agencies, warrants its inclusion in this report.

Additionally, administrative code changes imposed by state agencies and boards required the county's expenditure of $584,943 and receipt of only $248,000 in revenues3. It is worth noting that the revenue received by the County was not from the state treasury, but in fact was collected in $8 increments by the fee charged to people applying for food worker certification cards.

Finally, as the result of the passage of Initiative 695, criminal justice agencies in King County were asked to reduce programs and services to meet the $4,341,991 reduction in motor vehicle excise taxes from the state. The projected shortfall in MVET revenue for the year 2001 is $5,339,133. The loss of this revenue constitutes significant reductions in services provided by the criminal justice agencies, and the legislature has only partly replaced the lost MVET revenue. Following the 2000 legislative session, King County received $1.3 million in mitigation funding, less than 30% of the total lost revenues. Regardless of the final allocation of the $1.3 million, it remains a fact that more than 70% of criminal justice services that were funded by MVET must now either be cut, or new funding sources found at the expense of other services and programs.

Unfunded Mandates by Department

It must be emphasized that these departmental costs are preliminary and may be subject to later revision

Department: Department of Assessments
Short Title: Expanded senior citizens/disabled persons property tax exemption.
Session Law: 1995 1st sp. s. c.8.
RCW: 84.36; 84.40
Description: The 1995 state legislature made major changes to the Senior Citizens/Disabled Persons Property Tax Exemption program. This plan allows for a significant reduction in the property tax liability for homeowners who meet the eligibility requirements. The maximum income level for eligibility was increased, the assessed valuation of property was frozen at January 1995 levels (or the year the application was approved) and the costs of certain prescription drugs were made deductible from the reported income level.
As a result of these changes, the Assessor's Office saw a significant jump in workloads and new tasks as more citizens were made eligible for the program. In addition, separate accounting means were established and maintained as the assessed value of property owned by those in the program is frozen and is exempt from subsequent re-evaluations.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $251,132
State Revenues: $113,420
Total Unfunded: $137,712

Department: Department of Development and Environmental Services
Short Title: Mandated timelines for decisions on permit applications.
Session Law: 1995 c.347
RCW: 36.70A
Description: In 1996 the legislature set maximum timelines for county land-use and building application departments to process and make determinations on all land use and building applications. This required additional staff within DDES in order to meet the mandated time requirements. In response to these requirements, DDES hire an additional planner in 1997 and an engineer in 1998.

Within County's authority to enact? Yes.

Total Cost: $167,595
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $167,595

Department: Department of Development and Environmental Services
Short Title: Major review of comprehensive plan.
Session Law: 1997 c.429 §10
RCW: 36.70A.130
Description: The 1998 legislature required counties throughout Washington State to conduct a major review of their comprehensive plans and fully update their plans on a regular basis. In addition, the legislature now requires enhanced public participation throughout the review process.


    To comply with this new requirement, DDES was given the authorization to hire two additional full-time permanent planners.

Within County's authority to enact? Yes.

Total Cost: $230,140
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $230,140

Department: District Court
Short Title: Revising provisions relating to offenses involving alcohol and drugs.
Session Law: 1995 c.332
RCW: 46.20, 46.61, 46.04
Description: Effective September 1, 1995, criminal penalties for driving under the influence were significantly increased and a separate list of penalties was established for convictions of drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.15% and higher.


    After this law took effect the District Court has experienced an increase of nearly one hearing per filing (0.91) in drug and alcohol related cases. Given the number of filings each year, this is the equivalent of 5,000 additional hearings annually. This is equivalent to the full-time workload of one judge and two clerks. Training was required for all District Court judges and non-judicial employees and the cost of printing new forms make up the remainder of these expenses.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $733,352
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $733,352

Department: District Court
Short Title: Changes in domestic violence provisions.
Session Law: 1995 c.246
RCW: 26.5010.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 10.14
Description: Prior to the 1995 legislative session, a $20 filing fee was paid by petitioners seeking a protection order as a result of an incidence of domestic violence. Effective July 23, 1995, that fee was waived by the legislature. Since that time there have been 23,544 protection orders requests filed. This lost revenue is the lion's share of the expense to the County. The additional workload required by the increase in filings required the District Court to seek approval for an additional clerical staff person. The cost of this position is reflected in the "Total Cost" line.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Lost Revenue $470,880
Total Cost: $246,275
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $717,155

