Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023/03/06 - Briefing Packet MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING INFORMATION FOR THE WEEK OF March 6, 2023 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. Cou. �A+ t 1854 Commission meetings are live streamed at http://www.masonwebtv.com/ and public commented is accepted via email msmith@masoncountywa.gov; mail to Commissioners Office, 411 N 5th Street, Shelton, WA 98584; or phone at (360) 427-9670 ext. 419. If you need to listen to the Commission meeting via telephone, please provide your telephone number to the Commissioners’ office no later than 4 p.m. the Friday before the meeting. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Commissioners' office at Shelton (360) 427-9670 ext. 419 Briefing Agendas are subject to change, please contact the Commissioners’ office for the most recent version. Last printed 03/03/23 at 9:04 AM BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DRAFT BRIEFING MEETING AGENDA 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584 Week of March 6, 2023 Monday Noon WA State Association of Counties Zoom Meeting* Virtual Assembly *This is being noticed as a Special Commission meeting because a quorum of the Mason County Commission may attend this event and notification is provided per Mason County Code Chapter 2.88.020 - Special Meetings. Monday, March 6, 2023 Commission Chambers Times are subject to change, depending on the amount of business presented 9:00 A.M. Closed Session – RCW 42.30.140(4) Labor Discussion 10:00 A.M. Community Lifeline – Chriss Brickert 10:10 A.M. Support Services – Mark Neary 10:30 A.M. Community Development – Kell Rowen 10:35 A.M. Public Works – Loretta Swanson Utilities & Waste Management 10:50 A.M. District Court – Judge Steele Commissioner Discussion – as needed https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=yQ08CVqFVEaBVDu8JMTbfpGtuvTE2K BHnCNTU6CApPlURUM3ODJRTjdRNDZIODA4RVhTRUJTV0JSVy4u Requesting Entity Information The requesting entity is the name of the entity that will be the ultimate recipient of any CDS funding and the agent responsible for executing those funds for their proposed purposes. If you are a third party submitting on behalf of the requesting entity, please provide the requesting entity's information below, i.e., not your own or that of another party. 1.Requesting Entity Name Community Lifeline of Mason County 2.Requesting Entity City Shelton 3.Requesting Entity County Mason 4.Requesting Entity Mailing Address 218 North 3rd Street, Shelton WA 98584 5.Requesting Entity Point of Contact (POC) Athena Ayres 6.Requesting Entity POC Email Address communitylifelineed@gmail.com 7.Requesting Entity POC Phone Number (xxx-xxx-xxxx) 360-229-1039 8.Requesting Entity Employer Identification Number (EIN) 46-4731341 9.(If Applicable) Please enter the name and affiliation of any third party consultant(s)--i.e., a lobbyist or government relations professional--who assisted your organization in developing the FY24 CDS request, or who may otherwise advocate for the request on your organization's behalf. None 10.Relevant Appropriations Subcommittee Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Financial Services and General Government Homeland Security Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Unknown The subcommittee will not fund CDS requests for operational expenses or administrative salaries and benefits. The CDS item must have a reasonable expectation of being obligated before funds expire. 11.Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies - Eligible Accounts Economic Development Initiative 12.(If applicable) Please provide a link to the project website below N/A 13.(If applicable) Please provide a link to the relevant Airport Master Plan/STIP/TIP/State Rail Plan N/A 14.(If applicable) Please enter the name of the project as it appears on the relevant STIP/TIP/State Rail Plan N/A 15.(EDI Only) Please describe how the request aligns with the three National Objectives of the broader Community Development Block Grant program--1) to benefit low- and moderate-income communities; 2) to prevent or eliminate blight; and/or 3) to address urgent community needs. This request meets all three National Objectives of the Community Development Block Grant program. 1. Benefit low- and moderate-income communities: By the nature of our work, all of the adults we serve are defined as low- to moderate-income because they are experiencing homelessness at the time services are provided. Additionally, 49% of our 2022 guests who voluntarily answered income intake questions reported no income (a 22% increase from 2021), while an additional 17% reported making less than $10,000/year. Only 13% were over the age of 62, making the vast majority ineligible for non-disability Social Security retirement benefits. 2. Prevent or eliminate blight: More than half of CLL’s 2022 guests reported their immediate prior living situation as a place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle, an abandoned building, bus/train/subway station/airport or anywhere outside). Not only is providing safe and dignified shelter the correct thing to do to meet the needs of unhoused individuals, but it also reduces issues related to people sleeping on the street or in tent encampments. 3. Address urgent community needs: According to the Point-In-Time Count, there were 238 people experiencing homelessness in Mason County in 2022. CLL provided services to 200 unduplicated individuals last year, or more than 84% of the official count. CLL is the only emergency shelter for individual adults in Mason County. With a current capacity of only 35 beds, CLL and in turn Mason County remain underprepared to meet the needs of its unhoused residents. This project would provide emergency overnight shelter for 60 occupants, increasing the County bed capacity by over 70%. Additionally, the proposed micro shelter units will provide each occupant with privacy and security, increasing overall participant and staff safety and eliminating common issues faced in congregate shelter settings. 16.Project Name Micro Shelter Village to Address Homelessness in Mason County 17.Amount of Funding Sought $1,239,278.02 18.Problem/Issue Statement Please provide a brief description of the problem or issue that the project aims to address Community Lifeline of Mason County is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit agency providing low-barrier emergency shelter and stability, meals, hot showers, clothing, case management, peer support, job training, education, advocacy and resource connection for individual adults who are in need with all services leading to pathways toward permanent housing. We are the only emergency shelter open to all individual adults without children in Mason County. Our mission is to end homelessness with empathy, compassion and permanent housing solutions. CLL currently operates in a two-story, approximately 7,000 sq.ft former Masonic temple originally dedicated in 1925 and located at 218 North Third Street in Shelton, Washington. The site has provided shelter and services to individuals experiencing homelessness since 1992 under a series of Conditional Use Permits from the City of Shelton. The existing building contains a small commercial kitchen for meal preparation, first-floor meeting area for our Recovery Cafe meetings, second-floor open sleeping rooms with a total of 35 beds, restrooms, offices and storage rooms. Though fire alarms, fire sprinklers, additional exits and other improvements have been added over time to improve overall safety, occupants with mobility limitations are limited to the first floor due to the building’s lack of elevator. The overall condition of the building is poor. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent increase in need for year-round shelter and support services forced our Board and leadership to accelerate plans for a new approach. Despite our numerous attempts at increasing capacity over the past three years, we are continually limited by the building’s floor plan and age. We simply cannot safely shelter a meaningfully larger number of people a night than we already do. Facilities upgrades to bring our existing building into current building codes compliance would be prohibitively expensive including seismic, energy and accessibility codes. Any renovations to the facility would be further complicated by its designation as a historical building. It would be both cheaper and easier to build on a new site than to renovate our current building. While researching potential new locations and building construction costs, we came across the micro shelter strategy, in which individual shelter units are placed in a “village” layout with additional outbuildings housing bathroom/hygiene facilities, a dining hall, and private offices for staff and client meetings. There are dozens of such micro shelter villages across the country, including 10 already operating in Washington State. We believe the micro shelter strategy is a perfect fit for us because it would allow us to shelter a large amount of people for a fraction of the cost and time required to acquire or renovate a comparative congregate shelter. For example, micro shelter units typically cost less than $10,000 each and can be assembled in a matter of hours. We cannot overstate the value of safe overnight shelter -- and associated on-site services -- for those we serve, the vast majority of whom have co-existing conditions that make self-sufficiency especially challenging. Before coming to CLL last year, 44% of guests reported being in their last living situation for less than 90 days, with more than half (53%) reporting living in a vehicle, abandoned building, outside, or someplace else not fit for habitation. In addition to being often chronically unhoused, the majority of our clients struggle with mental and physical health issues, substance abuse and a history of trauma. More than two-thirds of our clients report having a disability, 36% suffer from at least one chronic health condition, 53% report having a mental health condition, and 40% admit to having an alcohol or substance use disorder or both. On the spectrum of case management, our clients as a whole are remarkably complex, requiring additional time to identify and properly address all barriers to full health and self-sufficiency. It is nearly impossible for anyone, let alone our clients, to focus on recovery and permanent housing solutions when they are worried about where they will sleep that night. 19.Project Goals and Results Please describe the project's goals and results and how the project will be evaluated Our goals for this project include: 1. Increase the number of emergency overnight beds for single adults in Mason County from 35 to 60 by purchasing and installing 30 micro shelter sleeping units, bathrooms, dining area, and service offices in Shelton. 2. Greatly reduce the time and expense to our organization of a traditional facility buildout by utilizing the proven strategy of a micro shelter village. Anticipated project results: 1. Completing this project will allow us to increase the emergency overnight shelter bed capacity for the entire county by more than 70%. Benefits of the micro shelter model include more privacy and security for our guests, increased safety for our staff, and less risk of spreading communal diseases such as COVID-19, influenza, bedbugs, lice, scabies and MRSA. In addition to safe shelter, all occupants will be offered low-barrier case management services focused on overcoming barriers, addressing mental and physical health challenges, gaining steady income, and finding permanent housing solutions. Guests will also be welcome to participate in our existing Recovery Cafe program, which supports participants on their journey away from substance abuse and toward self-acceptance and healing. 2. Once funding is secured, CLL will purchase and rapidly install the micro shelter units, reducing the estimated timeline for a new shelter solution from multiple years to only a few months. This will eliminate the need for us to bring our existing 98-year-old building up to code, saving us potentially millions of dollars in predicted and unforeseeable construction costs that often accompany renovations of such scale and complexity. Evaluating progress: Community Lifeline tracks organizational success using the Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) data system. Clients are entered into the HMIS system upon entering our shelter and all services are tracked throughout their stay. Upon leaving an exit interview is conducted with each client to include information about where clients are exiting shelter to. This data is pulled each month to review success rates in finding permanent housing for shelter guests, track how many hours of services per client were provided, and record client demographics and active shelter participation. The number of clients permanently housed is announced and celebrated in each monthly Board meeting as well as in staff meetings. 