Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026/07/21 - Regular Packet
Board of Mason County Commissioners Draft Meeting Agenda Commission Chambers 411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584 July 21, 2026 9:00 a.m. Commission meetings are live streamed at http://www.masonwebtv.com/ Regular Commission business meetings will be held in-person and via Zoom. Please click the Zoom meeting link posted on the Mason County homepage and use the “raise hand” feature to be recognized by the Chair to provide comment and testimony. Public comment and testimony can be provided in-person, via e-mail at msmith@masoncountywa.gov; mail in to the Commissioners’ Office at 411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584; or call (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 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Correspondence and Organizational Business 4.1 Correspondence 5. Open Forum for Citizen Input Please see above options to provide public comment; 3 minutes per person, 15-minute time limit. 6. Adoption of Agenda Items appearing on the agenda after “Item 10. Public Hearings” may be acted upon before 9:15 a.m. 7. Approval of Minutes – June 23, 2026 Regular Minutes and June 29, July 6, and July 13, 2026 Briefing Minutes 8. Approval of Action Agenda Items listed under “Action Agenda” may be enacted by one motion unless a Commissioner or citizen requests an item be removed from the Action Agenda and considered a separate item. 8.1 Approval of Warrants and Treasurer Electronic Remittances Claims Clearing Fund Warrant # 8122255-8122434 $ 733,414.27 Direct Deposit Fund Warrant # 127521-127927 $ 985,494.67 Salary Clearing Fund Warrant # 7009805-7009844 $1,293,775.81 Treasurer Electronic Remittance $ 323,393.28 8.2 Approval of the temporary Full-Time Employee (FTE) Senior Deputy Prosecutor position for four (4) months for succession planning and transitioning appellate workload. 8.3 Approval for Public Works to issue water leak credits for customer no. 303089 in the amount of $4,512, plus applicable late fees, based on verification that the leaks have been repaired. 8.4 Approval of the Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 2026-029 cancelling the Public Hearing for Wednesday August 12, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. regarding Road Vacation No. 427. 8.5 Approval for the Sheriff’s Office to convert a FTE Patrol Deputy position to a Patrol Lieutenant position. 8.6 Approval for the Washington State University (WSU) Extension to submit a proposal to the Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) Title II Secure Rural School Act 2026. July 21, 2026 | Page 2 of 2 8.7 Approval of the FY25 Homeland Security Grant Program (25HSGP/SHSP), Contract E26-342, awarding $19,508 from the Washington State Military Department (EMD) and US Department of Homeland Security to Mason County, for the performance period of September 1, 2025 through September 1, 2027. 8.8 Approval to appoint Spencer Pruitt, James East, Art Whitson, David Meinert, Jannette Harmon, and Mike Jones to the Wake Boat Advisory Committee. 8.9 Approval of the letter of support for Island Enterprises, Inc.’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) sub-application. 8.10 Approval of the following Mason County Officers, Employee’s and former Employee’s, pursuant to Mason County Ordinance 06-18, request for Defense & Indemnification coverage assigned by the County as named defendants in the case of Joan Bayley; Philip Bayley v State of Washington, et al., cause no. 26-2-00484-23, served upon Mason County on July 10, 2026, via Auditor’s Office: Sheriff Ryan Spurling. 9. Other Business (Department Heads and Elected Officials) 10. 9:15 a.m. Public Hearings and Items Set for a Certain Time Please see above options to provide public testimony; 10 minutes per person. 10.1 Public Hearing to take public comment on the petition to name the Senator Tim Sheldon Bridge. Staff: Travis Adams 10.2 Public Hearing to consider an Ordinance on wake-enhanced motorboats. Staff: Travis Adams 11. Board’s Calendar and Reports 12. Adjournment MASON COUNTY TO: Board of Mason County Commissioners Reviewed FROM: Kariann Hall Ext. 380 DEPARTMENT: Support Services Action Agenda DATE: July 21, 2026 No. 4.1 ITEM: Correspondence 4.1.1 Received 2026 Preliminary Populations Estimates from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management. 4.1.2 Received letter from Mason County PUD No.l regarding Hazard Tree Removal. 4.1.3 Received Notice of Cannabis License Application for WW GROW GARDEN LLC and GOLDEN GREEN LLC. 4.1.4 Received letter from Mason County PUD No.3 regarding Planned power outage for Tahuya Peninsula area. 4.1.5 Received Timberland Regional Library Board of Trustees Application from Randy Lewis 4.1.6 Received Letter from Pam Parsons regarding Short-Term Rental Properties in Mason County. Attachments: Originals on file with the Clerk of the Board. 4f ( I . IVLr JUN O V 2026 � O OT i I STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Insurance Building,PO Box 43113 e Olympia, Washington 98504-3113.360-902-0555 June 2,2026 Dear City,Town,and County Officials: Enclosed for your review is an information packet that includes the preliminary April 1,2026,population estimates developed by the Office of Financial Management. Preliminary population estimates are being sent to the highest elected official in all local jurisdictions,city population contact persons, county and commissioner executives,county planners and regional planning agencies.The figures are provided for administrative review only and are subject to change.These population estimates should not be released to the public or to the press under any circumstances until they are finalized and released on OFM's website on June 30,2026. Please evaluate your jurisdiction's 2026 population estimates based on housing and population changes from 2020 to 2026. When reviewing your estimates please consider that many jurisdictions experienced strong housing growth this year driven by the demand for housing earlier this decade.While housing growth remains strong,population growth has slowed,and this year's estimates reflect that change. For questions or concerns regarding your city's estimate,please email us at pop.estimatesia ofin.wa.goy or contact your OFM analyst directly.Requests for revisions and supporting documentation must be received by close of business,June 18,2026.By statute,OFM must finalize and release these figures on or before July 1,2026. OFM will post the official April 1,2026,population estimates on our website at http://www.ofrn.wa.gov/pop/april1.If you do not have internet access,please email pop.estimatesc ofrn.wa.gov to request a paper or PDF copy. If you have further questions, please contact me at 360-870-7974 or email me at mike.inohrmanaa,ofm.wa.gov. Sincerely, Mike Mohrman, State Demographer Forecasting and Research Division Enclosures Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of --�------ ---.—.—..'r Cities,Towns and Counties DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues I REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Adams 20,613 20,900 21,100 21,200 21,475 21,550 22,000 Unincorporated 9,472 9,575 9,575 9,585 9,628 9,640 9,730 Incorporated 11,141 11,325 11,525 11,615 11,847 11,910 12,270 Hatton 79 80 80 80 167 ` 165 175 Lind 535 535 535 535 535 535 - 535 Othello 8,549 8,725 8,920 9,005 9,145 9,210 9,560 Ritzville 1,767 1,775 1,780 1,785 1,790 1,790 1,790 Washtucna 211 210 210 210 210 210 210 Asotin 22,285 22,500 22,600 22,660 22,725 22,750 22,950 Unincorporated 13,920 14,070 14,165 14,205 14,260 14,285 14,375 Incorporated 8,365 8,430 8,435 8,445 8,465 8,465 8,575 Asotin 1,204 1,215 1,220 1,225 1,225 1,225 1,225 Clarkston 7,161 7,215 7,215 7,220 7,240 7,240 7,350 Benton 206,873 209,400 212,300 215,500 217,850 219,625 223,200 Unincorporated 36,556 36,760 37,445 37,615 37,805 37,980 38,190 Incorporated 170,317 172,640 174,855 177,885 180,045 181,645 185,010 Benton City 3,479 3,500 3,710 3,810 3,845 3,845 3,935 Kennewick 83,921 84,620 85,320 86,470 87,120 87,790 89,220 Prosser 6,062 6,130 6,195 6,445 6,610 6.650 6,745 Richland 60,560 61,320 62,220 63,320 64,190 64,930 66,290 West Richland 16,295 17,070 17,410 17,840 18,280 18.430 18,820 Chelan 79,141 $ 80,000 80,650 81,500 82,300 82,900 83,525 Unincorporated 32,507 33,140 33,460 33,875 34,320 34,545 34,765 Incorporated 46,634 46,860 47,190 47,625 47,980 48.355 48,760 Cashmere 3,248 3,260 3,280 3,355 3,390 3,420 3,435 Chelan 4,222 4,320 4,390 4,470 4,580 4,630 4,665 Entiat 1,326 1,340 1,355 1,360 1,375 1,520 1,545 Leavenworth 2,263 2,390 2,515 2,590 2,595 2,615 2,635 Wenatchee 35,575 $ 35,550 35,650 35,850 36,040 36,170 36,480 Clallam 77,155 77,750 77,625 78,075 78,550 78,650 78,950 Unincorporated 45,836 46,170 45,850 46,090 46,320 46,375 46,730 incorporated 31,319 31,580 31,775 31,985 32,230 32.275 32,220 Forks 3,335 3,335 3,360 3,395 3,415 3.425 3,510 Port Angeles 19,960 20,120 20,200 20,240 20,410 20,440 20,300 Sequim 8,024 8,125 8,215 8,350 8,405 8,410 8,410 Clark 503,311 513,100 520,900 527,400 536,300 542,400 549,500 Unincorporated 233,048 $ 236,200 237,650 240,155 243,830 245,750 248,820 Incorporated 270,263 276,900 283,250 287,245 292,470 296,650 300,680 Battle Ground 20,743 21,160 21,780 21,910 22,470 22,790 23,570 Camas 26,065 26,870 27,250 27,420 27,680 27,970 28,490 La Center 3,424 3,605 3,835 3,890 4,045 4.270 4,440 Ridgefield 10,325 $ 11,910 13,640 15,180 15,790 16,290 16,820 Vancouver 190,915 194,400 197,600 199,600 202,600 205,100 207,000 Washougal 17.039 17,200 17,390 17,490 18,150 18,360 18,490 Woodland part 84 85 85 85 85 85 85 Yacolt 1,668 1,670 1,670 1,670 1,670 1,785 1,785 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of - -: Cities,Towns and Counties DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Columbia 3,952 3,950 3,960 3,950 3,975 3,950 3,925 Unincorporated 1,385 1,380 1,385 1,385 1,410 1,390 1,375 Incorporated 2,567 2,570 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,560 2,550 Dayton 2,448 2,450 2,445 2,445 2,445 2,440 2,435 Starbuck 119 120 120 120 120 120 115 Cowlitz 110,730 111,500 112,360 113,000 113,900 114,500 114,900 Unincorporated 48,339 $ 49,115 49,850 50,105 50,775 51,205 51,360 Incorporated 62,391 62,385 62,500 62,895 63,125 63,295 63,540 Castle Rock 2,446 2,445 2,445 2,460 2,465 2,470 2,475 Kalama 2,960 $ 3,010 3,065 3,070 3,160 3,165 3,170 Kelso 12,720 12,720 12,720 12,750 12,780 12,850 12,880 Longview 37,818 37,750 37,780 38,130 38,230 38,310 38,450 Woodland part 6,447 6,460 6,490 6,485 6,490 6.500 6,565 Douglas 42,938 43,550 44,000 44,500 45,160 45,450 45,850 Unincorporated 23,700 24,290 24,590 24,890 25,345 25,565 25,925 Incorporated 19,238 19,260 19,410 19,610 19,805 19,885 19,925 Bridgeport 2,141 2,110 2,135 2,155 2,200 2,190 2,195 Coulee Dam part 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 East Wenatchee 14,158 14,180 14,180 14,210 14,240 14,310 14,330 Mansfield 326 330 330 330 335 335 335 Rock Island 1,279 1,300 1,425 1,570 1,880 1,695 1,705 Watervllle 1,134 1,140 1,140 1,145 1,150 1,155 1,160 Ferry 7,178 7,250 7,300 7,300 7,350 7,350 7,350 Unincorporated 6,186 6.250 6,300 6,300 6,345 6,350 6,350 Incorporated 992 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,000 1,000 Republic 992 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,000 1,000 Franklin 96,749 98,350 99,750 101,100 102,300 103,250 105,900 Unincorporated 13,668 13,990 14,195 14,325 14,360 14,535 14,715 Incorporated 83,081 84,360 85,555 86,775 87,940 88,715 91,185 Connell 5,441 5,125 4,840 4,960 5,175 5,180 5,075 Kahlotus 147 145 145 145 145 145 145 Mesa 385 390 390 390 400 400 405 Pasco 77,108 78,700 80,180 81,280 82,220 82,990 85,560 Garfield 2,286 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,325 2,300 2,300 Unincorporated 897 905 905 905 910 905 905 Incorporated 1,389 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,415 1,395 1,395 Pomeroy 1,389 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,415 1,395 1,395 Grant 99,123 100,800 101,800 103,300 105,300 106,250 107,500 Unincorporated 44,987 45,635 45,860 46,660 47,000 47,235 47,470 Incorporated 54,136 55,165 55,940 56,640 58,300 59,015 60,030 Coulee City 549 560 560 560 560 560 560 Coulee Dam part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric City 956 955 960 965 975 975 970 Ephrata 8,477 6,575 8,620 8,690 8,810 8,915 9,025 George 809 815 820 885 900 900 1,000 Grand Coulee 972 970 965 