Department: District Court
Short Title: Increase in jurisdictional amount for civil cases in District Court. Session Law: 1997 c.246
RCW: 3.66.020
Description: The 1997 legislature raised the limit on the dollar amount claimed by a litigant in a civil filing before a District Court to $35,000. The increased caseload that resulted (3,892 since the effective date of the law) results in a quarter of a judge's available time and a full-time clerk in order to process and adjudicate. The costs associated with this unfunded mandate are staff time and overhead.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $275,382
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $275,382

Department: District Court
Short Title: Limiting deferred prosecutions.
Session Law: 1998 c.208
RCW: 10.05
Description: Previous to 1999, there was no limit on the number of times a person could become eligible for deferred prosecution programs. Effective January 1, 1999 the legislature changed the provisions of the program limiting the accused's eligibility for deferred prosecution to once in his or her lifetime. In addition, the length of time the court must track a deferred prosecution case was increased to three years after receiving proof of the successful completion of a two-year treatment program. This additional tracking time resulted in the cost equivalent of 0.25 FTE.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $30,925
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $30,925

Department: District Court
Short Title: Revisions in criminal history and driving records.
Session Law: 1998 c.211 §5
RCW: 46.61.513
Description: Effective July 1, 1998, before a District Court judge can approve a deferred prosecution agreement, the Court has to verify the defendant's criminal history and driving record. Then, within one day of resolution of the case the Court is required to update the state's criminal justice system with the appropriate conviction information. These new verification standards and quicker turn-around time requires an additional 2.5 FTE's to stay in compliance with the state's mandate.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $284,262
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $284,262

Department: Department of Judicial Administration
Short Title: Domestic violence database implementation.
Session Law: 1995 c.246 §18
RCW: 26.50.160
Description: Beginning July 1, 1997 the state required all County Superior Court Clerks to input data into a state-wide domestic violence data base. This information is used to assist the courts in refraining from issuing protection orders that would be in competition with an order already set-forth by another court and give courts the needed criminal history information for the appropriate issuance of orders.


    Two and a half clerical positions were added in order to meet this mandate.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $445,259
State Revenues: $0 Total Unfunded: $445,259

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center career level certification.
Session Law: 1997 c.351 §10
RCW: 43.101.350 & WAC 139-25-110
Description: The state requires that local law enforcement agencies obtain advanced training certification for all of their executive managers, middle managers and first level supervisors. This training is to take place within 18 months of the officer's promotion. For the King County Sheriff's Office this includes training for all sworn staff with the rank of Sergeant and above. Currently, KCSO is out of compliance with this mandate. The projected costs are for the necessary hours of training required for certification.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $235,800
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $235,800

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Increased academy training hours.
Session Law: 1997 c.351 §13
RCW: RCW 43.101.200
Description: Effective January 1, 2000, the legislature nearly doubled the number of hours of instruction recruits are required to receive at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center Academy in order for their certification as a new public safety officer. The required hours went from 440 to 720. This mandate requires KCSO recruits to spend more time in the Academy, during which they are receiving pay and full benefits from the county. Because of the added delay in filling vacant slots with fully trained deputies, the positions are usually covered by deputies serving at their overtime rate.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $1,236,060
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $1,236,0607

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Changes in found property procedures.
Session Law: 1997 c.237
RCW: 63.21.010, 63.21.030
Description: The 1997 legislature increased the amount of time found property must be held by the Sheriff's Office before it can be disposed of to ninety days. It also required public notification before the property can be considered as truly abandoned. Complying with this mandate resulted in increased costs of storage and public notice.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $48,632
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $48,632

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Domestic violence prevention.
Session Law: 1995 c.246
RCW: 26.50, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 4.24, 10.14, 36.18, 10.31
Description: Numerous changes to state domestic violence laws required operational changes by the Sheriff's Office, and added expenses. Enforcement verification requirements prompted the Sheriff's Office to add an additional Records Technician starting in the summer of 1995 in order to keep track of protection orders and other domestic violence related information. Another new state law increased the amount of domestic violence related training each officer receives. There is now an annual in-service requirement for officers to update their DV training.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $420,311
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $420,311

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Homeless sex offender registration.
Session Law: 1998 c.220 §2; 1995 c.248 §3
RCW: 9A.44.135
Description: The 1998 legislature passed a new law that required the Sheriff's Office to implement more stringent investigation, monitoring, and record keeping for all homeless sex offenders who have been released from custody. All homeless registered sex offenders now must report to the Sheriff's Office at least monthly. Failure to do so results in an automatic increase in the offender's classification level, a measure of the likelihood to re-offend. The state requires that the higher level offenders report on a more regular basis, and once the homeless offenders do find permanent housing, for the Department to notify neighborhoods of the presence of high level registered offenders.