20.Project Justification Please provide a justification as to why the project should be included as part of Senator Murray's FY24 Appropriations Request We believe Senator Murray should support our proposal because the investment will have an immediate, direct and measurable impact on hundreds of unhoused citizens in Mason County. CLL is Mason County’s only emergency shelter open to all single adults. The services we provide are absolutely critical, and are only becoming more so. Mason County’s unhoused population has unfortunately exploded since the pandemic. In 2019 and 2020, the count was steady with roughly 175 unhoused people in Mason County. At the time of the next count in 2022, that number had jumped 33% to 238. Preliminary numbers for the 2023 count now indicate a complete doubling to 477. Meanwhile, local housing stock remains dismally low, often requiring a five-year wait for permanent housing. CLL operates a true low-barrier shelter in which ALL are welcome regardless of income, criminal history, substance use, disability, or any legally protected status. We also do not make services conditional on the client’s acceptance of case management or any of our other programs. The only time we ask someone to leave is if they present an obvious safety risk to themselves or others. Beyond a safe place to sleep, CLL also provides essential case management services for our overnight guests and other residents in need. Since hiring our first case manager in 2020, we have nearly tripled the number of exits to permanent housing for CLL guests in less than three years. The reason one agency can have such an outsized impact is due largely to the makeup of Mason County itself. Mason County (pop. 67,600) is home to less than 100 people per square mile, with Shelton being its only incorporated city. In such a rural area, it can be a struggle to obtain services related to daily living such as transportation, medical care, affordable housing and access to healthy food. CLL provides an important social safety net for those who would otherwise fall through the cracks. CLL enjoys the full support and backing of the City of Shelton and Mason County for this project. We have partnered with local officials to identify the most ideal location for our future micro shelter village, a process which is still ongoing as of this application’s submission date. The City has committed to leasing CLL the final agreed-upon site for a nominal amount, greatly reducing acquisition costs and allowing us to use future organizational funding for direct programming costs. The City’s support of this particular project is crucial in light of the rapidly evolving funding landscape CLL finds itself in. During the pandemic, an emphasis was placed on immediate shelter and services for unhoused individuals, with a flood of public and private grants to meet the immense need. Now, with the National and Public Health Emergency declarations set to expire in May, funders have made an about-face on the kinds of programs eligible for funding. Mason County Public Health and Human Services recently announced that only 21% of the new budget will be designated for temporary housing interventions or emergency shelter. The vast majority of funding will be allotted to permanent housing, a shift we have also observed among private funders. To be clear, CLL wholeheartedly agrees that Mason County is in desperate need of more permanent housing! But increasing the County’s housing stock will take years, and in the meantime the number of unhoused residents continues to grow unabated due to rising housing costs and record inflation. Put simply, without the swift completion of this project, Mason County’s emergency homelessness response system will be at great risk of crumbling. The people who come to our door every day are in immediate need of shelter, support and intense wraparound services to address a myriad of issues before they can even think about applying for permanent housing and all that process entails. The benefits of the low-barrier emergency shelter and services CLL provides will be ignored at our community’s peril. 21.Project Budget Please provide a detailed breakdown of the total budget of the project and the elements you seek to apply the requested funding towards Cost of Pallet brand micro shelter units: 2-Occupant 64 sq. ft Shelter, .5" Insulated - $7,495.00 (x30) = $224,850.00 120v Electrical Kit w/ 1500w Heater $1,299.00 (x30) = $38,970.00 Air Conditioner and Install Kit - $399.00 (x30) = $11,970.00 Folding Bunk Bed - $349.00 (x60) = $20,940.00 Custom Fit Mattress Pad - $299.00 (x60) = $17,940.00 Assembly Services for Shelter Units - $900.00 (x30) = $27,000.00 2 Stall Accessible Bathroom Unit (1 Full Bath, 1 Admin Half Bath) - $42,995.00 (x1) = $42,995.00 2 Stall Bathroom Unit (Toilet, Shower, Sink in Each) - $44,995.00 (x1) = $44,995.00 400 sq. ft Shelter Dining/Common Area - $39,999.00 (x1) = $39,999.00 Assembly Services for Shelter Dining/Recovery Cafe Area - $4,000.00 (x1) = $4,000.00 Subtotal - $473,659.00 Tax - $43,618.02 Shipping and Handling - $22,000.00 Pallet Grand Total - $539,277.02 Cost of standalone modular guest support services/administrative space: $200,000 (estimated) Cost of infrastructure installation/upgrades to site: $500,000 (estimated) - Including electricity, water, sewer, utilities, etc. Cost to lease land from the City of Shelton: $1 Total Project Budget: $1,239,278.02 Total requested in this application: $1,239,278.02 22.Additional Sources of Funding Please detail any additional sources of funding for the project CLL intends to fund any outstanding capital costs using proceeds from the sale of our existing building. A formal appraisal has not yet been conducted. 23.Please list any members of Senator Murray's staff that you interacted with in the course of preparing and/or submitting this request None? Submission of a request that meets the requirements of this form as well as any subsequent requirements that may be promulgated by the Office of Senator Patty Murray or the Senate Committee on Appropriations does not guarantee the award of federal funding and/or the support of Senator Murray. I acknowledge on behalf of the requesting entity 25.This request and any information submitted in support of it may be made public in part or in their entirety. I acknowledge on behalf of the requesting entity 26.The requesting entity will comply with any request presented to them by the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General of a federal agency, Congress, or any other federal entity performing an audit, investigation, or oversight function. I affirm on behalf of the requesting entity 27.Any funding award associated with this request does not guarantee support or funding in future fiscal years. I acknowledge on behalf of the requesting entity North Mason Regional Fire Authority | PO Box 277 Belfair, WA 98528 | (360) 275-6771 | northmasonrfa.com Dear Senator Murray, This letter is to express my full support for the Pallet Shelter Village project you are considering in Shelton, WA. The Pallet Shelter Village will support unsheltered individuals in our community. The proposed Pallet Shelter Village would house 60 people in private, dignified cabin shelters and offer full bathrooms (with flushing toilets and showers), community, and office space. Wrap-around supportive services will also be provided to support individuals' physical and mental well-being, access to healthcare, counseling, and job training. In addition, this program would provide recovery services through the Recovery Café of Mason County. As the North Mason Regional Fire Authority Chief, I have seen firsthand the positive impact programs like this can have to end unsheltered homelessness. Pallet Shelter has over 100 communities across the United States, sheltering and supporting people experiencing homelessness. Pallet, the manufacturing company, is headquartered in Everett, WA. Community Lifeline of Mason County, the service provider for this program, has ample experience in this community and managing 24/7, year-round, low-barrier em ergency shelter programs. Since becoming a nonprofit in 2014, Community Lifeline has worked to provide stability, meals, hot showers, clothing, case management, peer support, job training, education, advocacy, and resource connection for individual adults in need, with all services leading to pathways toward permanent housing. Currently, Community Lifeline of Mason County is the only emergency shelter open to all individual adults without children in Mason County, which is a congregate shelter model with 35 beds. There is a tremendous need for more homelessness services in Mason County. As housing costs and inflation continue to soar, more and more of our community members are at risk of becoming homeless. We are experiencing an unprecedented affordability crisis, and now, more than ever, it is critical that we advance bold solutions to support our most vulnerable residents. I believe this program will make a significant difference in the lives of the people it serves. This funding will support Mason County's unhoused population, making a tangible difference in ending homelessness in our community. I appreciate your consideration for this project, which I wholeheartedly endorse. Sincerely, Beau Bakken Fire Chief, North Mason Regional Fire Authority r Mason County Administrator 411 N 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 419 Mason County Commissioner Briefing Items from County Administrator March 6, 2023 Specific Items for Review Parks and Trails Advisory Board applicant follow up—John Taylor County Administrator's level of authority—Mark Neary North Mason Fire Authority building lease and use of building—Mark Neary Letter of support for Foreign-Trade Zone request—Mark Neary Administrator Updates Commissioner Discussion Narcan distribution/RCORP funding—Cmmr. Shutty Broadband Action Team—Cmmr. Shutty Commissioner calendar updates for the week of March 7—24,2023 r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: John Taylor Ext. 806 Department: Parks&Trails Briefing: Action Agenda: ❑ Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): February 27,2023 Agenda Date: Click or tap here to enter text. Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• Applicant for Parks Advisory Board Background/Executive Summary: The Parks&Trails Advisory Board consists of seven-members serving four-year terms with one alternate and is appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Every effort is made to fill the Board with two members from each of the three Commission districts with one"at-large"member. The purpose of the Mason County Parks &Trails Advisory Board is to provide guidance, direction, and recommendations regarding the planning, acquisition,developments, and operations of parks,trails, facilities, and programs serving the needs of Mason County. Currently there is one member is District 1,two members in District 2, and one member in District 3. Dennis Hamilton has applied to be on the Parks Advisory Board and is in District 2 and is not a member of the Salmon Advisory Board. Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): None Public Outreach(news release, community meeting, etc.): N/A Requested Action: On review of the application,would the Board like to interview or appoint the candidate? Attachments: Application HEcF.IVED MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EB 1 5 M3 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET SHELTON WA 98584 Mason County Fax 360-427-8437, Voice 360-427-9670, Ext. 419;275-4467 or 482-5269 Commis:.iunerS I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO NAME: ADDRESS. C 2I y VOTING P ECINCT: WORK PHONE: � (OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LNE) E-MAIL. -------------------------__________________________________________________________ COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT::QE RETIRED. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE) / (p{dNIT OR�yEMB�,RSHIPS) - COMPANY: -1YRS � ,��� / POSITION: ��W�</"���/fT//C� COMPANY: g41#11i �SfiC/ 41 C ,`'YRS POSITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your words,what do you percei is the rol or purpo of the Boar , Committee o Cou 'I fo0w�h ypu are apply; : iv 5p; p Oc Ol iL nteres kills do you,wish tp�ff¢r,the B Committee,or Council? �Jir'7/A� ti Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board: (i.e.create a potential conflict of interest) Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours (such as Open Public Meetings A Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be able to attend such trainings? ¢ Realistically,how much me can you a this position? Qua � Daily Office Use Only Appointment Date gnature /Dale Term Expire Date r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Mark Neary Ext. 530 Department: County Administrator Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): March 6,2023 Agenda Date: March 14,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ® Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• Amending Resolution 2022-033 County Administrator's Level of Authority Backuround/Executive Summary: To further improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Commissioners' office, staff is recommending amending the level of authority the County Administrator has to carry out the policies and projects approved by the County Commissioners. Providing this authority to the Administrator creates a more efficient process and the Administrator will provide progress reports in public briefings. From the amended Resolution: "...this approving and signature authority includes,but is not limited to,contracts and contract extensions $50,000 and under if expenditure authority exists within the adopted budget;budgeted motor pool business; budgetary documents to carry out the adopted budget;requests to fill vacant budgeted positions;temporary higher class/lead pay requests that do not require a budget adjustment;urgent news releases;updating procedures;documents to correct scrivener's error;credit card program documents; documents from the WA State Liquor and Cannabis Board; letters of support that have no budget impact and other duties as assigned." Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): N/A Public Outreach(news release, community meeting,etc.): N/A Requested Action: Approval of the Resolution amending the level of authority the County Administrator has to carry out policies and projects approved by County Commissioners to create a more efficient process. Attachments: Resolution Resolution A Resolution Amending Resolution 2022-033, County Administrator's Level of Authority WHEREAS,the County Administrator position is-established in Mason County Code Chapter 2.06; effeetiye-Bess of ee err.,g nt and impFeve ed etiyity; r WHEREAS, duties of the County Administrator include ensuring that policies and projects approved by the County Commissioners are fully implemented, and presenting policy alternatives and analysis to the Commissioners for consideration; WHEREAS,the County Administrator position was filled in 2021 and Resolution 2022-033 was adopted detailing the level of authority for this position; WHEREAS,to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of county government,the authority of the County Administrator needs to be expanded as follows; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the County Commissioners to grant the County Administrator the day-to-day responsibility and authority to approve and sign a variety of documents to carry out the mission of the Commissioners. The County Administrator will provide progress reports to the County Commissioners in public briefings; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approving and signature authority includes, but is not limited to, contracts and contract extensions der$50,000 and under if expenditure authority exists within the adopted budget; r .ptra,.+S ^^d ntFaet ^x+^^.