960 955 950 955 Hartline 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 Krupp 49 50 50 45 45 45 45 Mattawa 3.335 3,340 3,535 3,575 3,875 3,890 3,935 Moses Lake 25,146 25,760 26,040 26,210 27,070 27.530 27,960 Quincy 7,543 7,720 7,830 8,065 8,220 8,330 8,560 Royal City 1,776 1,855 1,910 1,910 1,960 1,960 1,960 Soap Lake 1,691 1,695 1,740 1,765 1,795 1,810 1,850 Warden 2,449 2,485 2,525 2,625 2,750 2,765 2,825 Wilson Creek 204 205 205 205 205 205 205 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of r Cities,Towns and Counties • DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues I REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Grays Harbor 75,636 76,050 76,400 77,000 77,400 77,750 78,150 Unincorporated 28,993 29,020 29,125 29,370 29,420 29,470 29,515 Incorporated 46,643 47,030 47,275 47,630 47,980 48,280 48,635 Aberdeen 17,013 17,050 17,040 17,080 17,100 17,200 17,240 Cosmopolis 1,638 1,655 1,665 1,670 1,680 1,680 1,685 Elms 3,438 3,450 3,460 3,480 3,505 3,535 3,540 Hoqulam 8,776 8,785 8,785 8,795 8,800 8.810 8,820 McCleary 1,997 2,040 2,040 2.120 2,085 2,085 2,085 Montesano 4,138 4,145 4,150 4,090 4,135 4,135 4,150 Oakville 715 710 720 720 720 720 720 Ocean Shores 6,715 6,965 7,160 7,380 7,630 7,755 7,985 Westport 2,213 2,230 2,255 2,295 2,325 2,360 2,410 Island 86,857 87,100 87,700 88,160 88,650 88,700 89,000 Unincorporated 59,146 59,310 59,820 60,210 60,540 60,650 60,830 Incorporated 27,711 27,790 27,880 27,940 28,110 28,050 28,170 Coupeville 1,942 1,950 1,965 1,995 2,020 2,030 2,035 Langley 1,147 1,150 1,155 1,165 1,190 1,200 1,205 Oak Harbor 24,622 24,690 24,760 24,780 24,900 24,820 24,930 Jefferson 32,977 33,100 33,350 33,425 33,700 33,825 34,100 Unincorporated 22,829 22,880 23,060 23,095 23,170 23,245 23.320 Incorporated 10,148 10,220 10,290 10,330 10,530 10,580 10,780 Port Townsend 10,148 10,220 10,290 10,330 10,530 10,580 10,780 King 2,269,676 2,287,050 2,317,700 2,347,800 2,378,100 2,411,700 2,424,700 Unincorporated 246,266 247,385 248,160 249,060 249,575 250,225 250,540 Incorporated 2,023,409 2,039,665 2,069,540 2,098,740 2,128,525 2,161.475 2,174,160 Algona 3,290 3.290 3.300 3,315 3,335 3,335 3,335 Auburn part 77,243 78,040 78,690 78,760 78,890 80,260 80,290 Beaux Arts Village 317 315 315 315 315 310 310 Bellevue 151,854 152,600 153,900 154,600 155,000 158,000 158,300 Black Diamond 4,697 5,320 6,145 6,880 7,195 7,435 7,550 Bothell part 28,956 28,930 29,210 29,280 30,290 31,340 31.480 Burien 52,066 52,430 52,490 52,560 53,000 53,320 53,470 Carnation 2,158 2,150 2,160 2.225 2,250 2,320 2,415 Clyde Hill 3,126 3,110 3,110 3,115 3,100 3,095 3,100 Covington 20,777 20,890 21,200 21,600 22,000 22,160 22,200 Des Moines 32,888 33,100 33,160 33,260 33,400 33,540 33,690 Duvall 8,034 8,125 8,320 8,530 8,780 8,810 8,910 Enumclaw part 12,543 12,830 12,910 13,090 13,350 13,400 13,440 Federal Way 101,030 101,700 101,800 102,000 102,500 102,900 103,000 Hunts Point 457 455 460 460 460 455 455 Issaquah 40,051 40,640 40,950 41,290 41,500 41,560 41,590 Kenmore 23,914 24,050 24,090 24,230 24,350 24,520 24,600 Kent 136,588 137,700 137,900 139,100 140,400 140,100 140,400 Kirkland 92,175 92,900 93,570 96,920 96,710 97,850 98,860 Lake Forest Park 13,630 13,630 13,620 13.660 13,680 13,700 13,700 Maple Valley 28,013 28.640 28,920 29,250 29,320 29,340 29,340 Medina 2,915 2.920 2,915 2,925 2,920 2.915 2,915 Mercer Island 25,748 25,790 25,780 25,800 25,830 25,850 25,870 Milton part 1.640 1,630 1,630 1,635 1,635 1,640 1,770 Newcastle 13,017 13,310 13,560 13,610 13,750 13,880 13,940 Normandy Park 6,771 6,785 6,790 6,840 6,855 6,855 6,860' North Bend 7,461 7,685 7,915 8,120 8,260 8,590 8,700 Pacifcpart 7,194 7,215 7,230 7,230 7,230 7,240 7,245 Redmond 73,256 73,910 75,270 77,490 80,040 82,380 83,320 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of Cities,Towns and Counties , DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 King continued Renton 106.785 107,100 107,500 107,900 108,800 109,700 109,800 Sammamish 67,455 67,940 68,150 68,280 68,410 68,480 68,500 SeaTac 31,454 32,000 31,910 31,740 32,710 32,990 33,210 Seattle 737,015 742,400 762,500 779,200 797,700 816,600 823,400 Shoreline 58,608 59,260 60,320 61,120 61,910 63,740 64,710 Skykomish 161 160 165 165 165 165 165 Snoqualmie 14,121 14,490 14,490 14.500 14,520 14,550 14,550 Tukwila 21,798 22,000 22,620 22,780 22,930 22,960 23,290 Woodinville 13,069 13,100 13,450 13,830 13,900 14,060 14,350 Yarrow Point 1,134 1,125 1,125 1,135 1,135 1,130 1,130 Kltsap 276,611 277,700 280,900 283,200 286,100 288,900 291,800 Unincorporated 179,719 180,840 182,040 183,500 184,070 185,110 185,830 Incorporated 95,892 96,860 98,860 99,700 102,030 103,790 105,970 Bainbridge Island 24,825 24,930 25,060 25,180 25,330 25,530 25,650 Bremerton 43,505 43,970 45,220 44,640 45,390 45,890 46,310 Port Orchard 15,587 15,960 16,400 17,480 18,300 19,260 20,500 Poulsbo 11,975 12,000 12.180 12,400 13,010 13,110 13,510 Kittitas 46,468 $ 45,225 47,200 47,300 48,600 48,950 49,260 Unincorporated 20,567 20,530 21,045 21,180 22,385 22,405 22,445 Incorporated 25,901 24,695 26,155 26,120 26,215 26,545 26,805 Cle Elum 2,157 2,210 2,250 2.255 2,265 2,300 2,315 Ellensburg 20,797 $ 19,530 20,940 20.900 20,970 21,260 21,500 Kittitas 1,438 1,440 1,440 1.440 1,445 1,445 1,445 Roslyn 950 955 960 960 965 965 965 South Cle Elum 559 560 565 565 570 575 580 Klickltat 22,735 23,000 23,150 23,250 23,450 23,600 23,700 Unincorporated 16,019 16,255 16,405 16,485 16,605 16,755 16,835 Incorporated 6,716 6,745 6,745 6,765 6,845 6,845 6,865 Bingen 778 780 780 780 780 780 795 Goldendale 3,453 3,475 3,475 3,485 3,515 3,500 3,500 White Salmon 2,485 2,490 2,490 2,500 2,550 2,565 2,570 Lewis 82,149 82,700 83,400 84,075 84,950 85,550 86,550 Unincorporated 49,461 49,840 50,185 50,580 50,550 50,765 51,140 Incorporated 32,688 32,860 33,215 33,495 34,400 34,785 35,410 Centralia 18,183 18,280 18,360 18,400 18,510 18,730 19,130 Chehalis 7,439 7,350 7,365 7,400 7,480 7,515 7,590 Morton 1,036 1,055 1,070 1,080 1,085 1,095 1,095 Mossyrock 768 775 780 785 800 815 820 Napavine 1,888 1,895 1,955 1,995 2,040 2,050 2,055 Pe Ell 642 640 650 655 655 660 670 Toledo 631 635 685 " 695 700 710 715 Vader 629 645 655 650 665 690 710 Winlock 1,472 1,585 1,695 1,835 2,465 2,520 2,625 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of —-—-— —.r Cities,Towns and Counties • DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues I REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Lincoln 10,876 10,900 11,060 11,125 11,300 11,250 11,300 Unincorporated 5,290 5,320 5,440 5,490 5,840 5,655 5,685 Incorporated 5,586 5,580 5,610 5.635 5,660 5,595 5,615 Almira 318 315 320 320 320 315 315 Creston 213 215 215 220 225 220 225 Davenport 1,703 1,705 1,710 1,725 1,730 1,720 1,730 Harrington 429 425 430 435 435 430 430 Odessa 896 890 890 890 895 875 875 Reardan 637 640 650 650 655 645 650 Sprague 495 495 500 500 500 495 495 Wilbur 895 895 895 895 900 895 895 Mason 65,726 65,760 66,200 67,000 67,476 67,800 67,950 Unincorporated 55,355 55,340 55,770 56,580 57,125 57,390 57,500 Incorporated 10,371 10,410 10,430 10,420 10,350 10,410 10,450 Shelton 10,371 10,410 10,430 10,420 10,350 10,410 10,450 Okanogan 42,104 42,350 42,700 43,000 43,200 43,400 43,500 Unincorporated 25,943 26,105 26,325 26.500 26,660 26,790 26,885 Incorporated 16,161 16,245 16,375 16,500 16,540 16,610 16,615 Brewster 1,983 1,995 1,990 1,995 1,995 2,005 2,005 Conconully 193 190 190 195 195 195 195 Coulee Dam part 1,011 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010 Elmer City 239 245 245 245 245 245 245 Nespelem 180 180 180 185 185 185 185 Okanogan 2,379 2,395 2,415 2,420 2,420 2,425 2,400 Omak 4,860 4,870 4,950 4,980 4,980 4,985 5.000 Oroville 1,795 1,800 1.805 1,810 1,815 1,820 1,820 Pateros 593 590 590 595 600 610 620 Riverside 329 325 325 325 325 325 325 Tonasket 1,103 1.095 1,085 1,085 1,085 1,090 1,085 Twisp 992 1,015 1,035 1,075 1,095 1,110 1,100 Winthrop 504 535 555 580 590 605 625 Pacific 23,366 23,425 23,600 23,775 23,950 23,950 23,960 Unincorporated 15,763 15,815 15,980 16,070 16,185 16,230 16,210 Incorporated 7,602 7,610 7,640 7,705 7,765 7.720 7,740 Ilwaco 1,087 1,085 1,100 1,110 1,115 1,100 1,095 Long Beach 1,688 1,700 1,715 1,730 1,745 1,730 1,730 Raymond 3,081 3,075 3,090 3,110 3,160 3,155 3,160 South Bend 1,746 1,750 1,735 1,755 1,745 1,735 1,755 Pend Oreille 13,401 13,475 13,625 13,725 13,860 13,950 14,100 Unincorporated 10,272 10,345 10,480 10,575 10,680 10,750 10,875 Incorporated 3,129 3,130 3,145 3,150 3,170 3,200 3,225 Cusick 153 150 155 155 165 180 180 lone 428 425 425 425 430 430 430 Metaline 162 160 160 160 160 160 155 Metaline Falls 272 275 275 275 275 275 275 Newport 2,114 2,120 2,130 2,135 2,140 2,155 2,185 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of �r Cities,Towns and Counties DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OEM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Pierce 920,393 $ 928,200 937,400 946,300 952,600 959,900 967,000 Unincorporated 430,248 435,135 440,800 446,150 447,645 450,750 453,785 Incorporated 490,145 493,065 496,600 500,150 504,955 509,150 513,215 Auburn part 10,013 10,040 10,060 10,060 10,060 10,060 10,060 Bonney Lake 21,750 $ 23,510 22,990 23,250 23,320 23,450 23,510 Buckley 5,114 5,300 5,315 5,555 5,740 5,785 5,905 Carbonado 734 740 740 745 755 750 755 DuPont 10,151 10,180 10,180 10,180 10,180 10,190 10,190 Eatonville 2,845 2,875 2,890 2,900 2,905 2.930 2,945 Edgewood 12,327 13,110 13,520 13,590 14,080 14,120 14,160 Enumclaw part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fife 10,999 11,150 11,130 11,150 11,320 11,300 11,440 Fircrest 7,156 7,195 7,215 7,235 7,230 7,240 7,250 Gig Harbor 12,029 12,200 12,540 13,060 13,090 13,110 13,140 Lakewood 63,612 63,600 63,800 64.150 64,620 64,670 64,980 Milton part 7,057 7,065 7,065 7,080 7,120 7,155 7,195 Orting 9,041 9,010 9,055 9,110 9,125 9,125 9,160 Pacific part 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 Puyallup 42,973 43,060 43,280 43,420 43,410 43,730 44,000 Roy 816 815 815 815 815 820 820 Ruston 1,055 1,060 1,060 1,065 1,065 1,075 1,080 South Prairie 373 375 620 645 625 625 625 Steilacoom 6,727 6,745 6,790 6,825 6,845 6,860 6,890 Sumner 10,621 10,700 10,800 10,800 11,040 11,080 11,060 Tacoma 219,346 218,700 220,800 222,400 225,100 228,400 231,000 University Place 34,866 35,100 35,420 35,580 35,970 36,140 36,490 Wilkeson 499 495 495 495 500 495 500 San Juan 17,788 17,850 18,150 18,350 18,476 18,560 18,650 Unincorporated 15,175 $ 15,220 15,470 15,635 15,735 15,805 15,895 Incorporated 2,613 2,630 2,680 2,715 2,740 2.745 2,755 Friday Harbor 2,613 $ 2,630 2,680 2,715 2,740 2,745 2,755 Skagit 129,523 130,000 131,250 132,000 133,300 134,600 135,350 Unincorporated 52,606 52,750 52,970 53.065 53,210 53,380 53,580 Incorporated 76,917 77,250 78,280 78,935 80,090 81,220 81,770 Anacortes 17,637 17,750 17,880 18,020 18,270 18,350 18,410 Burlington 9,152 9,290 9,800 9,905 10,410 10,910 11,200 Concrete 801 805 810 810 810 815 815 Hamilton 299 295 295 295 295 295 290 La Conner 965 970 980 990 995 1,000 1,000 Lyman 423 420 425 425 430 440 445 Mount Vernon 35,219 35,390 35,500 35,590 35,800 36,050 36.090 Sedro-Woolley 12,421 12,330 12,590 12,900 13,080 13,360 13,520 Skamania 11,604 $ 11,750 . 11,900 12,000 12,075 12,160 12,150 Unincorporated 9,148 9,255 9,375 9,460 9,500 9,565 9,565 Incorporated 2,456 2,495 2,525 2,540 2,575 2,585 2,585 North Bonneville 965 $ 970 975 975 985 985 985 Stevenson 1,491 1.525 1,550 1,565 1,590 1.600 1,600 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of Cities,Towns and Counties DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 . 