    In response to these new mandates, the Sheriff's Office received authorization in the 2000 budget for an additional detective and a records clerk.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $734,438
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $734,438

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Provide copies of public records.
Session Law: 1995 c.341 §1
RCW: RCW 42.17.260(7)
Description: Public disclosure requirements of all public safety agencies were significantly changed effective July 1, 1995. As a result, the Sheriff's Office has seen a large jump in the number of requests for copies of police reports and other internal, but now public, documents. While the legislature expanded the public disclosure requirements the Sheriff's Office works under, they failed to increase the fee charged to the public (15 cents per page copied) to recoup the expenses incurred by the Department. There are substantial staffing costs associated with these requests including, but not limited to, record retrieval, review for information not subject to disclosure (and especially for material specifically prohibited from public disclosure), and the record keeping associated with these requests.

Within County's authority to enact? Yes.

Total Cost: $775,864
Revenues: $19,730
Total Unfunded: $756,134

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Background checks for firearm licensing and other purposes.
Session Law: 1996 c.295 §6; 1995 v.351 §1
RCW: 9.41
Description: The legislature greatly increased the amount of review and information required of persons applying for gun permits. These included background checks done by the Sheriff's Office from nation-wide databases. This greatly increased the time and workloads of the staff assigned to do the background checks. The resulting cost is for a full-time records clerk doing nothing but gun permit background searches.

Within County's authority to enact? Yes.

Total Cost: $171,032
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $171,032

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Issue concealed pistol licenses and dealer licenses.
Session Law: 1996 c.295 §6; 1995 c.351 §1; 1994 sp.s.c.7 §416
RCW: 9.41
Description: The legislature has placed the burden of doing background checks on those seeking concealed weapons permits and firearms dealer licenses squarely on the shoulders of the various counties' sheriff's offices. All of the intake, data-base searches, record keeping, and issuance of the requested permits in King County is the responsibility of the King County Sheriff's Office. A fee of $125 is charged to dealers seeking a license. These funds are entirely turned over to the state. For concealed weapons permits, the county does get a share of the $60 application fee back from the state.


    The costs associated with this mandate are for additional staffing required in the Records Unit of the Sheriff's Office.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $775,860
Revenues: $629,678
Total Unfunded: $146,182

Department: Sheriff's Office
Short Title: Register convicted sex offenders and kidnappers.
Session Law: 1995 c.268 §3; 1995 c.248; 1995 c.195
RCW: 9A.44.130
Description: In response to public outcry over crimes committed by sex offenders, and kidnappers, released from incarceration, the legislature passed in 1995 a variety of measures requiring such offenders to report to local law enforcement agencies as to their whereabouts and circumstances. In addition, those agencies were required to monitor these offenders on a regular basis and notify the public when the most egregious of the offenders entered into specific neighborhoods. The resulting expenses, with minimal state offset, are for the staff time required to meet the recording, tracking, monitoring and notification requirements imposed by the state.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $217,525
State Revenues: $73,066
Total Unfunded: $144,459

Department: Department of Information and Administrative Services - Licensing and Regulatory Services Division
Short Title: Vehicle license plate replacement requirement.
Session Law: 1997 c.291
RCW: 46.16.233
Description: Effective January 1, 2000, the legislature has mandated that virtually all vehicle license plates must be issued on the standard "Mt. Rainier" background. The exceptions are primarily trucks in excess of 26,000 pounds gross weight and antique cars. In addition, counties are required to replace nearly all of the old style green on white plates with the Mt. Rainier plate.
In order to implement this mandate, the County Vehicle/Vessel licensing operation have had to add the equivalent of 2.0 FTE's to keep track of incoming tab replacements for those with the old style green on white plates, and the subsequent mailing out of new plates. The state does reimburse for the postage costs on mailing the plates to the customer.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $122,190
State Revenues: 98,000
Total Unfunded: $24,190

Department: Public Health
Short Title: Tobacco diversion efforts for minors.
Session Law: 1998 c.133
RCW: RCW 70.155.080
Description: Effective July 1,1998, Public Health was required by the legislature to provide tobacco diversion classes and information to minors who were cited for possession of tobacco products. In response to this mandate, the Department produced cards to be distributed to minors found in possession that warn of the risks of using tobacco, and conducting diversion classes one night a week.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $41,874
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $41,874

Department: Public Health
Short Title: Emergency Medical Technicians required to carry and be trained in the administration of epinephrine.
Session Law: 1999 c.337
RCW: 18.73
Description: The 1999 legislature changed state law to require, as of January 1, 2000, all emergency medical technicians (EMT's) carry and be trained in the use of epinephrine pens. These "epi pens" are used to treat patients who are in anaphylactic shock (severe allergic reactions, most commonly resulting from insect stings). In order to meet these requirements, the Health Department had to develop a curriculum and produce subsequent educational materials for the training of all EMT's working out of the 35 different fire departments throughout the county.