-i^^s that ",,,^ ^^ budget i +; budgeted motor pool business that is budge ; budgetary documents to carry out the adopted budget; requests to fill vacant budgeted positions;temporary higher class/lead pay requests that do not require a budget adjustment; urgent news releases, updating procedures;documents to correct scrivener's error; credit card program documents; documents from the WA State Liquor and Cannabis Board; letters of support that have no budget impact-and other duties as assigned. Dated this of , 2023-2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board Kevin Slhuftty_Sharon Trask, Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Shalren sk Kevin Shutty, Commissioner Tim Whitehead, Randy Neatherlin, Commissioner Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney C:\Users\MSmith\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\8PXBJRCN\Administrator Responsibilities- amended.dou r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Mark Neary Ext. 530 Department: Support Services Briefing: Z Action Agenda: Z Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): February 27,2023 Agenda Date: February 28,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• Foreign-Trade Zone(FTZ)Application by Port of Port Angeles Background/Executive Summary: The Port of Port Angeles applied to the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones(FTZ)Board for authority to use a new procedure called the"Alternative Site Framework"to provide quick and simple access to FTZ service for companies in the region. The Port of Port Angeles is the grantee of FTZ Clallam County/North Olympic Peninsula and sponsors a limited number of FTZ sites. This authority would allow the Port of Port Angeles to quickly bring FTZ designation to any company within the proposed service area of Clallam County, Grays Harbor County, Island County,Jefferson County,Kitsap County,Mason County, San Juan County, Skagit County, and Snohomish County. Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): None Public Outreach(news release, community meeting, etc.): N/A Requested Action: Approval to sign the letter of support for the Port of Port Angeles' application for a Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ)in the proposed service area of Clallam County/North Olympic Peninsula. Attachments: Letters %wilm- P.O.Box 1350 Board of Commissioners 338 West First Street Connie Beauvais,President p" PORT Port Angeles WA 98362 Colleen McAleer,Vice President Owlika of Port Angeles 360.457.8527 Steven Burke,Secretary PortofPA.COm Executive Director Geoff James February 22, 2023 Mason County VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL Attn: Board of County Commissioners 411 N. 5th Street Shelton,WA 98584 randyN@masoncountywa.gov; kshutty@masoncountywa.gov;strask@masoncountywa.gov RE: Foreign-Trade Zone(FTZ)application by Port of Port Angeles This letter is intended to provide information to you pertaining to the Port of Port Angeles' application to the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones(FTZ)Board for authority to use a new procedure(the"Alternative Site Framework")to provide quick and simple access to FTZ service for companies in our region. Our organization is the grantee of FTZ Clallam County/North Olympic Peninsula and currently sponsors a limited number of FTZ sites in our region. The authority we are requesting from the FTZ Board would enable us to quickly bring FTZ designation to any company within our proposed "service area." Our proposed service area includes Mason County as well as Clallam County, Jefferson County,Grays Harbor County,Island County,Kitsap County,San Juan County,Skagit County,and Snohomish County. FTZ designation can provide companies with customs duty savings and logistical benefits that can help encourage them to establish or maintain operations in the U.S. As such, access to FTZ benefits can be an important tool in economic development efforts. If the FTZ Board approves our application, Port of Port Angeles will be able to bring FTZ designation to companies anywhere in the proposed service area based on those companies' trade-related needs. We also note that FTZ access will be made available on a uniform basis to companies across the service area, in a manner consistent with the legal requirement that each FTZ be operated as a public utility. Regarding any local taxes for which collections may be affected by FTZ designation of sites, FTZ Clallam County/North Olympic Peninsula application to establish its "service area" under the Alternative Site Framework does not propose any specific new FTZ sites(and therefore can have no impact on tax collections). At the time that any specific new site is proposed for FTZ designation in the future,we will contact parties potentially affected by the site's proposed designation (such as the county government)so that they can indicate their views on the impact on tax collections related to the proposed designation. If you have questions about the Port of Port Angeles'application to the FTZ Board, please contact Caleb McMahon at Port of Port Angeles at calebM@portofpa.com. If you have comments you would like the FTZ Board to consider regarding the proposed inclusion of Mason County in the proposed service area of FTZ Clallam County/North Olympic Peninsula, please provide your comments to the staff of the FTZ Board by March 20,2023. The FTZ Board staff also welcomes any questions you may have—the staff can be reached at 202-482-2862 or ftz@trade.gov The Port would appreciate your support of this FTZ in our region. We have included a support letter example. If you could please send a support letter to my email by March 1, 2023,we would appreciate it. Sincerely, Caleb McMahon, Director of Economic Development Port of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1350, Port Angeles,WA 98362 360-417-3366 desk Calebm@portofpa.com K P.O.Box 1350 Board of Commissioners 338 West First Street Connie Beauvais,President Iff Port Angeles Colleen McAleer,Vice President PORT Washington 98362 Steven Burke,secretary of Port Angeles 360.457.8527 Executive Director Geoff James February 22, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: The Port of Port Angeles is applying for a Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) in Clallam County. Clallam County doesn't have an FTZ. We have attached our information letter to you of this exciting opportunity for our region. The Port would appreciate your support. We have provided a sample support letter,which you can customize and return to us to be included with the Port's application. If you have any questions, please contact me at 360-417-3366. Sincerely, Caleb McMahon Caleb McMahon, Director of Economic Development Port of Port Angeles P.O. Box 1350 Port Angeles, WA 98362 360-417-3366 Calebm@portofpa.com WE BRING PEOPLE, RESOURCES AND INDUSTRY TOGETHER TO FOSTER LIVING WAGE JOBS www.portofpa.com a� February 28,2023 Foreign-Trade Zones Board 1854 U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Room 21013 Washington,DC 20230 MASON COUNTY BOARD Re: Foreign-Trade Zone(FTZ)Application by Port of Port Angeles OF COMMISSIONERS To Whom It May Concern, 1ST District The purpose of this letter is to document Mason County's support of the Port of Port RANDY NEATHERLIN Angeles' application to the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ)Board for authority to use the"Alternative Site Framework"to provide access to FTZ service for companies in our 2"d District region. Authority from the FTZ Board would enable the Port of Port Angeles to quickly KEVIN SHUTTY bring FTZ designation to any company within the proposed service area of Clallam County, Grays Harbor County,Island County,Jefferson County,Kitsap County,Mason 3rd District County, San Juan County, Skagit County, and Snohomish County. SHARON TRASK FTZ designation can provide companies with customs duty savings and logistical benefits that can help encourage them to establish or maintain operations in the U.S. As such, access to FTZ benefits can be an important tool in economic development efforts. If Mason County Building 1 approved,the Port of Port Angeles will be able to bring FTZ designation to companies anywhere in the proposed service area based on those companies' trade-related needs. We 411 North Fifth Street also note that FTZ access will be made available on a uniform basis to companies across the service area, in a manner consistent with the legal requirement that each FTZ be Shelton,WA 98584-3400 operated as a public utility. (360)427-9670 ext. 419 Regarding state or local taxes for which collections may be affected by FTZ designation of sites,this letter is not intended to provide a position on state or local tax issues for any Fax(360)427-8437 site within this jurisdiction. At the time that any specific site is proposed for FTZ designation,parties potentially affected by the site's proposed designation(such as a local school board)will need to provide their own correspondence indicating their views on the impact on tax collections related to the proposed designation. Sincerely, Sharon Trask, Randy Neatherlin, Kevin Shutty, Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner r� Mason County Community Development Briefing March 6, 2023 Briefing Items Parcel rezone from Rural Residential 5 to Rural Commercial 2 —Marissa Watson r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Marissa Watson Ext. 367 Department Community Development: Briefing: Action Agenda: ❑ Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): March 6,2023 Agenda Date: March 14,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Other (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• Rezone of Parcels 22129-34-90002,22129-34-90003, and 22129-34-90004 from Rural Residential 5 (RR5)to Rural Commercial 2 (RC2) Backuround/Executive Summary: Rezone three parcels,22129-34-90004,22129-34-90003,and 22129-34-90002,from Rural Residential 5 to Rural Commercial 2. These parcels are in the Rural Development Areas close to the Spencer Lake Hamlet. This request does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. If the request is approved the applicant intends to apply for a special use permit to expand his self-storage business that is adjacent to the subject parcels. The approximate acreage requested for rezone is 5.91 acres. The applicant,Alfred W. Jones, owns an additional 8 acres to the north of the subject parcels,this acreage is zoned Rural Commercial 2. The acreage is the site of the applicant's self-storage business that has existed in some form since the early 1990s, prior to the implementation of land use designations and zoning within the County. The applicant recently expanded the business on the existing RC2 acreage. Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): N/A Public Outreach(news release, community meeting,etc.): The public hearing with the PAC on 02.27.23 was advertised in the Mason Shelton Journal on February 16, 2023 and February 23,2023.This meeting of the BOCC to brief was advertised on the home page of the Mason County website and subsequent requests for action will also be advertised on the home page under the corresponding agenda. Requested Action: Approval to set a Public Hearing to consider the rezone of parcels 22129-34-90002,22129-34-90003,and 22129-34-90004 from Rural Residential 5 (RR5)to Rural Commercial 2(RC2). Attachments: Map with subject parcels(current zoning) Mason County WA GIS Web Map Ilk 4 1 fi OF • I - 2/7/2023, 10:26:35 AM 1:3,068 0 0.03 0.05 0.1 mi L_J County Boundary Rural Residential 2.5 Acres 0 0.04 0.08 0.16 km ❑ No Filled Rural Residential 5 Acres ❑ Tax Parcels(Zoom in to 1:30,000) Rural Residential 10 Acres Rural Zoning Rural Residential 20 Acres Source:Esri,Maxar,Earthstar Geographics,and the GIS User Community Rural Multi Family Agricultural Resource Lands Inholding Lands Mason County WA GIS Web Map Application Maxar I NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will hold a public hearing in Mason County Building I,Commission Chambers,411 North Fifth Street,Shelton, WA 98584 on April 11,2023 at 9a. SAID HEARING will be to take public comment on Alfred W. Jones' request for rezone of three parcels, 22129-34-90002, 22129-34-90003, and 22129-34-90004, from Rural Residential 5 (RR5)to Rural Commercial 2 (RC2). Public testimony will be available in-person or via Zoom. The URL is available on the County website hM2s://www.masoncogptywa.gov/ to sign into the meeting. Please use the "raise hand" feature to be recognized by the Chair to provide your testimony. You can also email testimony to msmithkmasoncounWya.gov or mail to the Commissioners' Office, 411 N 5t' St, Shelton, WA 98584; or call(360)427-9670 ext. 230. If special accommodations are needed,please contact the Commissioners' office, (360) 427- 9670 ext. 419. DATED this 14th day of March, 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board Bill: Community Development Department 615 W. Alder Street Shelton,Wa 98584 Cc: Commissioners Shelton Journal: Publ. 2t: March 23, 2023 &March 30,2023 -� MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONER BRIEFING MARCH 6, 2023 Action Items• News Release: 2023 Day of Caring—Free Dump Vouchers Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Applications: o New appointments: Sharon Trask, Thomas Duffield and Tessa Halloran o Re-appointments: Lynda Links, Delroy Cox, and Chad White Establish County Road Project(CRP #2046) Bear Creek Dewatto Road Improvement project MP 0.43 to MP 1.02 Establish County Road Project(CRP #2047) Skokomish Valley Road Reconstruction project MP 3.80 to MP 4.60 Discussion Items: Commissioner Follow-Up Items: UpcominjZ Calendar/Action Items: coU��� NEWS RELEASE March 14, 2023 - - MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE 1854 ` 411 N 5TH ST, BLDG 1, SHELTON,WA 98584 TO: KMAS, KRXY, SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, THE OLYMPIAN, SHELTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,NORTH MASON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CITY OF SHELTON, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, THE SUN RE: 2023 Days of Caring—Free Dump Vouchers In partnership with Mason County Public Works and Republic Services, United Way of Mason County and Youth Connections of Belfair will be handing out vouchers for the 2023 Days of Caring. Starting March 15, 2023, vouchers will be available at the following locations on a first come first serve basis: United Way of Mason County's office is available Monday — Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at 536 W Railroad Avenue, Shelton, WA 98584 (300 vouchers available). Youth Connection of Belfair's office is available Monday—Friday from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 23299 NE Highway 3, Belfair, WA 98528 (150 vouchers available for Belfair and North Mason residents). To receive a voucher,you must fill out the required paperwork,have a valid ID, and proof of Mason County address. Vouchers will only cover 1,000 pounds of household garbage; redeemable at the Mason County Landfill located at 501 E Eells Hill Road, Shelton, WA 98584. Vouchers must be used by June 30, 2023. For any questions, please contact United Way of Mason County at (360) 426-4999 or Youth Connection of Belfair at (360) 277-5017. More information regarding the voucher process and items covered and not covered by voucher is available on the Mason County Utilities and Waste Management/Solid Waste webpage. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Sharon Trask, Randy Neatherlin, Kevin Shutty, Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Richard Dickinson Ext.450 Department: Public Works Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): March 6,2023 Agenda Date: March 14,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• Solid Waste Advisory Committee Membership Appointments Backuround/Executive Summary: RCW 70A.205.110 requires Mason County to establish a Solid Waste Advisory Committee SWAC (Resolution 08-05)to assist in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal and to review and comment upon proposed rules,policies,or ordinances prior to their adoption. Such committees shall consist of a minimum of nine members and shall represent a balance of interests including, but not limited to, citizens,public interest groups,business,the waste management industry,agriculture,and local elected public officials.The members shall be appointed by the county legislative authority and subject to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioner to the extent that qualified representative is unavailable. Mason County has been actively looking for community members interested in joining the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAC). The County has received the attached applications from Thomas Duffield,Lynda Links,Tessa Hollaran,Delroy Cox and Chad White. Mason County Commissioner, Sharon Trask,has also expressed her interest in filling the local elected official position. SWAC members serve a three-year term;per Resolution 08-05,terms must be staggered so no more than three member terms expire within a given year. Terms below have been staggered to reflect term guidelines. There is only one out of the nine positions currently filled. NN G -W Citizen District 1 Thomas Duffield(new appointment) 3/14/2023 - 1/14/2027 Citizen District 1 Vacant Citizen District 2 Monica Nerney(current member) 7/6/2021 -7/6/2024 Citizen District 2 Vacant r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- lh'a,�— Citizen District 3 Lynda Links(re-appointment for 2nd term) 3/14/2023 —3/14/2026 Citizen District 3 Vacant Local Elected Official Sharon Trask(new appointment) 3/14/2023 - 1/14/2027 Special Group-Agriculture Tessa Halloran(new appointment) 3/14/2023 -1/14/2027 Business—JDEL Consulting Delroy Cox(re-appointment for 3 term) 3/14/2023 —3/14/2026 Solid Waste Industry— Chad White (re-appointment for 2nd term) 3/14/2023 —3/14/2026 Mason County Garbage Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): N/A Public Outreach(news release, community meeting,etc.): Public Works will continue to try to fill the remaining open SWAC positions. Requested Action: Approval to appoint the following applicants to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee: Thomas Duffield,to represent District#1, Sharon Trask,to represent Local Elected Public Official,Tessa Halloran, Special Group- Agriculture and re-appoint Lynda Links,to represent District#3 Delroy Cox,to represent Business and Chad White,to represent the Solid Waste Industry. Attachments: Applications copN�A MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET SHELTON WA 98584 Fax 360-427-8437; Voice 360-427-9670, Ext. 419;275-4467 or 482-5269 1854� - I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO SWAC NAME: Chad White ADDRESS: PHONE: CITY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE: E-MAIL (OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: (IF RETIRED, PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE) Chamber of Commerce MEMBERSHIPS) COMPANY: Mason County Garbage 20 YRS POSITION: Site Manager COMPANY: YRS POSITION: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your words, what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying: Too look into and maintain the best practices for keeping the community clean What interests, skills do you wish to offer the Board, Committee,or Council? Insight to the garbage and recycling business Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board: (i.e.create a potential conflict of interest) Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours (such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be able to attend such trainings? Yes Realistically,how much time can you give to this position? arterly X o ly Weekly Daily Office Use Only Appoint vent Date Signature Die Term Expire Date RECENED MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET SHELTON WA 98584 Mason County Fax 360-427-8437; Voice 360-427-9670, Ext 419,275-4467 or 482-5269 Commissioners I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO THE MASON COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAME: DELROY COX ADDRESS- j ( CfTY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE: (OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE) E-C'MIL: -_---------'--------------"-------_-----_ ---------------_------_----_----_-__-___--_---_-- COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: (IF RETIRED. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE) Acrwmes oR E'EC'O'IPS) COMPANY: JDEL CONSULTING-12 YEARS YRS MEMBER FOR SOLID WAS E ADVISO Y COMMITTEE THE PAST NINE PLUS YEARS. POSITION: SOLE OWNER COMPANY: HAROLD LEMAY ENT. INC:43 YEARS YRS POSITION: REGIONAL MANAGER (RETIRED 2008) In your words, what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying: I'm currently a member on the Mason County Solid Waste Advisery Committee. I was notified my term is up and I'm requesting to be re-appointed to another term. What interests, skills do you wish to offer the Board, Committee,or Council? I have over 43 years experience in the solid waste industry,managing oprations in four counties for Harold LeMay Enterprises Inc. I retired from Harold LeMay Enterprises Inc. in 2008. 1 started my own business,JDEL Counsulting August 1, 2008 to dal . Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board: (i.e. create a potential conflict of interest) As a consultant.Waste Conections Inc. is a client. I serve as a member on the Solid Waste Advisery Committee for Grays Harbor County and Thurston County. Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours (such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you. Would you be able to attend such trainings? yes Realistically,how much time can you give to this position? Quarterly x Monthly x Why Daily Office Use Only Delroy Cox 02/6/2023 Appointment Date, Signature Dais Term Expire Date RECEIVED /�DgpP CppN�F MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �'Eg 21 fC[ 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET SHELTON WA 98584 _ = Mason County Fax 360-427-8437, Voice 360-427-9670, Ext. 419,275-4467 or 482-5269 85+� Commissioners I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO S Lk/A NAME: L V PJ Dp Al K S CITY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE: ; (OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE) E-MAIL: - ------------------------------------------------------------------_ -_---------------------- COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: (IF RETIRED, PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE) (ACTIVITIES OR MEMBERSHIPS) COMPANY: 0 e' er l / YRS I ti 'Y� & ^U� V d t s POSITION: COMPANY: YRS POSITION: --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your words,what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying: �jLjS Arnr� � What interests, skills do you wish to offer the Board, Committee,or Council? Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board: (i.e. create a potential conflict of interest) 1'1� Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours (such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you. Would you be able to attend such trainings? Realistically, how much time can you give to this position? Quarterly Weekly Daily Office Use Only Appointment Date Signaba � Date r Term Expire Date BON coay�A MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 411 NORTH FIFTH STREET SHELTON WA 98584 _-— Fax 360-427-8437; Voice 360-427-9670, Ext. 419;275-4467 or 482-5269 1854 1 AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO Solid Waste Advisory Committee NAME: Tessa Halloran ADDRESS: PHONE: ( CITY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE: ( OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE) E-MAIL E) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: (IF RETIRED, PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE) (ACTIVITIES OR MEMBERSHIPS) COMPANY: WSU Mason County Ext. January 2023-P YRS POSITION: Small Farms & Master Gardener Program COMPANY: Cowlitz Indian Tribe (2020-2023) YRS POSITION: Cowlitz Garden Education &Outreach Coc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your words, what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying: I believe the impose of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee is to protect Mason County's diverse natural resources by determining appropriate management strategies and developing program options to improve waste reduction, recycling, arid composting efforts, ensure appropriate disposal of hazardous waste, items, arid to prevent arid addrebs illegal dumping. What interests, skills do you wish to offer the Board, Committee, or Council? I have extensive experience on small-sr-aie agriculture and hortia dt,ire, including cornposting of yard and food W@ste think that composting, waste prevention, and recycling methods are integral to both my Small Farms and Master Gardener programs, and I am looking forward to working with others to develop unique ways to incorporate anti irnfinnni nnnnrti initiac nn thaca ci ihiartc into nu it nffarinnc Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board: (i.e. create a potential conflict of interest) Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours (such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you. Would you be able to attend such trainings? Yes Realistically, how much time can you give to this position? Quarterly X Monthly Weekly Daily Office Use Only Tessa Halloran 2/22/23 Appointment Date Signature Date Term Expire Date 9 RECEIVED MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 411 NORTHFTFFIHSTREET SHELTON WA 98584 Mason County Fax 3W-427-8437, Voice 360-427-9670,Ext 419,2754467 or 482-5269 =— Commissioners ^ \ ` I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO O\A'd W�TY. A70.V I3 p r 4 /-C*�+ C2 AnoREss: - CmlaP: VOTING PRECIN T: ter�', ton AREA VA TM MUIM rouv.� ___________________________________________-_____-------- --------------------------------- COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT (IF RETIRED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE) oµcrnmes OR 141159" e"'st COMPANY: ��S I.. C!)C-"O1 3 OI _ YRS �Cl�t rwA o+ LVanat„ LJ,)-1 10 POSMON: S cl t v LC. *CZ, .1 ey/G.c�V��,,,O) " COMPANY: YRS POSFION: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your words,what do you perceive is the rote or purpose 1of the Board,Committee or Council for which you are applying: 70�I V L C -���Cti �4��.� C+& ut V c Lf, O" 155ta.ti4+ La "Ltt t '+o\-d wt�s�L et ��0 5ta1 aH.a. Mta.�t�ce M.Cta.� What interests,skills do you wish to or the Board m � 'x,Co a Catma7t ,� effe o�w.e� - ► SoecS,z sic,'l!t a•..l C % Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board: (i.e.create a potential conflict of interest) Nt(T Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours (such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be able to attend such trainings? lre� 7 Realistically,how much time can you 10 Vis position? Quarterly Weeldy Z-1/ Daily Office Use Onty 0w��ru�l`y U6 2023 Appointment Date Signature Date Term.Expire Dare__ r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Mike Collins Ext.450 Department: Public Works Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): March 6,2023 Agenda Date: March 14,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• County Road Project(CRP)No.2046—Bear Creek Dewatto Road Backuround/Executive Summary: Bear Creek Dewatto Road is the primary connection between Belfair and the Dewatto area with an ADT of 2,600.The section of roadway between MP 0.43 and MP 1.02,has deficient horizontal curves for line of sight, radius and posted speed,which contributes to an abnormally high accident rate. The purpose of this project is to realign the road to improve the horizontal curves.The new alignment will have wider lanes and shoulder that will be paved with Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA), along with new striping and any other necessary safety improvements. Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): On December 6,2022,Commissioner authorized the Chair to execute the attached County Road Administration Board(CRAB)RAP Project Prospectus Contract,which set forth approved funding for the project as follows: Bear Creek Dewatto Road Estimated Project Cost: $680,000 Authorized RATA Funds: $ 59( 4,000) County Road Funds: $ 86,000 The project is listed on the updated 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(#49)and will be added to the 2024 Annual Construction Program Public Outreach(news release, community meeting,etc.): Resolutions will be published in the Shelton Journal.Public Works will use mail,road closure email list,Ch. 3, reader boards,Facebook,and county website for public outreach/project notification. r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- lh'�d Requested Action: Approval of the Resolution for County Road Project No.2046,Bear Creek Dewatto Road and authorize the County Engineer and/or the Chair to sign all pertinent documents. Attachments: Resolutions Project Location Map Prospectus MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO: COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 2046 WHEREAS,on Mason County Road No.79800,known locally as the Bear Creek Dewatto Road and more specifically located in Sec.9,T.23 N,R 1W,WM at approximately mile post 0.43 to mile post 1.02;work defined as"construction"in the BARS Manual,Page II-63,et seq,is determined to be necessary and proper; and, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that it is their intention to: Realign roadway to improve the horizontal curves with wider lanes and shoulders that will be paved with Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA). SAID WORK is to be performed by Contract and/or County Forces in accordance with Washington State Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction as adopted by Mason County(RCW 36.77.020 and/or RCW 36.77.065 and WAC 136-18). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the described County Road Project is necessary and proper,and the estimated costs of said project are herewith set out as follows: Engineering: $ 20,000 Right of Way $ 20,000 Construction $ 640,000 The County Road project herein described in HEREBY DECLARED to be a public necessity,and the County Road Engineer is HEREBY ORDERED AND AUTHORIZED to report and proceed thereon as by law,provided and in accordance with RCW 36.75.050,36.80.080 and 36.80.070. ADOPTED this day of 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON Sharon Trask,Chair ATTEST: Randy Neatherlin,Vice Chair McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board Kevin Shutty,Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Whitehead,Ch.DPA cc: Co.Commissioners Engineer JOURNAL: Publ.1t: 03/23/2023 CRP 2046 - Bear Creek Dewatto Rd MP 043w fu 02 1 N 5 0 0.25 0. l Miles O o% \ r MP 1.02 ' r,r af.rtt`R - - Proposed RealigBremE nment i USGS The National Ma National Boundaries Dataset,3DEP Nati onal Pi I Elevation Program,Geographic Namps Information System, Co ry of Kitsap,WA National Hydrography Dataset,Nation4Land Cover Dakabase,' ate Parks GIS, Esri National Structures Dataset,and 4�ational Transportation Canada,Esri, HERE, Dataset;USGS Global Ecosystems;U.�,J.'Census Bureau TIGER/ Garmin,SafeGraph, Line data;USFS Road Data;Natural Earth Data;U.S. e air MOTI/NASA,USGS, Department of St�fe Humanit iian Information Unit;andr� I Bureau of Land NOAA National Ce ters for Envi�n°mental Information,U.S I' Managelment,EPA,NPS, Coastal Reli f Model.Da ' refreshed August,202,. . USDA STATE OF WASHINGTON - COUNTY ROAD ADMINISTRATION BOARD RURAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM FINAL PROSPECTUS Biennium : 2023 - 2025 Region : SW County: Mason IDENTIFICATION State Legislative District: 35 Six-Year T.I.P. Priority No: 49 Total Points : 66.10 Road Number(s) I Road Name(s) I FFC(s) I TRC(s) I BMP(s) EMP(s) 79800 Bear Creek Dewatto Road 07 T4 0.430 1 .020 PROJECTTYPE Project Type: RC - Reconstruction DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - Attach Rating Worksheets Roadway Structural Section, or Bridge Condition: ❑✓ Deviation Anticipated? Describe structural deficiencies and proposed improvements in keeping with the attached roadway cross section . (Proposed structural section details may change based on final design .) N/A Horizontal Alignment: Q Deviation Anticipated? the horizontal curve will be improved to full design standard of 40 MPH . Vertical Alignment: ❑✓ Deviation Anticipated? N/A Width: ✓❑ Deviation Anticipated? re existing 11 ft lane and 2 ft paved shoulder and 2 ft gravel shoulder will be widened to 12 ft lane, paved shoulder and 1 ft gravel shoulder. Other: Clear Zone, Slopes, Guardrail, Illumination, signals etc.: ODeviation Anticipated? The clear zone will be improved by removing above ground obstacles and installing guardrail where arranted. ESTIMATED FUNDING AND TIMING Estimated Year Phase Est Total Cost RATA Amount Start End Design/Prelim. Engr. $20,000 $183000 Jun-23 Dec-23 Right of Way $20,000 Jun-24 Dec-24 Construction $640,000 $576,000 Jun-25 Dec-25 TOTAL $680,000 $594,000 Schedule of CRAB reimbursements for Canstrucdon will be or dependent on Project SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY AFFECT PROJECT SCHEDULE: ❑ Wetlands ❑ NMFS © R.O.W. [] Shorelines ❑ USFWS ❑ BIA QHPA [] RR ❑ USACE ❑WDFW QCultrual (Hist. Arch- Paleo.) ❑ Tied (Other agency work) ❑ Other LOCAL PROJECT APPROVAL s J RAP Project Prospectus prepared under the supervision of: Sign re - Co t Engineer / Date RAP Project Prospectus submitted to CRAB with the approval of: Z ^ Zo Z2 Signature of Cha r f the Board of County Commissioners County Executive / Date Page 1 of 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON - COUNTY ROAD ADMINISTRATION BOARD RURAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM FINAL PROSPECTUS Biennium: 2023 - 2025 Region : SW County : Mason PROJECT NARRATIVE Bear Creek Dewatto Road is the primary connection between Belfair and the Dewatto area with an ADT of 2,600. This section of the roadway, between MP 0,43 and MP 1 .02 , has deficient horizontal curves for line of sight, radius, and posted speed, which contributes to an abnormally high accident rate. This road section has narrow lanes and shoulders and does not meet Mason County, WSDOT or AASHTO road design standards. This section will be re-aligned horizontally to meet current standards for the posted speed of 35 mph along with shoulder widening, and clear zone improvements. Page 2 of 2 r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Mike Collins Ext.450 Department: Public Works Briefing: M Action Agenda: M Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): March 6,2023 Agenda Date: March 14,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources M Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• County Road Project(CRP)No.2047—Skokomish Valley Road Background/Executive Summary: The purpose of this project is to preserve and improve access to the upper Skokomish River Valley and the Olympic National Forest via FS-23 by stabilizing, strengthening,and elevating the roadway and improving drainage between MP 3.80 and MP 4.60 of Skokomish Valley Road. Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): Public Works has received 1.6 million through FFY2023 WA Federal Lands Access program(FLAP)that will be transferred to FHWA and administered through WSDOT Local Programs. Project will require the County to pay 13.5%of the project cost. Public Outreach(news release, community meeting,etc.): Resolutions will be published in the Shelton Journal.Public Works will use mail,road closure email list,Ch. 3, reader boards,Facebook,and county website for public outreach/project notification. Requested Action: Approval of the Resolution for County Road Project No.2047, Skokomish Valley Road and authorize the County Engineer and/or the Chair to sign all pertinent documents. Attachments: Resolutions Project Location Map Funding Award Letter MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO: COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 2047 WHEREAS,on Mason County Road No.41640,known locally as the Skokomish Valley Road and more specifically located in Sec. 13 &18,T.21N,R 4W,WM at approximately mile post 3.80 to mile post 4.60;work defined as"construction"in the BARS Manual,Page II-63,et seq,is determined to be necessary and proper; and, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that it is their intention to: To preserve and improve access to the upper Skokomish River Valley and the Olympic National Forest via FS-23 by stabilizing,strengthening,and elevating the roadway and improving drainage. SAID WORK is to be performed by Contract and/or County Forces in accordance with Washington State Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction as adopted by Mason County(RCW 36.77.020 and/or RCW 36.77.065 and WAC 136-18). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the described County Road Project is necessary and proper,and the estimated costs of said project are herewith set out as follows: Engineering: $ 10,000 Right of Way $ -0- Construction $ 1,600,000 The County Road project herein described in HEREBY DECLARED to be a public necessity,and the County Road Engineer is HEREBY ORDERED AND AUTHORIZED to report and proceed thereon as by law,provided and in accordance with RCW 36.75.050,36.80.080 and 36.80.070. ADOPTED this day of 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON Sharon Trask,Chair ATTEST: Randy Neatherlin,Vice Chair McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board Kevin Shutty,Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Whitehead,Ch.DPA cc: Co.Commissioners Engineer JOURNAL: Publ.1t: 03/23/2023 N CRP 2047 - Skokomish Valley Rd s� r -0 /f OM�s MP 4.60 yVq<<F OKOM`SN Skoko sh f •—...t �yRo V� s� Valley VALLEY RD �JiF M P 3.80 ,Weaver Creek �O O�016,� 'Qp 9 l O G'D 9�RO `'� W CpLIFOR►4lp RD CpL1FORNIP►RO W = z WWEAVER Gp CREEK LN = cn 700o z v RNEFtS RO `O c _ W FOVR Cog o I2 r m 0 0.5 1 �Ip A r Miles 4 v cn Adft Washington State Transportation Building w, De artment of Transportation 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P � P.D.Box 47300 Olympia,WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY:1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov February 22, 2023 Ms. Loretta Swanson Public Works Director Mason County 100 W. Public Works Drive Shelton, Washington 98584-9714 Skokomish Valley Road FFY 2023 Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Federal Funding Dear Ms. Swanson: WSDOT is pleased to advise you that the above-mentioned project was selected to receive funding through the FFY 2023 WA Federal Lands Access Program(FLAP). The FLAP funds were transferred to FHWA and will be administered through WSDOT Local Programs per the Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) manual. The federal funding is limited as shown below: Skokomish Valley Road $1,600,000 FFY 2023 Available Funding: $1,600,000 (CN) Scope: The purpose of this project is to preserve and improve access to the upper Skokomish River Valley and the Olympic National Forest via FS-23 by stabilizing, strengthening, and elevating the roadway and improving drainage between MP 3.8 and MP 4.6 of Skokomish Valley Road. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 20.224 Federal Lands Access Program NOTE:Federal share is 86.5 percent for federal eligible costs. The project was approved with an estimated 13.5%match as cash and in-kind services from the county. In order to meet federal requirements, the following are required: • FFY 2023 funding must be obligated by September 1, 2023. If the county is unable to meet this deadline,please notify Local Programs by July 1, 2023, so that the funds are returned to FHWA for re-allocation in FFY 2024. • Project expenditures incurred before receiving notice from Local Programs of federal fund authorization are not eligible for reimbursement. • Please refer to the Local Programs webpage for detailed authorization information including: (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/localprogams/) Ms. Loretta Swanson Mason County February 22, 2023 ✓ Local Agency Guidelines (LAG)manual for detailed requirements; ✓ Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP amendments, as applicable; ✓ Funding and billing forms; ✓ Local Project Report is required to be completed by the end of June and December each year. To access the database, you will need an account name and password. Your account name is Mason Co. and your password is MasCo894. The password is case sensitive. • If the project is not actively pursued, or becomes inactive (23 CFR 630), the project is at risk of being cancelled, funds repaid and reprogrammed. • FHWA requires that all projects are ADA compliant upon completion or the federal funds must be repaid. As a reminder, Local Programs requires all agencies to submit monthly progress billings to ensure timely reimbursement of eligible federal expenditures. For assistance, please contact your Region Local Programs Engineer, John Ho, at 564.669.1018 or John.Hokwsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Jay Drye, PE Director Local Programs JD:st:cdm cc: John Ho, Olympic Region Local Programs Engineer r f Mason County Agenda Request Form r- To: Board of Mason County Commissioners From: Judge Steele&Patsy Robinson Ext.278 Department: District Court Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): March 6,2023 Agenda Date: March 14,2023 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ Information Technology ❑ Risk (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only: Item Number: Approved: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Tabled ❑ No Action Taken Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code: Item• Emergency Public Defense Appointments per RCW 36.26.090 Backuround/Executive Summary: The Public Defender's Office has been unable to fill a vacant position. RCW 36.26.090 gives the court the ability,when defendants are not being afforded counsel,to appoint an attorney to represent them subject to reasonable compensation. The Public Defender operates under strict case count limitations. We are being told that on or around February 14,they were no longer able to assign cases to anybody(we are unsure of the exact date). Currently there is no budget line to pay the attorneys that will be appointed under this emergency basis under RCW 36.26.090. Providing Public Defenders is constitutionally required. Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment): $7,500 to Public Defense budget; a budget line needs to be created and placed in the Public Defenders budget. Assuming the court can appoint attorneys at$75 per hour,this would pay for 100 hours of attorney time. The budget line should not fall under the Court as it creates separation of powers issues and could be seen as a deterrent to attorneys presenting defenses and claims that the court may not like. The court reached out to other judges in the DMCJA and no one felt it appropriate to have the budget line under the court. Public Outreach (news release, community meeting,etc.): N/A Requested Action: Approval to establish a budget line under the Public Defender's budget and fund it for$7,500 to pay for emergency Public Defense appointments. Attachments: RCW 36.26.090 GR 42 Court of Appeals Case—State v. Perala RCW 36.26.090 Appointment of attorney other than public defender. For good cause shown, or in any case involving a crime of widespread notoriety, the court may, upon its own motion or upon application of either the public defender or of the indigent accused, appoint an attorney other than the public defender to represent the accused at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal: PROVIDED, That the public defender may represent an accused, not an indigent, in any case of public notoriety where the court may find that adequate retained counsel is not available. The court shall award, and the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed shall pay, such attorney reasonable compensation and reimbursement for any expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in the presentation of the accused' s defense or appeal, in accordance with RCW 4 . 88. 330 . [1984 c 76 § 19; 1983 c 3 § 76; 1969 c 94 § 9 . 