2024 2025 2026 Snohomish 827,957 837,800 847,300 869,800 867,100 873,800 879,700 Unincorporated 367,716 371,300 371,915 374,435 376,700 379,255 381,290 Incorporated 460,241 466,500 475,385 485,365 490,400 494,545 498,410 Arlington 19,868 20,690 21,260 21,740 22,980 23,080 23,390 Bothell part 19,205 19,400 19,730 20,270 20,380 20,420 20,530 Brier 6,560 6,570 6,590 6,610 6,600 6,630 6,630 Darrington 1,462 1,470 1,490 1,505 1,515 1,520 1,520 Edmonds 42,853 42,900 42,980 43,370 43,420 43,510 43,770 Everett 110,629 112,300 113,300 114,200 114,800 114,700 114,900 Gold Bar 2,403 2,420 2,290 2,305 2,310 2,350 2,420 Granite Falls 4,450 4,490 4,705 4,775 4,775 4,775 4,765 Index 155 155 155 155 160 170 170 Lake Stevens 35,630 37,000 40,700 41,260 41,540 42,180 42,590 Lynnwood 38,568 38,650 38,740 40,790 41,500 42,540 43,070 Marysville 70,714 71.250 72,380 73,780 74,390 75,640 76,820 Mill Creek 20,926 20,930 21,510 21,630 21,630 21,630 21,630 Monroe 19,699 19,900 19,700 20,590 20,830 20,960 20,930 Mountlake Terrace 21,286 21,980 22,070 23,810 24,260 24,640 24,750 Mukilteo 21,538 21,580 21,590 21,590 21,590 21,600 21,610 Snohomish 10,126 10,160 10,200 10,330 10,350 10,500 10,770 Stanwood 7,705 7,980 8,405 8,585 8,865 8,950 9,325 Sultan 5,146 5,370 6,260 6,730 7,160 7,405 7,480 Woodway 1,318 1,325 1,330 1,340 1,345 1,345 1,340 Spokane 539,339 642,100 550,700 564,600 569,400 566,000 570,600 Unincorporated 158,524 159,560 162,715 163,390 164,850 167,915 169,635 Incorporated 380,815 382,540 387,985 391,210 394,550 398,085 400,965 Airway Heights 10,757 10,760 11,040 11,280 12,070 12,120 12,140 Cheney 13,255 12,390 12,920 13,160 13,150 13,180 13,130 Deer Park 4,383 4,520 4,670 4,925 5,100 5,135 5,565 Fairfield 589 600 600 600 600 600 600 Latah 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 Liberty Lake 12,003 12,480 12,870 13,150 13,870 14,110 14,790 Medical Lake 4,874 4,870 4,840 4,915 4,835 4,900 4,890 Millwood 1,881 1,915 1,915 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 Rockford 522 520 545 570 605 620 630 Spangle 280 280 280 280 285 285 285 Spokane 228,989 229,400 230,900 232,700 233,000 234,700 235,900 Spokane Valley 102,976 104,500 107,100 107,400 108,800 110,200 110,800 Waverly 121 120 120 120 125 125 125 Stevens 46,445 46,725 47,050 47,350 47,650 47,800 48,025 Unincorporated 36,675 36,925 37,172 37,405 37,605 37,720 37,870 Incorporated 9,770 9,800 9,878 9,945 10,045 10,080 10,155 Chewelah 2,470 2,485 2,535 2,580 2,645 2,675 2,880 Colville 4,917 4,910 4,900 4,925 4,955 4,945 5,030 Kettle Falls 1,636 1,655 1,650 1,640 1,640 1.645 1,625 Marcus 216 215 215 215 215 215 220 Northport 297 295 295 295 295 295 295 Springdale 234 240 283 " 290 295 305 305 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of Cities,Towns and Counties , DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Thurston 294,793 297,800 300,500 303,400 307,000 309,100 311,300 Unincorporated 144,856 145,255 143,760 143,980 145,735 146,645 147,255 Incorporated 149,937 152,545 156,740 159,420 161,265 162,455 164,045 Bucoda 600 595 610 620 620 630 630 Lacey 53,526 54,850 58,180 59.430 60,210 60,380 60,720 Olympia 55,382 $ 55,960 56,370 56,900 57,450 57,970 58,630 Rainier 2,369 2,440 2,510 2,555 2,565 2,590 2,590 Tenino 1,870 2,010 2,030 2,045 2,070 2,075 2,075 Tumwater 25,573 $ 26,050 26,360 27,100 27,470 27,680 28,030 Yelm 10,617 10,640 10,680 10,770 10,880 11,130 11,370 Wahkiakum 4,422 4,475 4,525 4,550 4,550 4,550 4,600 Unincorporated 3,862 3,915 3,965 3,975 3,970 3,970 4,015 Incorporated 560 560 560 575 580 580 585 Cathlamet 560 560 560 575 580 580 585 Walla Walla 62,584 62,100 62,625 63,100 63,375 63,800 64,100 Unincorporated 17,084 17,110 17,200 17,340 17,290 17,325 17,345 Incorporated 45,500 44,990 45,425 45,760 46,085 46,475 46,755 College Place 9,902 9,775 9,855 9,890 9,945 10,050 10,090 Prescott 372 370 370 375 375 375 370 Waitsburg 1,166 1,165 1.180 1,185 1,185 1,200 1,215 Walla Walla 34,060 33,680 34,020 34,310 34,580 34,850 35,080 Whatcom 226,847 226,300 231,650 235,800 238,000 240,500 242,260 Unincorporated 92,660 $ 92,730 93,130 94,175 94,465 94,810 94,935 Incorporated 134,187 133,570 138,520 141,625 143,535 145,690 147,315 Bellingham 91,482 89,860 93,910 95,960 97,270 98,340 99,030 Blaine 5,884 6,020 6,130 6,310 6,480 6,585 6,775 Everson 2,888 2,935 3,060 3,135 3,140 3,245 3,320 Femdale 15,048 15,570 15,970 16,330 16,430 17,020 17,240 Lynden 15,749 15,930 16,150 16,520 16,710 16,840 17,220 Nooksack 1,471 1,515 1,560 1,560 1,670 1,825 1,895 Sumas 1,665 * 1,740 1,740 1,810 1,835 1,835 1,835 Whitman 47,973 44,600 47,800 48,100 48,750 49,450 49,000 Unincorporated 5,929 5,880 5,920 5,930 5,955 5,965 6,010 Incorporated 42,044 38,720 41,880 42,170 42,795 43,485 42,990 Albion 550 545 545 540 550 545 545 Colfax 2,782 2,765 2,785 2,785 2,785 2,790 2,790 Colton 401 400 405 410 400 385 390 Endicott 312 310 310 310 310 310 310 Farmington 131 135 140 140 135 135 135 Garfield 562 565 565 565 565 565 565 LaCrosse 297 300 300 295 295 290 290 Lamont 79 80 80 85 85 85 85 Malden 216 110 135 135 125 130 135 Oakesdale 395 400 400 400 400 400 400 Palouse 1,015 1,020 1,035 1.050 1,055 1,060 1,065 Pullman 32,901 29,690 32,790 33,060 33,680 34,380 33,860 Rosalie 598 600 590 585 585 585 585 St.John 599 600 600 605 605 605 605 Tekoa 817 810 810 805 820 820 825 Uniontown 389 390 390 400 400 400 405 Preliminary April 1,2026 Population of �r Cities,Towns and Counties , DO NOT RELEASE Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues I REQUESTS FOR REVISIONS AND SUPPORTING State of Washington • DOCUMENTATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY OFM FORECASTING ON OR BEFORE JUNE 18,2026. County Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Municipality 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2026 2026 Yakima 256,728 258,100 269,950 261,200 263,200 264,650 265,775 Unincorporated 88,147 $ 88,240 88,955 89,155 89,635 89,955 90,125 Incorporated 168,581 169,860 170,995 172,045 173,565 174,695 175,650 Grandview 10,910 $ 10,960 11,020 11,250 11,680 11,950 12,280 Granger 3,624 3,690 3,740 3,775 3,815 3,775 3,805 Harrah 585 580 580 580 585 590 595 Mabton 1,959 1,975 1,975 1,965 1,965 1,990 1,995 Moxee 4,326 4,405 4,665 4,785 4,820 4,825 4,825 Neches 1,084 1,110 1,125 1,120 1,125 1,150 1,130 Selah 8,153 8,235 8,365 8,450 8,620 8,655 8,680 Sunnyside 16,375 16,400 16,500 16,530 16,570 16,690 16,790 Tieton 1,389 1,430 1,505 1,545 1,600 1,635 1,685 Toppenish 8,854 8,870 8,870 8,900 8,915 8,925 8,945 Union Gap 6,568 6,595 6,640 6,660 6,660 6,670 6,680 Wapato 4,607 4,610. 4,615 4,620 4,625 4,615 4,605 Yakima 96,968 97,810 98,200 98,650 99,370 100,000 100,400 Zillah 3,179 3,190 3,195 3,215 3,215 3,225 3,235 Washington 7,706,310 7,766,975 7,864,400 7,951,150 8,035,700 8,115,100 8,174,400 Unincorporated 2,668,754 2,689,740 2,708,392 2,728,885 2,747,208 2,764,260 2,779,625 Incorporated 5,037,556 5,077,235 5,156,008 5,222,265 5,288,492 5,350,840 5,394,775 *-State certified special census. +-Informal count A population count that is considered accurate but does not meet all special census certification requirements. 9-Informal census.A population and housing count that Is considered accurate but does not meet all special census certification requirements. $-Corrected Federal Census,Census 2020 population and housing adjusted for misallocated group quarters and annexations effective and approved by OFM from January 2,2020 to April 1,2020.The 2020 federal census count for Bonney Lake was corrected in 2022. The 2020 populations are,with a few exceptions,equal to the federal census PL 94-171 counts. With the exception of corrections or updates to the federal census counts,annual estimates in this official series are not revised on the basis of other information that becomes available after the estimate date. �' JUL0 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MASON COUNTY MIKE SHEETZ,Commissioner N.21971 Hwy. 101 JACK JANDA,Commissioner Shelton,Washington 98584 RON GOLD,Commissioner July 1,2026 Mason County 411 N 5t^St Shelton,WA 98584 Re: Hazard Tree Removal Dear Customer, To increase the safety and reliability of our electrical system and mitigate wildfires, Mason PUD 1 intends to remove several hazard trees along our distribution lines.We received a FEMA grant to harden our electrical system and reduce wildfire risks by removing dead or leaning trees and vegetation around the power lines. We have identified a tree on your property that poses an imminent hazard to the electrical lines.The PUD intends to work with our contractor, Kemp West, to remove the tree.(See enclosed images of tree.)They will begin work in the PUD's service area in October 2026 and their work will continue through March 2027. Your tree will be removed within that timeframe. The tree removal activities will be paid for by the PUD and will be at no cost to you. Unless you would like to keep the wood, all debris will be removed from the site to eliminate ground fuels for wildfire. If you'd prefer for the contractor to leave the felled tree in place on the ground, please let us know by September 30th and we will alert them. If you have any objections or concerns about the PUD's intent to remove this tree, please contact me prior to September 30th.You may email me or call my direct extension. Thank-you. fc&v c cu-Lock' Josh Garlock, Electric Superintendent joshg@mason-pudl.org (360)877-5249,x.204 (360)877-5249 0 (800)544-4223 Cl FAX(360)877-9274 www.mason-pudl.org S!r ' , 1n ••;,rif*: _____ ' ii':, M1Jtv try 5 1. p t t y .K ♦ t -Cl !_� � it ,..Y t f T ., �r qkct i.� r # 4 0 I t1ts tr i is A� -:�t�\ 7]I?'� / r � 'r�Gi •SI 1, _. e It ' -- - . - _ .t t:.o- H- - �� -_ ,aryl'' \ i. - a ,. i Welsh. tOn State Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board gLicensing Division: Cannabis Unit Liquor and Cannabis Board 1025 Union Ave SE, P.O. Box 43098 Olympia,WA 98504-3098 Customer Service:(360)664-1600 Fax:(360)753-2710\Website:www.Icb.wa.gov NOTICE OF CANNABIS LICENSE APPLICATION Please reply to the original email and attach your completed form. Click the Reply or Reply All option to make sure your response is correctly routed. DATE: 7/8/2026 TO: MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RE: Change of Location UBI:I: 605 968 136 001 0003 License:446034-7B APPLICANTS: WW GROW GARDEN LLC Trade Name: WW GROW GARDEN LLC DONG MING DENG, 02/12/1963 Loc Addr: 160 W.WESTFIELD COURT UNIT D3 D4 SHELTON WA 98584-4604 Mail Addr: 1227 BELLEFIELD PARK LN BELLEVUE WA 98004-6857 Contact Phone No.: 206-979-6166 Privileges Applied For: Cannabis Producer Tier 3 Cannabis Processor As required by RCW 69.50.331(7), the Liquor and Cannabis Board is notifying you that the above has applied for a cannabis license. You have 20 days from the date of this notice to provide input on this application. If we do not receive this notice back within 20 days, we will assume you have no objection to the issuance of the license. If you need additional time to respond, you must submit a written request for an extension of up to 20 days, with the reason(s) you need more time. If you need information on SSN, contact LCB's Cannabis CHRI at (360) 664-1704. YES NO 1. Do you approve of the applicant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ ❑ 2. Do you approve of the location? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ ❑ If you disapprove, per RCW 69.50.331(7)(c) you MUST attach a letter to the Board detailing the reason(s)for the objection providing facts on which your objection(s) are based. DATE SIGNATURE OF MAYOR,CITY MANAGER,COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,OR DESIGNEE Washington State Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board ) dS gLicensing Division: Cannabis Unit Liquor and Cannabis Board 1025 Union Ave SE, P.O.Box 43098 Olympia,WA 98504-3098 Customer Service: (360)664-1600 Fax:(360)753-2710\Website:www.Icb.wa.gov NOTICE OF CANNABIS LICENSE APPLICATION Please reply to the original email and attach your completed form. Click the Reply or Reply All option to make sure your response is correctly routed. DATE: 7/9/2026 TO: MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RE: Change of Location UBI:I: 6059604240010001 License:447632-7N APPLICANTS: GOLDEN GREEN LLC Trade Name: GOLDEN GREEN LLC ZHOURI NI, 09/15/1963 Loc Addr: 160 W.WESTFIELD COURT UNIT D1 SHELTON WA 98584-4604 Mail Addr: 1227 BELLEFIELD PARK LN BELLEVUE WA 98004-6857 Contact Phone No.: 206-353-2340 Privileges Applied For: Cannabis Producer Tier 2 Cannabis Processor Endorsements Applied For: As required by RCW 69.50.331(7), the Liquor and Cannabis Board is notifying you that the above has applied for a cannabis license. You have 20 days from the date of this notice to provide input on this application. If we do not receive this notice back within 20 days, we will assume you have no objection to the issuance of the license. If you need additional time to respond, you must submit a written request for an extension of up to 20 days, with the reason(s) you need more time. If you need information on SSN, contact LCB's Cannabis CHRI at (360) 664-1704. Washington State Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board ) dS gLicensing Division: Cannabis Unit Liquor and Cannabis Board 1025 Union Ave SE, P.O.Box 43098 Olympia,WA 98504-3098 Customer Service: (360)664-1600 Fax:(360)753-2710\Website:www.Icb.wa.gov YES NO 1. Do you approve of the applicant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ ❑ 2. Do you approve of the location? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ ❑ If you disapprove, per RCW 69.50.331(7)(c) you MUST attach a letter to the Board detailing the reason(s)for the objection providing facts on which your objection(s) are based. DATE SIGNATURE OF MAYOR,CITY MANAGER,COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,OR DESIGNEE Ott- rrr" 2026 Planned power outage for Tahuya Peninsula UD area. July 01, 2026 P.O.Box 2148 Shelton WA 98584-5043 MASON CO FACILITIES AND PARKS 411 N 5TH ST SHELTON WA 98584-3466 IIIInhlllydlhlIl^IhIII1t4hI. rPIrIII'-I unllutrt Dear Customer: PUD 3 has scheduled an overnight outage Aug 5-6 affecting about 7,000 North Mason customers as part of a multi-phase system upgrade project. Areas affected include: All of the Tahuya Peninsula, and most of Belfair, including your property at 804 NE SAND HILL RD WELL 2 800 NE SAND HILL RD CNCSN 1000 NE SAND HILL RD RV/WELL 802 NE SAND HILL RD SECLT 1002 NE SAND HILL RD WELL1 . The outage will last from approximately 10 PM Wednesday,Aug. 5, until approximately 6 AM Thursday,Aug. 6. August 5, crews will connect our new Belfair Switching Station to Bonneville Power Administration transmission lines, the culmination of years of work to expand electrical capacity and increase reliability across North Mason County. Learn more about the projects at pud3.org/belfair. During the outage, PUD 3 recommends unplugging sensitive appliances and electronic equipment until power has been restored for about 20 minutes. Also, especially with electronics, it is important to use surge protectors. We appreciate your patience while we perform this important work which will help us continue to offer you safe and reliable service. If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please contact me at (360) 432-3373. Sincerely, Brett Koehn Operations Superintendent Entry#: 93 Timberland Regional Library(TRL) Board of Trustees Status: Submitted Submitted: 7/13/2026 12:09 PM Advisory Board Name: Timberland Regional Library (TRL) Board of Trustees Name: Today's Date: Randal John Lewis (Randy) 7/13/2026 Address Voting Precinct: Phone Email Community Service: Employment: Mason County Planning Advisory Committee Retired Actuary 2017 Shelton School District Bond Committee Math Motivators Math Tutoring program at Shelton High School sponsored by the Actuarial Foundation Shelton Centennial Lions Club Shelton Invitational & State Track & Field Meet Pole Vault Official Mentor for Love Inc Jobs for Life program What do you perceive is the role or purpose of this advisory board? At this time my perception is that this board would be advised to scrutinize the financial activities of Timberline Library. Also important to scrutinize what books and other media and programs are appropriate in the libraries What interest or skills do you wish to offer this advisory board? BS mathematics/Member American Academy of Actuaries/Skilled in communication not only the financial status of an organization currently, but also the status under several potential futures. Lifelong book reader, in particular interest in history. Leader &collaberater in cross functional teams ; Rate Setting/ Product Development/Asset Liability List any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations that could create a potential conflict of interest: None that I am aware of Required Training: Yes or No: Participation is dependent on attending certain trainings such as the Open Public Meetings Act Yes (OPMA) and Public Records Act (PRA) trainings at no cost to you. Will you be able to attend such trainings? How much time can you com- Are you a U.S. citizen and *For Civil Service applications ONLY, mit to this advisory board: Mason County resident? what is your political party? Weekly Yes *For Wake Board Advisory Committee applications ONLY: *For TRL Board applications ONLY, what is your budget experience? Participated in decades of budget exercises , which for life insurance companies is very extensive and complicated. From: Pam Parsons To: McKenzie Smith; msmithCabco.mason.wa.us Subject: Please forward to county commissioners Date: Tuesday,July 14,2026 8:50:42 AM Hello. I spoke with Randy Neatherlin yesterday, who suggested I send this to you to please forward to all the county commissioners. I would also ask you to please send me a quick reply, so i know you received this. Thank you so much. To Mason County Commissioners: Regarding Short-Term Rental properties in Mason County My husband and I are blessed to live on the Grapeview area waterfront. We love our beautiful view, the peace and quiet, the glorious Case Inlet. However, in recent years, the properties on both sides of us have reverted from summer homes to short-term rentals (one side currently inactive, thankfully). Both owners live in Seattle and are rarely here in our area. These are simply investments for them. We've experienced and heard horror stories from other year-round residents whose lives, like us, have been forever changed by an endless parade of weekend revelers right nextdoor. A new crowd of strangers invades every weekend, in full vacation- mode, sometimes without regard at all for the neighborhood. We feel violated. We senior adults feel vulnerable. It can be scary. They often don't respect our property. Just yesterday, I had to ask a boy to please get off our bulkhead. I hate to think about our liability in these situations. Short-Term Rentals is a growing industry that simply MUST be controlled! Please do what you can to protect us tax-paying residents by reining in this insidious practice! I have three suggestions: 1) Strict limitations on the number of summer weekends any given property can host these groups. Washington summers are short already, and to put up with noisy strangers nextdoor every weekend, just to pad the pockets of the investors, is simply unfair. I suggest restricting this industry to half the summer weekends (June - September) - or less would be even better! 2) Since common courtesy isn't often practiced by these vacationers, strict rules are apparently needed, such as 11 pm quiet, no dogs, limits on group size (maybe 6 people at a time), no trespassing on the property of others. Owners of these properties should post clear signage to designate property lines, including beach rights, and install fences. 3) Hefty fines should be in place to enforce rules, since I know it isn't realistic for sheriffs to do so. Neighbors (like us) should be encouraged and entrusted to report violations. And perhaps STR owners could be required to accept liability for their guests, should any of their guests be injured on the innocent neighbors' land. Please protect the rights of the Mason County property owners you represent. Thank you for serving Mason County. I hope my input and suggestions are helpful as you work to regulate this new industry that has swept over our growing county. I welcome your comments. Sincerely, Pamela Parsons Grapeview pamparsons@comcast.net Board of Mason County Commissioners Proceedings Commission Chambers 411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584 June 23, 2026 1. Call to Order—The Chairperson called the regular meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance—Jeff Carey led the flag salute. 3. Roll Call—Present: Commissioner District 1 —Randy Neatherlin; Commissioner District 2— Pat Tarzwell; Commissioner District 3 —Sharon Trask. 4. Correspondence and Organizational Business 4.1 Correspondence 4.1.1 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board sent in a permanently discontinued business notice for Walter Dace Wines and Tuggs and Chuggs. 4.1.2 Marika Olson submitted an Advisory Board Application for the Timberland Regional Library(TRL)Board of Trustees. 4.1.3 Paula Johnson submitted an Advisory Board Application for the On-Site Sewage Advisory Commission(OSAC). 4.1.4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) sent in correspondence regarding the Interim Risk Reduction Measure(IRRM)Anchoring Project Seismic Stabilization Investigation and Construction Potential Failure Mode Analysis(CPFMA)for the Cushman No. 1 Development Project. 4.1.5 Department of Natural Resources sent in a letter regarding herbicide application. 5. Open Forum for Citizen Input James,Pastor for the First Baptist Church,opened the meeting in prayer. Jeff Carey commented that the public needs more information on what road vacations truly do and asked the County to ensure that property owners do not become landlocked. Bill Bruder requested patrol to enforce speeding in Timberlakes. Monte Ritter discussed a trail from Capital Hill to Mason County Recreational Area(MCRA) and shared a brief history on the Mason County Park's Comprehensive Plan. 6. Adoption of Agenda Cmmr.Trask/Neatherlin moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye. 7. Approval of Minutes Approval to adopt the May 26 and June 9,2026,Regular Minutes and June 8 and June 15,2026, Briefing Minutes as presented has been tabled for further review. 8. Approval of Action Agenda 8.1 Approval of Warrants and Treasurer Electronic Remittances Claims Clearing Fund Warrant#8121518-8121954 $2,251,671.49 Direct Deposit Fund Warrant# 126712-127118 $ 965,470.68 Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#7009734-7009774 $1,283,982.29 8.2 Approval of the Resolution adopting the updated Mason County Public Works Utilities and Waste Management Water Leak Credit Policy. (Resolution No.2026-028) 8.3 Approval to submit proposal to Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board(WSNWCB) for Fiscal Year 2027 Class A and B Designate Noxious Weed Eradication Program. 8.4 Approval of the contract with KnoxWorks for facilitation of the 5-Year Local Homeless Housing Plan—Local Plan Committee. 8.5 Approval of the Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)contract amendments for Crossroads Housing(Contract No.25-029 and 25-030),New Horizons Communities(Contract No.2025- 25-033),Turning Pointe Survivor Advocacy Center(Contract No.25-031), and the Youth Connection(Contract No.25-032). 8.6 Approval of the Resolution setting a hearing date with the Hearings Examiner for Wednesday August 12,2026,at 1:00 p.m.via Zoom to consider public comment on Road Vacation No. 427. (Resolution No.2026-029) 8.7 Approval of the rates for Mason County's 2027 annual budget for Internal Cost Allocations, Information Technology,Unemployment,and Motor Pool and approval for the Chair or the County Administrator to execute the order for eleven(11)replacement vehicles included in the 2027 Motor Pool Rates. 8.8 Approval of the 2027 Mason County Preliminary Budget Preparation Guidelines. 8.9 Approval of the Resolution adopting the 2026-2027 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy(CEDS)list as recommended by the Economic Development Council(EDC). (Resolution No.2026-030) 8.10 Approval of the Port of Allyn's .09 Fund request in the amount of$32,000 for the Sweetwater Creek Project. 8.11 Approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday,July 7 and 21 and August 4 and 18,2026, at 9:15 a.m.to take public comment on the petition to name the Senator Tim Sheldon Bridge. 8.12 Approval of the FY25 Emergency Management Performance Grant(25EMPG),Contract E26- 303,awarding$31,408 from Washington State Military Department(EMD)and US Department of Homeland Security to Mason County for the performance period of June 1, 2026,through September 30,2026. (Contract No.26-024) 8.13 Approval to terminate the Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)contract with The Youth Connection. (Contract No.25-032) 8.14 Approval of the Resolution updating the Mason County Personnel Policy Chapter 20- Lactation Accommodation and Sanitary Construction Worksite Policy. (Resolution No.2026- 031) 8.15 Approval to appoint Connie Lovelace as Cemetery Board Commissioner Position No. 3for a term expiring December 31, 2027. 8.16 Approval for the Chair and/or Public Works Director to execute all documents necessary to accept and administer the Commerce grants for the North Bay Facility Plan and Beard's Cove Water System Improvements projects. Cmmr.Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to approve action items 8.1 through 8.15 with the removal of Item 8.10,8.13,and 8.16 for separate discussion and vote.