Within County's authority to enact? Yes.

Total Cost: $9,360
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $9,360

Department: Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
Short Title: Changes in drunk driving laws.
Session Law: 1995 c.332
RCW: 46.20, 46.61, 46.04
Description: The 1995 legislature enacted sweeping changes in the state's drunk driving laws. Among these were the consolidation and streamlining of the administrative processes for suspending drivers' licenses, simplifying and increasing the criminal penalties for DUI offenses, reducing judicial discretion in sentencing and criminalizing juvenile DUI's.


    The increase in criminal sanctions for all DUI's, and especially for offenders with multiple convictions had a significant increase to the Jail's misdemeanant population. In 1995 nearly 23% of all misdemeanant jail days were DUI related, and that number has steadily climbed since these new state laws went into effect.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $123,702
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $123,702

Department: Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
Short Title: Changes in domestic violence laws.
Session Law: 1995 c.246
RCW: 26.50, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 4.24, 10.14, 10.31, 36.18
Description: Effective July 1, 1995 a number of changes to the state's domestic violence laws resulted in a significant increase in the demand for the Jail's resources. These new and revised provisions included when and how domestic violence protection orders are issued, and increased the penalty for violating a protection order to a gross misdemeanor which requires significantly more time spent in jail.


    Domestic violence cases accounted for more than 24% of the jail misdemeanant days in 1995, at an average length of stay of 13 days. Increasing the penalty for violating an order to a gross misdemeanor will necessarily lead to an increase in the number of days per stay. In addition, as more protection orders are issued, the number of persons in violation of those orders will also rise. The Jail estimates that these two drivers of jail days have increased their annual misdemeanant days by 4,500 annually since mid-1995.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $1,050,010
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $1,050,010

Department: Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
Short Title: Makes interfering with the report of domestic violence a gross misdemeanor.
Session Law: 1996 c.248
RCW: 9.94A, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 26.50, 10.31, 9A.36
Description: The legislature in 1996 created the gross misdemeanor offense of interfering with the reporting of domestic violence. It also allows judges to impose exceptional sentences under certain conditions, and the new law extends the no-contact orders to include the grounds of a residence, workplace, school or daycare.


    As with other unfunded mandates affecting the jail, this provision increases the number of people in violation of court orders and subject to arrest and incarceration. It also increases their length of stay once they are jailed. The Department estimates an additional 50 to 100 new admissions annually with an average length of stay at 20 days.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $178,800
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $178,000

Department: Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
Short Title: Broadens the scope of crimes committed by 16 and 17 year olds defendants that are automatically brought into the adult criminal justice system.
Session Law: 1997 c.337
RCW: 13.40, 13.50, 9.94A
Description: The Juvenile Justice Act of 1998 greatly increased the number of crimes committed by 16 and 17 year olds that are automatically brought in the adult criminal justice system. This resulted in a jump in the juvenile population held in the adult detention facilities, both pre-trial and post-sentencing. The Jail estimates that they are housing ten juveniles in their facilities on a daily basis, with an average length of stay of those offenders of ninety days. Juveniles held in adult correctional facilities must be completely separated from the general population of the jail. Significant additional costs are incurred by the Jail in meeting these segregation requirements.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $753,900
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $753,900

Department: Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention
Short Title: Major revisions to drunk driving laws.
Session Law: 1998 c.214
RCW: 46.61, 46.65
Description: Thirteen bills related to drunk driving laws passed the legislature in 1998. The one with the biggest effect on the Jail was the changes in the DUI Sentencing Guidelines, among other things, this lowered the blood alcohol level for DUI from 0.10 to 0.08. Many of the other laws were designed to make penalties stricter for DUI offenders and especially repeat DUI offenders. These included mandatory minimum jail time and the mandatory minimum electronic home monitoring time following incarceration being increased from 60 days to 150.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $1,000,000
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $1,000,000

Department: Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Short Title: Changes in domestic violence laws.
Session Law: 1995 c.246
RCW: 26.50, 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 4.24, 10.14, 10.31, 36.18
Description: Effective July 1, 1995 a number of changes to the state's domestic violence laws resulted in a significant increase in the demand for the Prosecuting Attorney's resources. These new and revised provisions included when and how domestic violence protection orders are issued, and increased the penalty for violating a protection order to a gross misdemeanor which requires significantly more time spent by Prosecutors.