1 RCW (10/5/2022 10 :24 AM) [ 1 ] GR 42 INDEPENDENCE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES (a) Purpose and Policy. The purpose of this rule is to safeguard the independence of public defense services from judicial influence or control. Consistent with the right to counsel as provided in article I, sections 3 and 22 of the Washington State Constitution and in Washington statutes, it is the policy of the judiciary to develop rules that further the fair and efficient administration of justice. In promulgating this rule, the Washington Supreme Court seeks to prevent conflicts of interest that may arise if judges control the selection of public defense administrators or the attorneys who provide public defense services, the management and oversight of public defense services, and the assignment of attorneys in individual cases. (b) Scope.This rule applies to superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction. (c) Selection of the public defense administrator and public defense attorneys. Judges and judicial staff in superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction shall not select public defense administrators or the attorneys who provide public defense services. (d) Management and oversight of public defense services. (1)Judges and judicial staff in superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction shall neither manage nor oversee public defense services, including public defense contracts and assigned counsel lists. Judges should encourage local governments to have attorneys with public defense experience manage and oversee public defense services. (2)The terms "manage"and "oversee" include: drafting, awarding, renewing, and terminating public defense contracts; adding attorneys or removing them from assigned counsel lists; developing or issuing case weighting policies; monitoring attorney caseload limits and case-level qualifications; monitoring compliance with contracts, policies, procedures and standards; and recommending compensation. (e) Assignment of public defense attorneys in individual cases. (1) Consistent with federal and state constitutions, applicable statutes and rules of court, the role of judges and their staff in the assignment of a specific attorney in an individual case is to (a) determine whether a party is eligible for appointment of counsel by making a finding of indigency or other finding that a party is entitled to counsel; or(b) refer the party for an indigency determination; and (c) refer the party to a public defense agency or a public defense administrator to designate a qualified attorney. Alternatively, a public defense administrator may, prior to a court hearing where eligibility is determined, designate a qualified attorney to be appointed if the court finds the party is eligible. (2) If there is no public defense agency or administrator, a judicial officer should appoint a qualified attorney, on a rotating basis, from an independently established list of assigned counsel or contractors. (3) If no qualified attorney on the list is available, a judicial officer shall appoint an attorney who meets the qualifications in the Supreme Court Standards for Indigent Defense. (0 Necessary services and substitution of counsel. This rule does not limit a judicial officer's authority to grant a motion for necessary investigative, expert, or other services, or to appoint counsel in individual cases when substitution of counsel is required or requested. Substitution of counsel should be made as provided in (e) above. (g) Effective Date of Rule. This rule will go into effect days after its adoption by the Supreme Court. Comments [1] This rule does not alter judges' obligation to ensure that public defense attorneys have certified their compliance with the Supreme Court's Standards for Indigent Defense. [2] This rule does not preclude judges from communicating information about a public defense attorney's performance to the public defense agency or administrator. Following such communication,judges shall have no role in determining what actions, if any, the public defense agency or administrator takes in response to that communication. [3] This rule does not preclude judges from providing information on an attorney's performance, in response to requests from public defense agencies or administrators, requests from the Washington State Bar Association, and for example, requests for information made by a judicial candidate evaluation committee. [Adopted effective January 1, 2023.] 130 P.3d 852 (2006) State of Washington, Appellant, 132 Wash.App. 98 V. STATE of Washington, Appellant, Michael Henry Villegas, V. Respondent. Buckley James PERALA, State of Washington, Appellant, Respondent. Pavel V. el Dan State of Washington, Appellant, ilovitch Grib, V. Respondent. Tye J. Hendrickson, Respondent. State of Washington, Appellant, State of Washington, Appellant, V. V. Heidi Ann Hawk, Respondent. Leeah June Lopez, Respondent. State of Washington, Appellant, State of Washington, A V. g Appellant,V. Dustin Gene Abrams,Steven Ray Costello, Respondent. State of Washington, Appellant, Respondent. g pp State of Washington, Appellant, Shane E V. V. Ed ward and Robinson, Melinda K. McCollum, Respondent. of Washington, Appellant, Respondent. g pp State of Washington, Appellant, V. V. Dagan Denson Anderson,Jane Marie Enfield, Respondent. Respondent. State of Washin ton Appellant, State of Washington, Appellant, g pp V. V. an Denson Anderson, Shelly Lynn Davis, Respondent. DagRes Respondent. State of Washington, Appellant, p V. State of Washington, Appellant, Jeffery John Cole Respondent V. State of Washington, Appellant, Maria Socorro Chipres Zepeda, V. Respondent. Hector Anibal Alvarez Flores, State of Washington, Appellant, Respondent. V. State of Washington, Appellant, Jennifer Jean Rogers, V. Respondent. Ruben Tamez Jasso, State of Washington, Appellant, Respondent. Alfredo Dia V. ' State of Washington, Appellant, z Quintero, V. Respondent. Felipe Cortes Barajas, State of Washington, Appellant, Respondent. V. Timothy A. McDonald, in each case challenges the failure of the Respondent. Grant County Superior Court judges to State of Washington, Appellant, recuse themselves and the judges' subsequent decisions regarding V. compensation for court appointed Kimberly Ann Stark, Respondent. counsel. The State first alleges that the State of Washington, Appellant, trial courts abused their discretion in V. denying the State's motions for recusal of Gregory Alexander Clark, all Grant County Superior Court judges Respondent. from any motions for approval of attorney fees for indigent defense services. Nos._23151-8-III, 23149-6-III, 23150-0-III, Second, the State argues that the trial 23152-6-III, 23153-4-III, 23154-2-III, courts lacked authority to award attorney 23155-1-III. 23157-7-III, 23158-5-III, fees since the funds were not 23159-3-III, 23161-5-III, 23162-3-III, appropriated by law. Finally, the State 23166-6-III, 23167-4-III, 23168-2-111, claims that the fees awarded by the courts 23169-1-III, 23170-4-I1I. 23171-2-II1, were excessive. 23348-1-III, 23440-1-I 1 I, 23441-0-III, 23442-8-III, 23443-6-III, 23445-2-III. 12 Although these cases were all tried separately in superior court, many of the Court of Appeals of Washington, hearings were held back to back on the Division 3. same days. Because we have chosen to consolidate the appeals, we will refer to March 16, 2006. the various trial courts in the singular. �r`8U John D. Knodell, Prosecuting MOTION TO Attorney, Gerald J. Moberg, Canfield & SUPPLEMENT THE Associates Legal Department, Ephrata, WA, for Appellant. RECORD William J. Plonske, Attorney at Law, 13 As a preliminary matter, the State has Steven D. Talbot, Carl N. Warring, made a motion to this court to supplement Warring Law Firm PS, Moses Lake, WA, the record with various materials, Ronald A. Hammett, Attorney at Law, including correspondence between the Okanogan, WA, Clarke W. Tibbits, Bell trial court and the Grant County Board of Law Office, Earl Wesley Hensley, County Commissioners (hereinafter Attorney at Law, Wenatchee, WA, Mark referred to as board of county Stansfield, Brian M. Chase, Attorneys at commissioners or board). Law, Quincy, WA, for Respondents. ¶4 The State's original motion to THOMPSON, J.v supplement the record was granted by the trial court. However, the trial court ¶ 1 This case is consolidated from over 20 appears to have believed that authority to different actions brought by the State and supplement the record was limited by Grant County (hereinafter referred to as RAP 7.2(e). RAP 7.2(e) permits the trial the State). However, the allegations of court to decide postjudgment motions that error in these multiple actions all hinge on are authorized by civil rules, criminal resolution of the same issues. The State rules, or statutes. However, if the trial court's decision would change a decision the indigent defense cases. Unfortunately, then being reviewed by the appellate this resulted in the subcontractors court, permission of the appellate court receiving 21 cases in addition to their must be obtained before the trial court can regular caseload, which the trial court enter a formal decision. RAP 7.2(e). The determined was too significant an trial court was uncertain as to whether its increase for the public defense decision to permit the State to supplement subcontractors to manage effectively. In the record would change a decision in a the absence of available criminal indigent case currently before this court. For this defense counsel, the trial court sought reason the trial court directed the State to volunteer attorneys who would be willing seek permission from this court. to provide defense services for reasonable compensation. 15 The trial court already had the inherent authority to include these ¶9 However, the volunteer attorneys supplemental materials as part of the trial quickly became overwhelmed with the record under RAP 7.2(b). Pursuant to volume of cases that they were being RAP 7.2(b) the trial court has the authority assigned and the trial court exhausted the to settle the record on appeal. This local bar for volunteers. Therefore, the authority includes the authority to court began appointing attorneys from the supplement or expand the 7-85- record local bar in Grant County. Initially, 49 where it is incomplete. See RAP 7.2(b). attorneys were placed on a roster for appointments as defense counsel. This ¶6 The trial court granted the State's system quickly became untenable since motion to supplement the record by letter. many of the attorneys on the list had no This letter states that these documents criminal defense background and not only were reviewed by the trial court in were the interests of indigent defendants considering the motions for recusal. potentially jeopardized but the attorneys Because it was within the trial court's themselves were at risk of committing authority to permit these materials to be malpractice. incorporated into the trial record, we permit formal entry of the trial court's ¶ 10 From the 49 attorneys, the trial court decision. decided to appoint 14 who had some experience in criminal defense. The trial FACTS court also was forced to appoint attorneys from neighboring counties to take on a small number of criminal cases in ¶ 7 In February 2004, Grant County exchange for reasonable compensation. terminated its contract with the contract The trial court determined that a public defender, Thomas Earl, based on preliminary figure of 82.5 percent of the his suspension from practice pending appointed attorneys' normal billing rate disbarment. As a result, Grant County was the presumptive rate of was without a felony public defender. Mr. compensation; but the court also reserved Earl had approximately 60 active cases at the right to adjust the figure up or down. that time and new criminal cases arose in the county at the rate of over 90 per ¶ 11 After almost two months without any month. public defense system, the county signed ¶8 There were other public defender public defense contracts with otherattorneys on April 12, 2004. The county subcontractors who initially tried to absorb urged the trial court to immediately constitutional requirement that these transfer the 103 pending cases that were funds must first be appropriated by law. being handled by appointed counsel to The appointed counsel did not receive the new contractors. Based on the current copies of any of the State's briefs prior to and backlogged caseloads that the May 26. contract public defenders were already handling, the trial court decided that the 115 The trial court proceeded to hold new public defenders were unable to take hearings in order to determine and award on the additional cases that were reasonable compensation for appointed assigned to appointed counsel. counsel. In each case, the trial court considered the precise number of hours ¶ 12 Throughout the period during which each attorney spent on his or her case; Grant County lacked a public defense the normal fee that the attorney charged system, the trial court (primarily through for criminal defense services, overhead Judge Evan Sperline) and the board of costs of his or her private practice; years county commissioners maintained contact of experience; and any time, expenses, or and correspondence in order to create services that each attorney was willing to and implement the emergency public donate. In many cases, the trial court defense system. Over time, these awarded less than the amount submitted communications began to center on the by appointed counsel or less than the dispute involving payment to appointed presumptive rate of 82.5 percent of the counsel. attorney's standard fee. 113 The State by motion asked all Grant ¶ 16 The State continued to present County Superior Court judges to recuse motions for recusal in subsequent themselves from any hearings setting hearings regarding compensation for compensation for appointed counsel. The appointed counsel. It appears from the motion was filed on May 26, 2004, the records that opposing counsel was not same day hearings were set for given prior notice of any of these motions determining the compensation issue on a to recuse. The State argued that the trial number of cases. The State argued that it court should limit compensation for would create an appearance of appointed counsel to a maximum of$50 impropriety for any of these judges to hear per hour with a maximum of$550 per arguments regarding reasonable case. In the alternative, the State also compensation since the judges had suggested paying appointed counsel previously established a general policy to reimbursement for costs and overhead, pay appointed counsel 82.5 percent of but no compensation beyond overhead. their regular fee for criminal defense work. The trial court uniformly rejected the The State further asserted that by State's suggested levels of compensation. instituting and supporting such a policy with regard to compensation, the ¶ 17 The State appeals the trial court's trial court was engaging in advocacy on orders of compensation to the attorneys behalf of appointed counsel. who were appointed to provide indigent criminal defense services. ¶ 14 At the same time, the State also challenged the trial court's authority to ANALYSIS disburse any funds to compensate appointed counsel based on the I. Motions for Recusal 121 The communication at issue in that case was a letter circulated by the Pierce ¶ 18 "Due process, the appearance of County prosecutor's office to all Pierce fairness, and Canon 3(D)(1) of the Code County Superior Court judges, the Department of Corrections, and the of Judicial Conduct require disqualification Department of Assigned Counsel stating of a judge who is biased against a party or whose impartiality may be reasonably that the prosecutors office would no Longer recommend alternative sentences questioned." Wolfkill Feed& Fertilizer for drug offenders. Watson, 155 Wash.2d Corp. v. Martin, 103 Wash.App. 836, 841, at 575-76. 