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye. Item 8.10 Cmmr.Neatherlin shared this item is for approval of the Port of Allyn's .09 fund request in the amount of$32,000 for the Sweetwater Creek Project. Travis Merrill,Port of Allyn Executive Director discussed how the acquisition and development of the Sweetwater Creek Project is in line with Port's statutory purposes and provided Revised Code of June 23,2026 I Page 2 of 5 Washington(RCWs)as examples.A professional arborist identified the trees of concern(hazard trees) and removal of the identified trees has been done.Mendy Harlow,Executive Director of the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group(HCSEG),added her appreciation for consideration of the project. Jeff Carey discussed the adopted Belfair Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)which identifies a need for a certain amount of acreage for the project to be fully functional and shared concerns on the scoring matrix that was adopted for.09 Fund projects that is not being utilized. Judy Scott,Port of Allyn Commissioner,shared her support of the .09 Fund request and added that many of the issues that Ken VanBuskirk has brought forward are being addressed.Tourism is very important for the community. Cmmr.Neatherlin shared his history as a Port of Allyn Commissioner and shared that the facility does fit RCW 67.28.120. Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to approve the Port of Allyn's.09 Fund request in the amount of$32,000 for the Sweetwater Creek Project.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin- aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye. Cmmr. Trask added that she is a big advocate for people working together and encouraged Port of Allyn to work with those who have concerns. Item 8.13 Melissa Casey and David Windom shared that this item is to terminate the Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)contract with The Youth Connection(TYC).Mason County is the lead grantee for the Department of Commerce CHG and is accountable for ensuring programs are operating as intended. The recommendation to terminate the contract is based solely on the department's inability to verify compliance.A meeting with TYC is scheduled for later today at 2:00 p.m. Susan Kirchoff,Executive Director of TYC, shared that she has a different account of what happened and that the documents provided do substantiate reimbursement.Necessary documents have always been supplied when requested and have been given multiple times. Susan asked how it is not in the best interest to continue a partnership and what does fair oversight look like?TYC has never been placed on a formal corrective action plan or received an audit finding related to the misuse of grant funds.Numerous times TYC asked for assistance and clarification, and it was not received. Mary Robillard,Board Chair of TYC,watched the organization grow while remaining focused on its mission as well as Susan Kirchoff dedicating herself to ensuring the organization's success.TYC successfully completed annual audits to ensure accountability and compliance with funding. Mary's biggest concern is the amount of time,effort,and taxpayer funded resources that have been used for this process without a clear resolution.Expectations need to be clear and consistent for an organization to move forward successfully. Cmmr.Neatherlin stated that the County is not accusing TYC of misuse of funds or lack of integrity. David added the issue is compliance. Cmmr.Neatherlin asked if there would be an issue if the motion was to terminate the contract upon mutual agreement with TYC. Tim Whitehead shared that there is no requirement for mutual agreement. Cmmr.Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to approve by mutual agreement to terminate the Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)contract with The Youth Connection.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye. June 23,2026 I Page 3 of 5 Item 8.16 Loretta Swanson,Public Works,asked that the requested action be revised to say recommend Board to authorize the Chair and/or Works Director to execute all documents necessary to accept and administer the Commerce grants for the Beard's Cove Water System Improvements projects. This removes the North Bay Facility Plan. Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to authorize the Chair and/or Works Director to execute all documents necessary to accept and administer the Commerce grants for the Beard's Cove Water System Improvements projects.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell- aye; Trask-aye. 9. Other Business(Department Heads and Elected Officials) Auditor Steve Duenkel shared that last week in Belfair they completed three-day sign-up event for frozen deeds,over 40 individuals attended.The job opening for Elections Technician has been posted. 10. 9:15 a.m. Public Hearings and Items Set for a Certain Time Please see above options to provide public testimony. These options are available only while COVID-19 OPMA meeting restrictions are in place. 10.1 Public Hearing to inform citizens of the availability of funds and eligible uses of the state Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)and receive comments on proposed activities specifically funding the Community Action Council of Lewis,Mason,and Thurston Counties (CAC),as well as receive comments on the 2025-2026 program. Staff: Jennifer Beierle Mason County coordinates with the CAC on an annual basis to apply for,receive,and provide services through a PS-CDBG grant administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce(DOC).For the 2026 program year(July 2026-June 2027),up to$103,000.00 is proposed to be available to Mason County and CAC-Mason,Lewis Counties to fund public services that principally benefit low and moderate-income persons. For the 2025 program years,Mason County and CAC-Mason,Lewis Counties received$105,000.00.As a part of the PS-CDBG application process,applicants are required to solicit public input on the proposed activities and services to be provided as well as receive comments on current programming. No action needed. 10.2 Public Hearing to consider and approve supplemental budget requests and budget transfers to the 2026 budget. Staff Jennifer Beierle This hearing is to consider approval of supplemental appropriations and amendments to the 2026 budget.Appropriations in the General Fund are an increase of$164,551 and in funds other than the General Fund are an increase of$444,854 as provided in Attachment A. Cmmr.Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to approve supplemental budget requests and budget transfers to the 2026 budget with appropriations in the General Fund as an increase of$164,551 and in funds other than the General Fund as an increase of$444,854 as provided in Attachment A.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell- aye; Trask-aye. June 23,2026 I Page 4 of 5 11. Board's Calendar and Reports—The Commissioners reported on meetings attended the past week and announced their upcoming weekly meetings. 12. Adjournment—The meeting adjourned at 10:44 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board Pat Tarzwell, Chair Randy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair Sharon Trask, Commissioner June 23,2026 I Page 5 of 5 Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584 Week of June 29,2026 Monday,June 29,2026 9:00 A.M. Executive Session—RCW 42.30.110(1)(iii)Potential Litigation Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask met in executive session for potential litigation from 9:00 a.m.to 9:15 a.m.Attendees:Tim Whitehead,Travis Adams,Kim Monroe,Nichole Wilston,and Christopher Pinkston. 10:00 A.M. Closed Session—RCW 42.30.140(4)Labor Discussion Closed session for labor discussion was canceled. 10:15 A.M. Sheriff's Office—Sheriff Ryan Spurling Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Undersheriff Dracobly discussed converting a Full-Time Employee(FTE)Patrol Deputy position to a Patrol Lieutenant position due to a restricting of the Sheriff's Office.This is an approximate increase of$21,000 annually.Tabled. • UndersheriffDracobly and Sargeant Lining shared the change from Omnicare to Costless for Jail pharmacy.Approved to move forward. 10:20 A.M. Public Health—David Windom Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • David requested to advertise two Requests for Proposals(RFPs),one for Homeless Crisis Response System Services and another for the Acquisition,Development,or Preservation of Affordable Housing. Approved to move forward. • David shared that he will serve as the primary point of contact for matters related to the National Opioid Settlements. 10:25 A.M. Public Works—Loretta Swanson Utilities&Waste Management Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Richard Dickinson shared the amendment to on-call engineering services to increase the maximum annual payout from$200,000 to$500,000.Approved to move forward. • Richard shared there is smoke testing in North Bay with Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWOW). 10:30 A.M. Support Services—Travis Adams Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Tanessa Noll shared the Recreation and Conservation Office(RCO)Youth Athletic Facilities grant Resolution/Authorization Form.Approved to move forward. • Travis provided an update on Mr.Bruder's request in Timberlakes,a Special Enforcement Team(SET Team)will be deployed. • Travis shared the Economic Development Council's(EDCs)letter of support for the application to the USDA's Rural Business Development Grant program to fund a feasibility study for a Mason County Regional Event Center.Approved to move forward. • Travis discussed the letter of support for the Theler Wetlands Trail and Signage project from the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group.Approved to move forward. • Travis discussed setting times for the Elected Official meetings. • Travis shared the applications for the Wake Boat Advisory Committee.Cmmr.Trask suggested changing the membership from eight to six. • Cmmr.Tarzwell shared that Dean Jewett rescinded his application to the Timberland Regional Library (TRL)Board of Trustees. • Cmmr.Trask asked the Commissioners support for the request to have Lodging Tax contracts submit detailed invoices. June 29,2026 I Page 1 of 2 Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584 • Cmmr.Tarzwell shared a change to contract language(boiler plate for right to review)and altering it to specify which third parties may review County contracts. 10:35 A.M. Break 10:45 A.M. Budget Workshop Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Cmmr.discussed the point of this workshop is to define budget issues and the parameters of how to fix them. Cmmr.Neatherlin shared concerns around the budget shortfall between revenue and expenditure, maintenance level requests,and potential bow waves.Cmmr.Trask stated the County has an obligation to provide services.Public safety sales taxes,furlough days,hiring freezes,were also discussed. Respectfully submitted, McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask, Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner June 29,2026 I Page 2 of 2 Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584 Week of July 6,2026 Monday,July 6, 2026 9:00 A.M. Closed Session—RCW 42.30.140(4)Labor Discussion Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask met in closed session for labor negotiation from 9:00 a.m.to 10:00 a.m.Attendees:Travis Adams,Kim Monroe,Kayla Brinckmeyer,Christopher Pinkston. 10:00 A.M. Support Services—Travis Adams Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Stephen Hueffed,Habitat for Humanity,shared a PowerPoint presentation on Habitat for Humanity. • John Taylor shared the Parks and Trails Advisory Board application from Harry Louch. • Travis discussed the defense and indemnification request in the case of Joan Bayley;Philip Bayley v State of Washington,et al.,cause no.26-2-00484-23,served upon Tim Whitehead and Michael Dorcy on June 26,2026,via Prosecuting Attorney's Office:Tim Whitehead and Michael Dorcy.Approved to move forward. 10:30 A.M. Treasurer's Office—Brittany Pearson Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Brittany shared the Shetland Road,Road Improvement District(RID)final term sheet. 