Within County's authority to enact? No.

Total Cost: $1,154,886
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $1,154,886

Department: Fleet Administration Division
Short Title: Hazardous Waste Management
Session Law:
RCW:
Description: The state's Hazardous Waste Management Act requires extensive training and knowledge of hazardous materials for workers using these materials. In addition, significantly increased record keeping was required on each chemical used. Products previously used had to be replaced with "safe-type" chemicals, at higher costs. The total cost reflects the required training, increased cost of safe products and staff time to maintain required files.

Within County's authority to enact? No

Total Cost: $78,661
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $78,661

Department: Fleet Administration Division
Short Title: Clean Water Act
Session Law:
RCW:
Description: The State of Washington's Clean Water Act mandates have required Fleet to develop pre-set procedures, and acquire products, for use in cleaning up hazardous waste spills that threaten water supplies. The costs constitute the staff time to develop the procedures, and the purchase of clean up supplies.

Within County's authority to enact? No

Total Cost: $14,442
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $14,442

Department: Fleet Administration Division
Short Title: Hearing conservation.
Session Law:
RCW:
Description: The state requires automotive technicians, and certain other employees, to have annual hearing tests. The cost reflects the employees' work time necessary for taking the tests.

Within County's authority to enact? No

Total Cost: $5,068
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $5,068

Department: Department of Transportation - Roads Services Division
Short Title: Water quality standards.
Session Law:
RCW: RCW 90.48
Description: With the listing of the Puget Sound chinook salmon and bulltrout as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act, the state has amended the state's Clean Water Act. As a result, significantly more stringent requirements for water quality have been imposed on the County's Roads Division for permitting of new projects. The cost of preparing projects by the Engineering Services and Maintenance Sections for permitting has more than doubled.

Within County's authority to enact? No

Total Cost: $844,000
State Revenues: $254,000
Total Unfunded: $590,000

MANDATES IMPOSED BY STATE AGENCIES

Department: Public Health
Short Title: Food Worker Training
Session Law: (RCW § last amended 1993 c.492)
RCW: 43.20.050 - WAC 246-217
Description: Effective January 1, 2000, the Washington State Board of Public Health requires at lease one 30 minute food safety class for all food workers before they can take their test for a new, or renewal, Food Worker Card. Previous to this mandate, the Health Department had food workers come in to a number of remote sites throughout the county, read the booklet on food safety, and take the test.


    As a result of this new food safety class requirement, Public Health has seen a significant increase in the cost of administering the issuance of Food Worker Cards. Curriculum for the class had to be developed, space must be rented to accommodate the classes and trainers and clerical staff are required to teach the classes and keep track of the new recording requirements. The fee charged to the applicants was not raised by the state to offset these added costs, and remains at $8.00 per card.

Total Cost: $488,424
State Revenues: $248,000
Total Unfunded: $240,424

Department: Public Health
Short Title: On-site sewage systems operation and maintenance.
Session Law: (RCW § last amended 1993 c.492)
RCW: 43.20.050 - WAC 246-272
Description: Beginning on January 1, 2000, all counties throughout Washington state are required to implement programs that insure each property owner in their respective county properly operates and maintains their on-site sewage system (septic tanks). At the present, the Health Department is working with the county's Department of Natural Resources' Wastewater Treatment Division to implement this mandate. The first step is to conduct an inventory of the septic systems within King County and then establishing a baseline program to meet these new state requirements. The Department has added two FTE's to comply with this mandate.

Total Cost: $96,519
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $96,519

NON-REIMBURSABLE MANDATES

Department: Office of Public Defense
Short Title: Dependency case hearings.
Description: King County is charged with providing legal services to indigent persons involved in dependency cases. These cases are those that involve a question as to the dependency of a minor child. The Office of Public Defense is required by the state to provide counsel to the parent, guardian or legal custodian of the child in question at all stages of the proceedings.

Total Cost: $13,283,914
State Revenues: $0
Total Unfunded: $13,283,914