122 P.3d 903. The Court of 14 P.3d 877 (2000). Recusal lies within Appeals had held that this letter the discretion of the trial judge, and his or constituted an improper ex parte her decision will not be disturbed without communication, but that it did not harm a clear showing of an abuse of that Mr. Watson. discretion. Id. at 840, 14 P.3d 877. The court abuses its discretion when its ¶22 In reviewing the Court of Appeals decision is manifestly unreasonable or is decision, the Supreme Court disagreed exercised on untenable grounds or for with the conclusion that the letter was an untenable reasons. Id. This court also ex parte communication. The court reviews a trial courts determinations of defined an ex parte communication as a the timeliness of a motion for abuse of "'communication >�a between counsel discretion. Kreidler v. Eikenberrr�111 and the court when opposing counsel is Wash.2d 828, 832, 766 P.2d 438 (1989). not present."' Id. at 579, 122 P.3d 903 119 "The trial court is presumed . . . to (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY perform its functions regularly and 296 (8th ed.2004)). The court also noted properly without bias or that an ex parte communication is prejudice." Wolfkill, 103 Wash.App. at something made by a party to an action. Id. This definition of an ex parte 841, 14 P.3d 877. "The party moving for communication assumes that there is an recusal must demonstrate prejudice on actual proceeding involving counsel and the judge's part." In re Parentage of opposing counsel before the court, and J.H., 112 Wash.App. 486, 496, 49 P.3d that the communication is regarding that 154 (2002). proceeding. Id. Where, as here, the communication occurs prior to any Ex parte specific proceedings, that contact is not communications an ex parte communication. 123 The court also pointed out that this ¶20 The State asserts that the trial judges interpretation of ex parte communication engaged in improper ex parte meetings is consistent with case law. In examining and contacts to establish a presumptive its usage by the courts, Watson noted that rate of pay for appointed counsel prior to the term "ex parte" usually is only applied the actual hearings on compensation. The to a communication made by or to a Supreme Court has recently clarified what judge, during a proceeding, regarding that constitutes an improper ex parte proceeding, and without notice to a communication in State v. Watson. 155 party. Id. Based on this definition of ex Wash.2d 574. 122 P.3d 903 (2005). parte contact, the court determined that the letter from the Pierce County prosecutor's office was not an improper ex 346, 354, 979 P.2d 885 (1999). "'The test parte contact. for determining whether the judge's impartiality might reasonably be ¶24 Like the letter from the prosecutor's questioned is an objective test that office that was at issue in Watson, the assumes that a reasonable person knows correspondence and communications and understands all the relevant facts."' In between the judges and the board of re Marriage of Davison, 112 Wash.App. county commissioners were not 251, 257, 48 P.3d 358 connected to any specific proceeding. 2002 (quoting Sherman v. State, 128 These communications were primarily Wash.2d 164, 206, 905 P.2d 355 (1995)) aimed at the administrative task of setting (internal quotation marks omitted). up a functional interim public defense system. They were not about a ¶27 Notice to the other party of the filing proceeding or made without notice to a of a motion for recusal and of the time for party to a proceeding. As such, the the hearing on the motion is generally communications were not ex parte required. See State ex rel. Dunham v. communications. Superior Court, 106 Wash. 507, 509, 180 P. 481 (1919). Moreover, a litigant who Appearance of fairness proceeds to trial "knowing of a reason for potential disqualification of the judge 125 Even if the communications and waives the objection and cannot challenge the court's qualifications on statements made by the judges were not appeal." Buckley v. Snapper Power Equip. improper ex parte communications, the trial judges may still have erred in not Co., 61 Wash.App. 932, 939, 813 P.2d 125 11991). recusing themselves if not doing so violated the appearance of fairness ¶28 In this case, the State asserts that doctrine. the trial court violated the appearance of 126 "'Under the appearance of fairness fairness doctrine because the Grant County Superior Court judges had met doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only prior to the actual hearings on if a reasonably prudent and disinterested compensation to establish a presumptive observer would conclude that all parties rate of pay for the appointed attorneys. obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral However, the State stipulated that the trial hearing."' State v. Bilal, 77 Wash. A.pp.720, 722, 893 P.2d 674 court's actions in setting up an interim emergency public defense system were 1995 (quoting State v. LadenburcL67 necessary for the functioning of the court. Wash.App. 749, 754-55, 840 P.2d 228 Moreover, the trial court clarified that it (1992)). In order to establish that the trial reserved the right to depart from the court's involvement in the matter violated presumptive rate of compensation and the appearance of fairness, the claimant indicated that it would consider arguments must provide some evidence of the from the State to reduce that figure if such judge's actual or potential bias. State v.Post, 118 Wash.2d 596, 619, 826 P.2d arguments were made. 172, 837 P.2d 599 (1992). The critical ,. ¶29 There is evidence that the concern is determining whether a trial court had publicly adopted the proceeding would appear to be fair to a position that the 82.5 percent presumptive reasonably prudent and disinterested person. State v. Dugan. 96 Wash.App. rate was a fair starting point and that it was within its authority to determine the based on the lack of prior service and overall compensation that appointed notice of these motions. counsel received. Of particular note is the fact that Judge Sperline made comments 11. Authority to Award to the local paper in response to the criticisms of one of the Grant County Attorney Fees commissioners. ¶ 33 The State also argues that the trial 130 While this conduct may raise the court exceeded its authority and violated inference that the trial court was engaged the Washington Constitution when it in actual advocacy, it is not evidence of awarded attorney fees to court appointed the specific bias that the State alleges and counsel, despite the fact that the funds to must prove. The State does not pay those attorneys had not been specifically provide any evidence that specifically appropriated. demonstrates that the trial court was unwilling to fairly consider the State's 134 The Washington Constitution requests for reduced compensation. The provides that no moneys can be paid out record also shows that the trial court of the treasury of the state except those regularly awarded less than the full which have been appropriated by law. presumptive rate of 82.5 percent of CONST. ART. Vill, §4. "This standard fees as compensation for constitutional limitation on expenditure of appointed counsel. public funds applies to counties." Moore v. 131 In light of this background, a Snohomish County, 112 Wash.2d 915, 920, 774 P.2d 1218 (19891. Where a reasonably prudent and disinterested statute does not specifically authorize or person would not necessarily conclude obli ate the count to a that the trial court was unwillingto hear g Y pay, payment is prohibited. Id. at 921, 774 P.2d 1218. The argument from the State and consider purpose of this constitutional prohibition is making a downward departure from the to prevent the expenditure of public funds presumptive rate of pay. without legislative direction and without the sanction of a legislative body. Mason- ¶32 Additionally, the trial court did not Walsh-Atkinson-Kier Co. v. Dept of Labor abuse its discretion in denying the & Indus., 5 Wash.2d 508, 513-14, 105 motions for recusal as untimely. The P.2d 832 (1940). timeliness of the motions at issue here is governed by CR 6. See CrR 8.1. CR 6(d) ¶ 35 A question of constitutional requires that these written motions must interpretation is a question of law that is be served at least five days prior to the reviewed de novo by this court. State v. time when they are to be heard. Here, Norman. 145 Wash.2d 578. 589, 40 P.3d there was no prior service of the motions 1161 (2002). The question of whether for recusal. Opposing counsel was not there has been a proper appropriation of given the opportunity to prepare a expended public funds is properly to be response to the State's claims of bias. decided by the courts. See State ex rel. The untimeliness of the motions to recuse Day v. Martin, 64 Wash.2d 511. 521. 392 was one of the primary reasons given by P.2d 435 (19641. While there is no the trial court for its denial. The trial court particular form of expression that is was acting within its discretion when it constitutionally required for the court to denied the State's motions to recuse find appropriation by law, the language of the statute may be sufficient to show that pay reasonable compensation for those the intention of the legislature was to services. appropriate. State ex rel. Brainerd v. Grimes, 7 Wash. 191, 193, 34 P. 833 ¶38 Additionally, the plain language of (1893). When interpreting the language of RCW 36.26.090 clearly requires that a statute, this court must construe the compensation be available for court statute so as to give effect to all appointed counsel beyond mere words. Gilbert H. Moen Co. v. Island Steel reimbursement for expenses. This statute Erectors, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 745, 762, 912 requires payment of both reasonable P.2d 472 (1996). compensation and reimbursement of costs. Because statutes must be read so Statutory authority for as to give effect to all of the words, the language of RCW 36.26.090 forecloses the appointment of the State's argument that merely counsel and award of reimbursing the court appointed counsel for their costs is sufficient to constitute compensation reasonable compensation for their services. ¶ 36 Generally, the board of county commissioners for each county is required ¶39 The State relies heavily on the to provide for the compensation of the decision of In re Juvenile Director. 87 public defender for that county. RCW Wash.2d 232, 552 P.2d 163 (19761 for the 36.26.060. However, RCW 36.26.090 also proposition that the trial court lacked any permits a trial court on its own motion, authority to disburse funds to compensate and for good cause g s -, shown, to and reimburse appointed counsel. That appoint an attorney who is not a public case dealt with a superior court mandate defender to represent an indigent accused to increase the salary of the county at any stage of criminal proceedings and director of juvenile services. 87 Wash.2d on appeal. This provision further provides at 233,552 P.2d 163. However, the court that: in that case focused on the language of the controlling statute, which explicitly The court shall award, and the county in required that the amount of compensation which the offense is alleged to have been for the director be fixed by the board of committed shall pay, such attorney county commissioners. Id. at 236, 552 reasonable compensation and P.2d 163. Because the statute reimbursement for any expenses unambiguously reserved the authority to reasonably and necessarily incurred in the set the amount of the salary to the board presentation of the accused's defense or of county commissioners, the court found appeal.... that there was no basis to claim the judicial power to do so. Id. RCW 36.26.090 (emphasis added). 140 Here, the controlling statute confers 137 This statute makes it mandatory for authority on the trial court to determine the court to award reasonable attorney and award the amount of reasonable fees to any attorney who is appointed by compensation and reimbursement to be the court as counsel for an indigent given to appointed counsel. Once the criminal defendant. The provision also court makes this award, the board of makes clear that the county is obligated to county commissioners is obligated by the legislature to pay this compensation. 143 Even assuming that there was no Therefore, unlike Juvenile Director, the appropriation of funds to compensate trial court had a statutory basis to exercise appointed counsel, the court was acting its judicial power to award compensation within constitutional authority in making to appointed counsel. these awards. The judicial function can sometimes extend beyond the 141 However, legislation that is of a determination of questions in controversy general and continuing nature usually to include other functions that are cannot be deemed an necessary if the courts are appropriation. See Wash. State toe ''; ' carry out their constitutional Legislature v. State. 139 Wash.2d 129, mandate. Juvenile Dir., 87 Wash.2d at 145, 985 P.2d 353 (1999). While RCW 242, 552 P.2d 163. 36.26.090 creates a mandatory obligation for the county to disburse funds to pay for 144 While separation of powers principles indigent defense, this statutory duty is not generally require that only the legislative of itself an appropriation. We therefore entity may allocate public funds, the need must look to additional sources in order to for judicial independence and proper court determine if an appropriation by law was functioning may sometimes necessitate made. that the courts compel funding: 142 Among the uncontested findings of While courts must limit their incursions fact by the trial court was that Grant into the legislative realm in deference to County had appropriated funds for the separation of powers doctrine, purposes of providing compensation for separation of powers also dictates that the indigent defense. These funds totaled judiciary be able to insure its own survival over$600,000. This appropriation funded when insufficient funds are provided by Mr. Earl's contract with Grant County the other branches. To do so, courts during his term as the contract public possess inherent power, that is, authority defender. This appropriation of funds was not expressly provided for in the not undone or rescinded simply because constitution but which is derived from the the contract between Mr. Earl and Grant creation of a separate branch of County was terminated. Because Grant government and which may be exercised County had specifically earmarked and by the branch to protect itself in the retained these funds for the purpose of performance of its constitutional duties. compensating indigent defense counsel, the State's contention that there was no Id. at 245, 552 P.2d 163. appropriation made by law to compensate appointed indigent defense counsel is 145 In the absence of legislative without merit. appropriation of funds, there is a high standard for the application of the court's Constitutional authority inherent power to compel funding. Id. at 249-50, 552 P.2d 163. The court must for the appointment of show by clear, cogent, and convincing counsel and award of proof that the funds sought are reasonably necessary for the holding of compensation court, the efficient administration of justice, or the fulfillment of constitutional duties. Id. at 250-51, 552 P.2d 163. This power can be exercised only when a reasonable amount as attorney fees in established methods fail or when an addition to reimbursement of actual emergency arises. Id. at 250, 552 P.2d expenses incurred by the court's 163. appointment. See State v. Lehirondelle, 15 Wash.App. 502, 504, 550 ¶46 In this case, clearly an emergency P.2d 33 (1976); RCW 36.26.090. Because situation arose when the sole contract there is clear, cogent, and convincing holder for indigent defense representation proof that the appointment and resigned and was subsequently disbarred. compensation of appointed counsel was The State does not dispute the trial court's reasonably necessary for the holding of need to take action in the absence of a court, the administration of justice, and public defense system. "A criminal the fulfillment of constitutional duties, the prosecution cannot proceed if the trial court was acting within its inherent defendant does not have counsel." State power to award compensation to v. Howard l 106 Wash.2d 39, 44, 722 P.2d appointed counsel. 