10:40 A.M. Public Works—Loretta Swanson Utilities&Waste Management Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Stephanie Buhrman shared the request for water leak credit from customer no.303089 in the amount of$4,512 plus any additional fees.Approved to move forward. • Mike Collins requested temporary road closures for 2026 Public Works maintenance projects for Satsop Cloquallum Road and Beeville Loop Road.Approved to move forward. • Stephanie discussed updating the Munis module for customers. The goal is to go live in the first quarter of 2027. 10:55 A.M. Budget Workshop Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Cmmr.Tarzwell discussed the 2026 budget and the difficulty amending the budget halfway through the year and requested to focus on the 2027 budget.Jennifer Beierle shared the budget to actual differences for 2019-2025.Cmmr.Trask requested that each Commissioner create a list of potential options for budget savings to present in two weeks. Respectfully submitted, McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask, Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner July 6,2026 I Page 1 of I Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584 Week of July 13,2026 Monday,July 13, 2026 9:00 A.M. Sheriff's Office—Sheriff Spurling Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Sheriff Spurling and Undersheriff Dracobly discussed the conversion of a Full-Time Employee(FTE) Patrol Deputy to Patrol Lieutenant for the restructuring of the Sheriff's Office.Approved to move forward. 9:10 A.M. WSU Extension—Heidi Steinbach Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Heidi shared the Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee(RAC)Title II Secure Rural School Act 2026 Request for Proposals(RFP)that would provide a maximum funding amount of $53,345.Approved to move forward. 9:15 A.M. Community Development—Luke Viscusi Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Luke shared the advisory board application and requested to interview Dannel Oberg for the Historic Preservation Commission(HPC). • Kell asked about Steven"Scott"Jonas's application for the Planning Advisory Commission. 9:20 A.M. Public Works—Loretta Swanson Utilities&Waste Management Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • Mike Collins requested to rescind Resolution No.2026-029 and cancel the Public Hearing regarding Road Vacation No.427.Approved to move forward. • Mike shared that a dump truck failed and Public Works is looking at a replacement.At this time,they are renting a dump truck. • Loretta discussed an offer was given to the Victor Improvement Club(VIC)in the amount of$32,100; VIC came in with a counteroffer of$46k.Tabled. • Loretta will be meeting with Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)on the State Route 3 corridor. • Loretta discussed the one-year follow up inspection report from Department of Ecology which was shared with the Commissioners. 9:30 A.M. Support Services—Travis Adams Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance. • John Taylor shared the Homeland Security Grant Program(SHSP)in the amount of$19,508.Approved to move forward. • Jennifer Beierle shared the June 2026 financial report. Current Expense revenue$25,674,698 at 53%. Treasurer department receipts$18,054,910 at 57%. Current Expense expenditure$27,553,414 at 48%. Six-year specific revenue streams: Community Development revenue$945,483;Detention and Correction services$121,866;Current Expense property tax$6,281,863;Road Diversion property tax $1,239,868;County Road property tax$5,730,888;Current Expense sales tax$4,908,974;Criminal Justice tax$1,058,942;Rural Sales and Use tax$594,049;Homelessness prevention filings$349,063; Lodging Tax$386,774;and Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) 1 and 2$672,671 each.Total collected revenue$4,908,973;revenue budgeted$9.6 million;and projected end of year revenue$10,836,403. Current Expense cash$22,482,886. Special Fund cash$72,987,343.Motor Pool expenditure$839,345 at 43.17%. Special and Other Funds revenue$24,250,323 at 40%. Special and Other Funds expenditure$22,991,582 at 32%.Total County debt$13,427,894 and remaining debt capacity $203,161,663. • Kelly introduced Johnson Controls(JCI).JCI shared a presentation,topics included:project goals, audit summary,analysis summary,utility usage,proposed improvements,benefits,financial highlights, energy savings,and next steps. July 13,2026 I Page 1 of 2 Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584 • Travis discussed the Timberland Regional Library(TRL)Board of Trustees applications. Commissioners will pick a top three to interview. • Travis discussed the Wake Boat Advisory Committee applications. • Cmmr.Neatherlin shared the request for letter of support from the Island Enterprises,Inc.Approved to move forward.Approved to move forward. • Cmmr.Tarzwell discussed changing the contract language. It was suggested to add verbiage that the Commissioners be briefed before an audit happens. Respectfully submitted, McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask, Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner July 13,2026 I Page 2 of 2 Mason County Agenda Request Fonn res+ To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. 8.1 From: Karlam Hall Ext:380 Department: Central Services Briefing: ❑ Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): Click or tap here to enter text. Agenda Date(s): July 21,2025 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Approval of Warrants &Treasurer Electronic Remittances Claims Clearing Fund Warrant# 8122255-8122434 $ 733,414.27 Direct Deposit Fund Warrant# 127521-127927 $ 985,494.67 Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#7009805-7009844 $ 1,293,775.81 Treasurer Electronic Remittance $ 323,393.28 Macecom 06.05.26 $ 298,473.55 Mental Health 06.10.26 $ 17,800.02 Dispute Resolution Surcharge 06.10.26 $ 1,100.00 BEARDS COVE WATER METERS (91-08)06.15.26 $ 3,435.00 Mason Co Landfill(Brink's)06.24.26 $ 1,816.11 CURRENT EXPENSE 06.30.26 $ 354.25 ROAD DIV-CURRENT EXPENSE 06.30.26 $ 72.43 Veterans Assistance 06.30.26 $ 4.85 COUNTY ROAD 06.30.26 $ 329.41 MENTAL HEALTH 06.30.26 $ 7.66 Backeround/Eaecutive Summary: The Board approved Resolution no. 80-00 Payment of Claims Against County: Procedure Authorizing Warrant Issue and Release Prior to Board Claim Approval. Mason County Code 3.32.060(a)requires that the Board enter into the minutes of the County Commissioners the approval of claims listing warrant numbers. Claims Clearing YTD total $ 28,573,001.08 Direct Deposit YTD total $ 12,876,407.70 Salary Clearing YTD total $ 13,002,465.69 Treasurer Remittance YTD total $ 6,909,301.29 Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment, etc.): See above. Public Outreach: N/A Requested Action: Approval of the aforementioned Claims Clearing Fund,Direct Deposit Fund, Salary Clearing Fund, and Treasurer Electronic Remittance warrants. Attachment(s): Originals on file with Financial Services and the Treasurer's Office; copies on file with the Clerk of the Board Mason County Agenda Request Form issa To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: MICHAEL K.DORCY Ext: 417 Department: Prosecutor Briefing: ❑ Action Agenda: ❑x Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): June 22,2026 Agenda Date(s): July 21,2026 Internal Review: ❑x Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑x Legal ❑ IT ❑x Risk ❑x Other (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Authorize 1 temporary FTE Senior Deputy Prosecutor position for four (4) months (covering September-December 2026) for succession planning and transitioning the appellate workload in anticipation of a DPA retirement. Background/Executive Summary: The Prosecuting Attorney's Office is formally requesting the temporary funding of one(1)full-time equivalent(FTE)Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney(Senior DPA) position for a four-month transitional period, effective September 1,2026,through December 31,2026. This temporary position is a critical succession planning measure ahead of the retirement of our current Senior Deputy Prosecutor(Timothy Higgs),who handles 100%of the office's appellate and post-conviction relief matters. This strategy ensures zero operational downtime, protects pending litigation at all levels of the judiciary,and guarantees a seamless transfer of institutional knowledge. 1. Factual Background&Operational Need • Upcoming Retirement: The current Senior Deputy Prosecutor, who manages the entirety of the office's appellate and post-conviction relief caseload, has announced their retirement effective December 31, 2026. • Scope of Responsibility: This specialized role manages complex litigation across the entire judicial spectrum, from the local Superior Court and the Court of Appeals all the way to the State Supreme Court. The role demands an intricate understanding of highly technical appellate procedures, strict jurisdictional deadlines, and established relationships with appellate attorneys, judges, and court staff. • The Transition Plan: To mitigate the immense risk of dropped deadlines or disrupted litigation, the office plans to hire an incoming DPA who will permanently take over the appellate load on January 1,2027. 2. Proposed Timeline & Onboarding Strategy To ensure the incoming prosecutor is fully equipped to protect the county's convictions, we propose a overlapping four-month training window: Phase/Date Status Operational Focus Incoming Senior DPA onboarded to train directly under the 09/01/26 — Temporary 12/31/26 Double-Fill retiring Senior DPA. Focus on specialized appellate processes,brief writing, and active case files. 12/31/26 Retirement Current Senior DPA retires. 01/01/27 Permanent Incoming Senior DPA absorbs the full caseload onward Handover permanently;temporary FTE funding expires. 3. Justification for the Four-Month Overlap Appellate work cannot be learned effectively overnight or via standard case files.A four-month transitional overlap is vital for the following reasons: • Mitigation of Legal Risk:Missing a single appellate deadline can result in the automatic dismissal of a state's case or the overturning of a valid conviction. • Procedural Complexity: The incoming DPA must master distinct procedural rules that vary significantly between the Superior Court,the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. • Institutional Knowledge Transfer: Direct mentorship allows the retiring Senior DPA to pass down critical strategy,pending oral argument preparations, and historical context on long-running post-conviction relief matters. Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):Approximately$60,020.00 (Senior DPA, Step 1, 9/1/26-12/31/26,Full Weight Salary and Benefits) Public Outreach: N/A Requested Action:Approve funding of this temporary four-month DPA 2 position,representing a minimal, short-term investment that safeguards the integrity of our county's criminal convictions and ensures the Prosecuting Attorney's Office continues to operate without interruption during this major personnel transition. Attachment(s): N/A Mason County Agenda Request Form issa To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Richard Dickinson,Deputy Director U&W Management and Stephanie Buhrman,Finance Ext:450 Manager Department: Public Works Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): July 6,2026 Agenda Date(s): July 21,2026 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Water Leak Credit Requests—Approval Required per Mason County Code 13.34 Backaround/Executive Summary: Pursuant to Mason County Code 13.34—Water Leak Credit Policy,customers experiencing significant, documented water leaks may request a credit for the excess water usage. Credits exceeding $2,000 require review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Public Works has received the following water leak adjustment requests for customers in the Beards Cove Water System,both of which meet the criteria for Board review and consideration: 1. Customer#303089-Beards Cove Water Customer Report • Average Use: 4000 CF/month • Leak Incident Summary: Roots from a falling tree caused a break/leak in pipes. • Repairs: Parts purchased and repaired by customer.No receipts submitted,but UTW Staff confirms leak has been fixed. • Requested Credit: 76,400 CF for Jan.to May 2026 totaling$4,512 plus any late fees. Associated Costs/Budget Impact: The total requested credit of$4,512 (plus any applicable late fees)will be deducted from the water tier revenue.No budget amendment is required. Public Outreach: Utilities and Waste Administrative staff notifies customers via certified letters and/or phone calls about potential significant water leaks due to unusually high usage of 2500 CF or greater. Customers are made aware only one credit every three years per property is allowed,with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances subject to staff recommendation and Board approval. Requested Action: Request approval from the Board of County Commissioners to issue water leak credits for customer #303089 in the amount of$4,512,plus applicable late fees,based on verification that the leaks have been repaired. Attachment(s):Water Leak Adjustment Requests INTERNAL UTILITY ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT FORM This form is designed to request a review of utility bills for potential errors and, if applicable, apply an account correction. All requests for utility bill adjustments must be submitted to the Public Works Finance Director for review. Procedure: 1. Submission: Submit this completed form to the Public Works Finance Director. 