783 (1985). Without a functioning public defense system, the court could not Ill. Reasonableness of proceed with its criminal cases. In order to allow the court to maintain some the Award of Attorney efficiency and to hold court in criminal Fees cases, the trial court made the necessary appointments of counsel. 149 In its final allegation of error, the 147 The trial court also had a State contends that the trial court did not constitutional duty to appoint and properly consider relevant factors when compensate counsel in the absence of determining the amount of compensation available public defenders. The right of to award court appointed counsel, and as indigent defendants to have counsel a result the trial court awarded excessive appointed to represent them at State fees. expense in criminal judicial proceedings is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth ¶50 Court appointed counsel is to be paid Amendments to the United States a reasonable amount as attorney fees in Constitution. See Tetro v. Tetro, 86 addition to reimbursement of actual Wash.2d 252, 253, 544 P.2d 17 (1975). expenses incurred by the court's The same right to counsel in criminal appointment. Lehirondelle, 15 Wash.App. cases is also guaranteed in article I, at 504, 550 P.2d 33. Because the trial section 22 of the Washington State court is in a particularly advantageous Constitution. These constitutional rights to position to consider and evaluate the counsel for those who cannot afford to relevant factors in determining pay are supplemented by statutes and an :t :> award of fees, the trial court's court rules. See, e.g., ch. 10.101 RCW; determination will generally not be ch. 36.26 RCW; CrR 3.1. disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State V. Mempa, 78 Wash.2d ¶48 The appointment of counsel to 530, 536, 477 P.2d 178 (1970). indigent criminal defendants is a constitutional duty that the courts are ¶51 While the obligation of attorneys to charged with upholding. The State is represent indigent defendants is part of obligated to pay court appointed counsel established tradition, present economic circumstances may make this obligation an unreasonable burden. State v. purposes; and a judicious respect for both McKenney, 20 Wash.App. 797, 804, 582 the taxpaying public as well as for the P.2d 573 (1978). The fee awarded rights of the accused. Mempa. 78 "should strike a balance between . . . the Wash.2d at 536, 477 P.2d 178. professional obligation of a lawyer to make legal counsel available and the Time and effort increasingly heavy burden on the legal profession created by expanded indigent expended and the nature rights. Lehirondelle. 15 Wash.App. at and extent of services 504, 550 P.2d 33. Court appointed counsel should not be unjustly enriched by the court's award of fees. However, the 154 The trial court clearly did give courts must award an amount that will consideration to both the time that allow for the financial survival of his or her appointed counsel spent on their cases practice, and the county is required to pay and the nature and extent of services that a reasonable amount for those services were provided. Before any award of fees when they are not donated. Id. was made, appointed counsel was required to submit a billing statement that 152 The State presented argument that showed time invested and specific the trial court should have limited its services provided. The attorneys were awards of reasonable compensation to told that they had to set forth their time $50 per hour with a maximum award of with particularity and should also include $550 per case. Awarding this flat fee the attorney's overhead costs. would circumvent the very considerations that case law mandates that the trial court ¶ 55 Appointed counsel documented and consider when determining compensation attached their billing statements showing for appointed counsel. Based on concerns both time and services as part of their for the financial survival of those attorneys motions for reasonable compensation. At who are appointed by the court to the hearings on compensation, the trial represent indigent defendants, courts court frequently reduced compensation have rejected the use of a fee schedule or awards based on the State's challenges to a flat rate, and instead demand that the the reasonableness of the time that was amount of compensation should be left to spent on a particular case. The record the discretion of the trial establishes that the trial court did consider court. McKenney. 20 Wash.App. at 806, the time, effort, and services that were 582 P.2d 573; Lehirondelle. 15 provided by appointed counsel when Wash.App. at 506, 550 P.2d 33. calculating attorney fees. ¶53 Factors that the trial court should Fees paid for similar consider when determining what constitutes reasonable compensation for services in other court appointed counsel include: the jurisdictions amount of time and effort expended; the nature and extent of services rendered; ¶ 56 The State argues that the trial court the fees paid for similar services in other erred by failing to consider the fees for jurisdictions; the traditional responsibilities of the legal profession; the amount of similar services in other jurisdictions. The public funds made available for such only evidence the trial court appeared to have regarding compensation rates for public defenders in other counties was Traditional that given to it by the State at the May 26,2004 compensation hearings. The court responsibilities of the was not given a prior opportunity to legal profession examine the report's contents. However, the trial court did listen to the State's arguments regarding lower compensation 159 In discussing the traditional rates for indigent defense in other responsibilities of the legal profession, the counties. State asserts that counsel is obligated to accept court appointments pro bono 157 According to the informal study absent a specific statute to pay for performed by the State, the rates of indigent defense. In support of this payment for indigent defense services in assertion, the State directs this court to three neighboring counties were between the decision in Honore v. Washin tc�on $40 to $75 per hour. In this case fees that State Board of Prison Terms and appointed counsel were awarded ranged Paroles, 77 Wash.2d 660, 466 P.2d 485 from $132 to $180 per hour. (1970). One of the issues in Honore was whether an attorney who is appointed to ¶ 58 However, the counties from which pursue an appeal in habeas corpus was the State pooled its data were not facing entitled to compensation. 77 Wash.2d at 674, 466 P.2d 485. In deciding the 864'8r�` unique emergency that g whether existed in Grant County. Rather than one an award of compensation was person or one office that handled the mandatory for court appointed counsel, majority of the public defense work, Grant the court discussed the traditional duty of County relied on a pool of private lawyers court appointed counsel to accept court who were conscripted to handle all of the appointments pro bono. indigent criminal defense cases. These attorneys were not themselves public 160 However, what the State fails to defenders, but were private attorneys mention is that the court asked to lend their assistance to in Honore ultimately went on to hold that temporarily alleviate a court crippling an attorney appointed to a habeas appeal situation as it pertained to indigent is entitled to compensation for his or her defense. The assistance was given at a services from public funds, and that the risk of detriment to their own practice. amount of that compensation should be Under these circumstances the public fixed by the court hearing the defender survey from other counties had appeal. Id. at 680, 466 P.2d 485. The limited relevance. The trial court instead court based its decision on the fact that looked to the practices of the local requiring an attorney to process an appeal attorneys for the county, the normal fees, without compensation could undermine and the overhead costs of their practice. the quality of his or her service to the Given the unique difficulties being faced client and could also lead to the scarcity by Grant County with regard to the of counsel willing to accept court complete lack of a public defense system, appointments. Id. at 679, 466 P.2d 485. this decision to give limited weight to the fees charged for indigent defense 161 Honore also held that payment of services in other jurisdictions was not a compensation could only be secured manifest abuse of discretion. through filing a claim with the State legislature. Id. at 680, 466 P.2d 485. However, this was because no statute existed that authorized the courts to appropriated for indigent defense award compensation for appointed services. This finding indicates that the counsel on habeas appeals. Id. at 677, trial court did consider whether public 466 P.2d 485. In this case, RCW funds existed to compensate appointed 36.26.090 specifically authorizes the trial counsel. The determination that funds court to set and award compensation and appropriated were sufficient to reimbursement for appointed counsel and pay the fees awarded was not an abuse mandates that the board of county of discretion. commissioners make payment of the award to counsel. The decision Respect for both the in Honore does not support the conclusion p that appointed counsel has an obligation taxpaying public as well to accept indigent defense appointments as for the rights of the pro bono in every case. g accused ¶62 Moreover, there is no authority for the proposition that there is a duty to ¶64 It is apparent the trial court was accept pro bono appointments when the concerned about the overall costs to the court appoints multiple criminal cases to a community for providing public defenders single attorney. In these consolidated but it was also concerned about its cases, many of the appointed attorneys obligations to provide counsel for the were asked to defend defendants in a indigent. The solution it chose and its number of cases. One attorney was efforts to balance the competing interests assigned at least 14 cases. In such was reasonable and not an abuse of circumstances, asking an attorney to discretion. defend multiple criminal cases without compensation would be an onerous ¶65 The trial court considered all of the burden that could unduly impoverish the pertinent factors when making the appointed attorneys and would likely lead determinations of what was reasonable to a great reduction in the number of compensation. In doing so, the trial court attorneys willing to accept such showed appropriate concern for the appointments. The trial court did not err financial survival of the private attorneys when it determined that appointed who were conscripted to take multiple counsel did not have an obligation to take criminal cases. The specific awards of on all of Grant County's public defense compensation were based on an work pro bono. evaluation of all of these factors. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its Amount of public funds discretion in its awards of reasonable available for such compensation. purposes IV. Attorney Fees on 163 The trial court heard argument that a Appeal budget of over five hundred thousand dollars had been approved for indigent ¶66 The court appointed attorneys seek defense in Grant County. Subsequently, reasonable attorney fees based on the the trial court made a finding of fact that necessity of prosecuting this appeal. The approximately $600,000 had been State claims that there is no legal authority to award appointed counsel jij It should also be noted that appointed counsel attorney fees since they are seeking were not the parties who brought this appeal in order to secure reasonable compensation. Here, it is the compensation for themselves and are State who is challenging the trial court's determination therefore not representing the interests of of fees as part of the underlying criminal cases. their indigent clients.v This assertion ignores both statutory and case law that specifically authorizes such an award. 167 RAP 18.1 permits attorney fees when authorized by applicable law. This court is authorized to award attorney fees and costs to court appointed attorneys on appeal. See, e.g., McKenney, 20 Wash.App. at 807, 582 P.2d 573; RCW 36.26.090. 168 In light of the authority that supports the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs to court appointed indigent defense counsel, we direct a commissioner of the Court of Appeals to determine costs and reasonable attorney fees on this appeal. Only those appointed attorneys who actually provided legal assistance during the course of this appeal are entitled to fees on appeal. The mere fact that the case to which they were appointed has been appealed does not entitle them to additional attorney fees. ¶69 In summary, the Grant County Superior Court judges did not err in refusing to recuse themselves from hearings regarding compensation of appointed counsel. In conducting these hearings they were acting within their statutory and inherent authority. We also hold that the judges did not abuse their discretion in setting the amount of the fees. Therefore, we affirm the trial court. WE CONCUR: KATO, C.J., and SCHULTHEIS, J. rl Judge Philip J.Thompson is serving as judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals pursuant to RCW 2.06.150.