2. Review: Upon receipt, the Finance Director, or their designee, will review the biWaccount in question. 3. Adjustment: If a billing error is identified, the Finance Director will notify the accounting department to make the necessary adjustment to the account. Client Name: 4zfthz7, &1*hriuO Account# �030S9 vertH Site Address: ZZ/ 4/ti ,f /3/✓0l District 13Qt' Reason for adjustment: Amount of Adjustment Requested: 55/2 lalLr.f .stE ;6o Amount of Adjustment Approved: Notes: Form Completed by: Uz` !�6 ah.rrKtci✓ Reviewed/ieZn _P ed�Hv: — Deputy Director Reviewed/Approved by: Finance Director Adjusted in CAMS by: Date: (D 7L 20 MASON COUNTY UTILITIES&WASTE MANAGEMENT 100 W. Public Works Drive, Shelton,WA 98584 Phone: 360-427-9670 ext. 207 NC - REQUEST FOR WATER LEAK ADJUSTMENT I am requesting Mason County Utilities&Waste reduce the water bill for this account,to the extent allowed by Coun C de, because of a leak that began on�IPk A O(date) and was repaired on Jd�Ifl (date). NameonAccount:Cll�JTI/, ��lo l"U�Yy(��,� ccountNo.: �v U ServiceAddress: 1�/1 . TJE_L tty\ �\JJ I`2C)ccmy u ( _ Llb MailingAddress:� u —I (� 1 �I I Contact Phone Nu�mblerr: 1 V _ I I Ui ��5 EmailAddress: Was leak due to failure of internal plumbing? (e.g., leaking faucet, leaking toilet, leaking appliance) YES Detail type of leak on customer's side of meter: Qi ` rxV. c> ) kco M CO2, .`O M ¶\fln\ cfj c P.i k2e 1 ;(1T 9 skin Please attach documentation and provide a/brief description of repairs made: 5 0 p /1 i UA'C)g/�t�r137-- G &n ( t ucn I,the undersigned, certify that the water lost from this leak was not used by anyone. Furthermore, I understand that a leak adjustment credit can only be requested nnne every th gG3)veath. Signature: Date:/ IQ, /itCQ Please return the signed and completed form with any corresponding documentation to: Mason County Utilities&Waste 100W. Public Works Drive Shelton,WA 98584 f tctQ S RJ Ul m NAME MARCOS.ANTONIO GASPAR Notes:Cuslomerneedstocomplete the'6EGUE3110RWATER LEAKADIUSTMENP ACCOUNT 303089 Mea5eletcustomerlmosvtalleakcredt Is onlyollered onceevery lbseeyears. DISTRICT BCW IL DATERANGE CF BILLED AVERAGEUSAGE 6ILLEDCREDIT ADICREDIT 1202026 8300 $ 663.37 4000 $ (319.37) $ 344.00 2202026 9000 $ 719.3] 4000 E 3193)) $ 400.00 LFAKPERIOO 012202025.05202026 RENEWPERIOD 0122U140L2I2025 3202026 12100 $ 967.37 4000 $ 319.3]) $ 648.00 DAYS 152 DAYS 151 420/2026 24700 $ 1,975,3) 4000 in (319.37) $ 1,656,00 TOTALUSAGEDUNNGPERIOD ]6400 TOTALUSAOE DURING PERIOD 20000 52102026 22300 $ 1,]83.3] 4000 $ (319.3) $ 1,464.00 Average CFUsage Per Day 502.6 AVERAGE USAGE PER DAY 13245 Monthly Usage 15286,38 MonlhtyAdualAverage Usage 4028] CFLEAKCRE00 56400 TOTAL LEAK CREDIT $ 4.512.00 IATEFEECREDN $ 29.36 TOTALCREOR $ 4,541.36 )WO YEAR 68806W OF USAGE HISTORY IReatl Data SeMceT eUtiti Rate CMo.Nnm[Reatling Predouz Data PaesiousReading Usa eln Feet Usa ein Gallons AM)usvnml T e oaoecha'ge Overcharge Tdalchar O Year Mon.Cnanment PozrNo Crtaletl Wood Awre ebrledewPedod 10119/2024 W 17 0000269200 122020230000266500 2]00 20197.40 A 0.00 0.00 D00202401 00000 01/19/2414:16 2YK 003012525:54b1510 Oree5 nwnlh edotl 021121202400 IJ 00002)2300 011911240000269200 3100 23189.610 A 0.00 0.00 0.002024 0 00000 0L122414:39hy1PK 01302525:51 5.50 0010%X!40.520%% OL162MdW 1) 0060211(10 0211212024 0060272)00 400 2920.210 A 11.00 0.00 BOB202402 00000 02/08241ASSby1PK 01302525:51 560 3610 d1U1024W 1J 00'002))020 02/1612024000021300 SON 37401.60 A 0.00 000 0.0020240. 000;0 pJIW2/IS:SB IPK 011.22523:51 5.m -08)08)2024W 17 0000270500 04122024 0000171700 BOO 5984.420 A 0.00 0.00 0.00 2024 M 00000 /1.4192614:136 1PK 01302525'.50 850 •04/11/424W 17 0000278900 00)08202400002)8500 300 2244.160 A 0.00 0.00 0.00202404 0(00 04/1524IY59 1120 /13025225.4 by 550 0412911024W 17 0000283300 04//12024 0000278800 4500 33662310 A 0.00 0.00 0.00 202]N 00000 05/06/14IS:M TIM 01302525:51 500 05/15202400 17 0000281)00 PV19)202400028i'At0 IIN 10872.120 A 0.00 0.00 0..00 201405 00000 /1(33241X40 TIM 013025225.1 500 04/18/202480 17 0,'00287500 05/15120240080284700 2800 20985.450 A 0.00 0.00 O.N 202406 00313 00/20)2416.00 1(5(8 00/302525:34 by550 01/01/2024W 17 8010200160 00/1812024 0000281500 2600 19449]50 A 0.00 0.00 0.00 2024 07 0020) 07/17241X20 byTIM 013122525:510ySSO 00/192024W 17 000020'00.4 07/1720240000230100 3160 25433.770 A 0.00 0.00 O.N 2024 N 00005 N2O241P.IS by YB 01302525:535y5N 00/182024W 1) 0000296200 08/89/20240000293;00 2100 20197A 0 A 0.00 0.00 0.00 2024 09 NUN 09/882415:41 by510 01102525:s3bySSO 11/16/2024W L7 0296900 09/18126240000298200 2700 /119)40 A 0.00 0.00 000202410 CM00 ]01162415:21byTM 01202525:506y330 11202024 W 51 0000302500 10/1620240000298900 3600 244929.870 A 0.00 0.00 0.00202411 00000 11202415:02 by3M 011302525:53 by 550 12/18/2024W 99 .0601305200 00)20/2024 0® 2500 2700 20097.40 A ON 0.00 000202//2 54013 12/092415:20EyTIM 01122316:35 byY0 0120/1205 W JO, 0000309800 12)18/20240006)05200 3606 26529,870 A 0.00 0/23 0.00 2025 01 51333 J00/2112512031y1194 0131251].02 518 0212012024W 0000312!00 OI2ll1025 0000309800 300 23433,710 A 0.60 0.60 0.00202502 54fi& 1&55 I TIM 52/20/2352400 SIB 032020231W Js 0000315)00 02/1/.425/100312200 3500 ]6881.87 115.)5 QN 245..]5202503 55176 00212513'13 byliM 01.4202510.26625.18 4000 W212M5 59 6060320/10 0320202500N3t5>N 4th] 34400.990 A 0.60 0.60 6.002025(04 SSSM 222514:34 byYB /1.42251220 b1MHR 0502120251W 020.325260 ' 04/20/20250000320300 4900 30654.550 0.60 0.00 0.00 2025 05 55991 N210515:11 TIM 0613251&03 SIB 106212N5W Jo, 000310600 0521/1250002325300 5400 40391810 A 0.00 000 0.00 2025 06 56390 06200512310/1120 M112512:2obyMHR --012122051/ 99 6000326600 0621202500/1330600 6200 46379220 A 0.00 0.00 0.00'/10507 56198 022125/345 byAM 08112514:04 byMHR 08202025W 99 006343100 07/2020230000236800 0600 49371,430 A 0.00 0.00 0.00202509 51245 0422250821 by Y0 N(M2516:25byMHR M)092025W M 0000350.00 08202025/1/130/1/1 6905 51615.580 A 0.00 0.00 0.00 2205 N 57655 09/192514:14 byf4 10112509:24byMHR '.60202025W 99 0000357006 09/0920250NY2;A300 7300 54001.290 A 0.00 0.00 0.00202510 59100 10212511:41 byf4 11Atl2511:50byMHR _ 11/I92M5W 99 /1[0.04930 102120250000357600 7300 5460]796 A 0.00 ON ON 220511 55,578 11/1925 I4:39by0M 12Nt2503NbyMHR _ _ 12/19110251 99 008032500 11/19/2025 0004000 7600 56851.950 A 0.00 0.00 0.002025 52 KAN 12222517:00 bY5L0 01/002613:09 byHHR 01202020 W 12//92025 000032500 8300 82008.310 A 0,00 0.60 0.00 2026 l 65524 02202612./1 004 10332 byM11R MlJa20MW 0000380000 0120/20260000380800 9)00 67324.680 A 0.00 0.00 6.002036102 657P 00002603:19 b7N4 /2324/313 MHP :sam20MW 0000401960 02202020000038^400 12100 95514.29 A 0.00 0.60 0.002020/1 WtA 03 20 26 1001 Ilt /1112614:55 HMR 15280 04/20/2026k I59 0080126600 03.00/20265006405000 24700 184758.830 A 0.00 O.N 0.00 2026104 68596 52AJ by YB /1142614:52 byMliR 0500)2025(80 Joe 0000448900 01202206/100126600 21300 166815.580 A 0.60 0.00 0.00 2026 66920 j05/20/2614403 1y)04 00112615:16 MRA ',....W/1820MW 99 010341'!707 052020MNNLI8100 1000 13464.910 A 000 0.00 ON 202006 06/082616271y/14 QJ182610:27byA14 Stephanie Buhrman From: Anthony Medcalf Sent: Thursday,June 18, 2026 9:46 AM To: Michele Remmen Cc: Richard Dickinson; Stephanie Buhrman;Wendy Thompson Subject: Re: 221 NE Larson Blvd. Categories: This message has been archived by Retain on June 21 2026 17:25 They finally got it fixed Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Michele Remmen<MRemmen@masoncountywa.gov> Sent:Thursday, 18 June 2026 08:39:33 To:Anthony Medcalf<AJMedcalf@masoncountywa.gov> Cc: Richard Dickinson<rdickinson@masoncountywa.gov>; Stephanie Buhrman <sbuhrman@masoncountywa.gov>; Wendy Thompson <wthompson@masoncountywa.gov> Subject: 221 NE Larson Blvd. Good morning,Anthony, When you're out reading meters today could you pop by 221 NE Larson and do a leak check?They've had the massive leak the past few months and just came in and said they fixed it yesterday. Meter#1800205168 Thanks a buu/nch! f`lI �QPCN11,me.VL Sr. Acct. Tech Utilities/Waste Management 360-427-9670 x 566 mremmen(o)masoncountywa.gov 1 Stephanie Buhrman From: Wendy Thompson Sent: Wednesday,June 24, 2026 11:57 AM To: Stephanie Buhrman Subject: RE: 221 NE Larson Blvd. My understanding is that there was one leakthat was repaired, but unsuccessfully,so an additional repair had to be made. wewdU Thok psow, Office Specialist Mason County Public Works Utilities & Waste Management 100 W Public Works Dr Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 199 wthompson@masoncountywa.gov The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it was originally addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.Any review, retransmission,dissemination or other use of,or taking of any action in reliance upon,this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.If you received this in error,please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From:Stephanie Buhrman<sbuhrman@masoncountywa.gov> Sent: Wednesday,June 24, 2026 10:35 AM To:Wendy Thompson<wthompson@masoncountywa.gov> Subject: FW: 221 NE Larson Blvd. Wendy, Do you recall- did this property have two leaks? That they fixed one and still had a leak in the yard? Stephanie From:Anthony Medcalf<AJMedcalf@masoncountvwa.gov> Sent:Thursday,June 18, 2026 9:46 AM To: Michele Remmen <MRemmen@masoncountvwa.eov> Cc: Richard Dickinson<rdickinson@masoncountywa.eov>;Stephanie Buhrman <sbuhrman@masoncountvwa.eov>; Wendy Thompson<wthompson@masoncountywa.eov> Subject: Re: 221 NE Larson Blvd. They finally got it fixed Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android 1 Mason County Agenda Request Form issa To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Mike Collins,PE,PLS,Deputy Ext•456 Director/County Engineer Department: Public Works Briefing: ❑0 Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): July 13,2026 Agenda Date(s): July 21,2026 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ® Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Road Vacation No. 427 Rescind Resolution No. 2026-029 and cancel the public hearing regarding Road Vacation#427. This resolution pertains to the vacation of the following right of way: Vacate all unopened rights of way not opened before the date of March 16, 1894 and being previously vacated by operation of law under the Session Laws of 1889-90, all being a portion of and within the plat of Hood Canal Land and Improvement Co.'s Addition to Union City,recorded in Volume 1 of plats,pages 8 & 9,records of Mason County,Washington,being a portion of Sections 31, 32,and 33, all in Township 22 North,Range 3 West W.M. Excepting therefrom the following County roads; Fir Street#57830 at milepost 0.00 to 0.021; Main Street#57850 at milepost 0.00 to 0.207; Public Access Road#58110 at milepost 0.00 to 0.031; 3rd Street#58011 at milepost 0.00 to 0.064; 4th Street#57920 at milepost 0.00 to 0.190; 4th Street#58240 at milepost 0.00 to 0.114; 5th Street#58200 at milepost 0.243 to 0.534; Alder Street#58010 at milepost 0.064 to 0.116; Seattle Street#58201 at milepost 0.082 to 0.243; Port Townsend Street#58210 at milepost 0.00 to 0.084; McReavy Road#97670 at milepost 0.00 to 6.839; Warren Drive#58300 at milepost 0.00 to 0.395 and excepting therefrom all that portion within the plat of Wondervue recorded in Volume 4 of plats,page 139; Orre Nobles Road#58500 at milepost 0.00 to 0.483; Mason Ave#58600 at milepost 0.00 to 0.159; Mason Ave Ext#58610 at milepost 0.00 to 0.020; Dalby Road#58380 at milepost 0.00 to 0.992; Also, excepting therefrom any and all county maintained roads not mentioned herein. Background/Executive Summary: It has come to light there may be a different approach that's cleaner and a more appropriate solution to acknowledge the vacation by operation of law than the road vacation process. The prosecuting attorney will need more time to research this approach. Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): N/A Public Outreach: N/A Requested Action: Recommend the Board approve and execute the resolution rescinding resolution#2026-029 and cancel the public hearing for Wednesday August 12,2026,at 1:00pm regarding Road Vacation No.427. Attachment(s)• 1.Notice to Rescind RESOLUTION NO. VACATION FILE NO.427 NOTICE TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO.2026-029,WHICH SET A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING ON SAID VACATION RCW 36.87 WHEREAS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mason County Public Works Department is requesting to rescind resolution No. 2026-029 which set the date and time for the public hearing on Blanket Road Vacation#427. This resolution pertains to the vacation of the following right of way: Vacate all unopened rights of way not opened before the date of March 16, 1894, and being previously vacated by operation of law under the Session Laws of 1889-90, all being a portion of and within the plat of Hood Canal Land and Improvement Co.'s Addition to Union City, recorded in Volume I of plats, pages 8 & 9, records of Mason County, Washington, being a portion of Sections 31, 32, and 33, all in Township 22 North, Range 3 West W.M. Excepting therefrom the following County roads; Fir Street#57830 at milepost 0.00 to 0.021; Main Street#57850 at milepost 0.00 to 0.207; Public Access Road#58110 at milepost 0.00 to 0.031; 3rd Street#58011 at milepost 0.00 to 0.064; 4th Street#57920 at milepost 0.00 to 0.190; 4th Street#58240 at milepost 0.00 to 0.114; 5th Street#58200 at milepost 0.243 to 0.534; Alder Street#58010 at milepost 0.064 to 0.116; Seattle Street#58201 at milepost 0.082 to 0.243; Port Townsend Street#58210 at milepost 0.00 to 0.084; McReavy Road#97670 at milepost 0.00 to 6.839; Warren Drive #58300 at milepost 0.00 to 0.395 and excepting therefrom all that portion within the plat of Wondervue recorded in Volume 4 of plats, page 139; Orre Nobles Road#58500 at milepost 0.00 to 0.483; Mason Ave#58600 at milepost 0.00 to 0.159; Mason Ave Ext#58610 at milepost 0.00 to 0.020; Dalby Road#58380 at milepost 0.00 to 0.992; Also,excepting therefrom any and all county maintained roads not mentioned herein. It has come to light there may be a different approach that's cleaner and a more appropriate solution to acknowledge the vacation by operation of law than the road vacation process. The prosecuting attorney will need more time to research this approach. WHEREAS the Board of Mason County Commissioners did set a date for public hearing on the matter and are now rescinding that resolution and cancelling the public hearing. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that said hearing set for Wednesday, August 12,2026,at 1:00 p.m.via Zoom,has been cancelled. DATED this day of . 2026. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON ATTEST: McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board Pat Tarzwell, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Randy Neatherlin, Vice Chair Tim Wfiufehead, Ch. DPA Assessor Auditor Sharon Trask, Commissioner County Engineer Petitioner Rd Vacation No. 427 N COT F Mason County Agenda Request Form 18 To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Sheriff Spurting Ext: 313 Department: Sheriffs Office Briefing: Action Agenda: El Public Hearing: El Special Meeting: O Briefing Date(s): Agenda Date(s): Click or tap here to enter text. Internal Review: ❑ Finance ® Human Resources O Legal O IT ❑ Risk ® Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Conversion of a FTE-Patrol Deputy to a Patrol Lieutenant for the Sheriffs Background/Executive Summary: Commissioners,this restructuring is about improving supervision and balancing the Sheriff's Office command structure. Right now,Patrol carries Green Team, Gold Team, SET,and General Investigations.At the same time,we have created the new CORE Team,which includes DARE, SRO,PIO,neighborhood watch, and other community outreach duties.That team needs a clear supervisory home. We are proposing to move General Investigations and CORE under the Civil Division and convert one vacant Patrol Deputy FTE into a Lieutenant FTE assigned to Civil.This does not create a new agency FTE.It realigns an existing vacant position so we can properly supervise investigations and community outreach while allowing Patrol to focus on patrol operations and SET. We have already been in contact with HR, and Civil Service has been advised.The end result is better span of control, clearer accountability, and a structure that is more sustainable for the agency moving forward. Associated Costs/Budeet Impact(amount,finding source,budget amendment, etc.): The cost increase is approximately$21,000 annually.That can be covered within this year's budget, but it will need to be built into future budget years. Public Outreach: N/A Requested Action: Approval from the Board to convert a Patrol Deputy FTE to a Lieutenant position to allow appropriate supervision and span of control. Attachment(s): Organizations Charts MCSO Re - Organization Proposal _____ Citizens of (3 u r n t Mason County I G Sheriff Executive Assistant Undersheriff Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Operations Civil LT Records/Civil Detective Gold Squad L•IN IT Civil Sergeant Sergeant Patrol Detective Days Night CSO Civil Deputies Corporal Sergeant Sergeant (2) Detectives C'rvil Clerk (6) Corporal Corporal -: Evidence Deputies Deputies _ Records ES (2) (5) (5) (7) Cnizcns of Msoon County Proposed Executive Sheriff Assistant Undersheriff Chief Deputy Chief Deputy Operations Civil LT LT LT Gold Squad - - -. Records/Civil Investigations Patrol _ Days Night - - - Civil Detective Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Corporal Corporal CSO Civil Deputies Detective (2) Corporal Deputies Deputies I is' n Detectives (5) (5) og°u�. (s) Evidence (2) Mason County Agenda Request Form issa-: To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Heidi Steinbach,Noxious Weed Program Ext: 592 Coordinator Department: WSU Extension Briefing: ❑0 Action Agenda: ❑ Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): July 13t,2026 Agenda Date(s): Click or tap here to enter text. Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ® Legal ❑ IT ® Risk ❑ Other (This is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee(RAC)Title II Secure Rural School Act 2026 Request for Proposals. Background/Executive Summary: The Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board is submitting a proposal to The Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee to request funding to survey and control invasive and noxious weeds in the Olympic National Forest. This project is a continuation of a program for noxious weed control in Mason County and adjacent Federal Lands.The project includes activities to survey, identify, control and prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds,enhance and restore distributed or degraded land, coordinate actions and communication between local and Federal jurisdictions, and to engage and educate the public.We are requesting the maximum amount available for the project, lesser funds may be awarded. Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): This would provide a maximum of $53,345 to be used during FY27-FY29.Anticipated revenue will be budgeted as the following amounts- FY27 ($13,000), FY28 ($20,173)and FY29($20,172).There will be no impact on the 2026 budget.This funding will help to support our extra-help specialist and inspector positions. Public Outreach: NA Requested Action: Approval to place request to submit proposal to the Olympic Peninsula Resource Advisory Committee(RAC)Title II Secure Rural School Act 2026 Request for Proposal on July 21St, 2026,action agenda for approval. Attachment(s): SRS Project Supplemental form,FS-1800-0030-SRS Project Proposal Form, and Title II Guide Project Submission Form Instructions itle II Project Submission Form instructionsj Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Public Law 106-393 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS A. The form is mostly self-explanatory. B. Use as few abbreviations as possible and minimize the use of technical jargon that may not be widely understood. Remember that the people making decisions about these projects come from a wide variety of backgrounds. C. The shaded areas identify places where information is required in addition to the other blocks. D. The only attachment to accompany the Project Submission Form is a project area map described under Specific Instructions#8 Project Location. Additional attachments are discouraged, but photos representing the project are acceptable. E. For Federal Agency Submissions:The project submission form will need to be submitted to the designated federal official (or the RAC Coordinator)for your Forest. F. For projects submitted by other parties:The project submission form may be submitted to the Designated Federal Official (or the RAC Coordinator)for the appropriate Resource Advisory Committee (RAC). In addition, the supplemental form needs to be completed prior to submitting the project application. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS 1. Project Number. Leave blank. 2. Project Name. Provide a Project Name that is short, yet descriptive. 3. Location: 3.a State 3.b County. Specify the County in which the project is located. If the project area encompasses more than one county,then specify. 4. Project Submitted By(sponsor). Identify the name of the entity, individual, or group proposing the project. If several collaborators are involved specify the primary Project Sponsor only(the person to be reached for further information if necessary) and provide a list of other collaborators. 5. Date. Enter the Date of project submission. Use the following format(month-date-year) e.g.4-10- 2022. 6. Sponsors Phone Number. Enter the Project Sponsors daytime Phone Number. 7. Sponsors E-mail. Enter the Project Sponsors E-mail address. 8. Project Location (attach project area map). Submit an appropriate Project Area Map along with the submission form. The following information should be contained on the map: project title; project boundary; stream names; road numbers; legal location; township, range,and section designations; scale bar; compass orientation; and legend. The map scale should be no larger than 2.64 inches/mile and no smaller than 1 inch/mile. Sa. National Forest. Sb. Forest Service District. Identify the appropriate Forest Service District. If the project occurs within two or more districts,then specify and denote the lead district with an asterisk (*). Sc. State/Private/Other lands involved? If yes, specify non-federal lands (Forest Service and BLM ownerships) included within the project area boundaries 3d. Location: Township, Range, and section number(s) 9. Statement of Project Goals and Objectives. State the Project Goals and Objectives in a clear, succinct manner. (max. 7lines) 10. Project Description. In the space allotted, provide a concise Project Description. Do not reiterate other descriptive details provided elsewhere in the project submission form. Be sure to highlight any unique aspects or special circumstances. (max.30 lines) 11. Coordination of Project with Other Related Project(s) on Adjacent Lands? Check the appropriate box. If yes, then provide a brief description of what type of coordination is needed with regard to other related project(s) on adjacent lands. Is the sequence of project implementation important for achieving a successful outcome? Will the achievement of stated project goals and objectives be contingent on the implementation of other related or complimentary project(s) on adjacent lands? (max. 10 lines) 12. How Does Proposed Project Meet Purposes of the Legislation? Check each box that is applicable. 13. Project Type. Check the most applicable Project Type. If none apply,then check the box entitled "Other Project Type" and specify. 14. Measure of Project Accomplishments/Expected Outcomes. Fill in the estimated project accomplishment measures that apply. If certain measures do not apply,then leave them blank. Miles of road maintained. Miles of road decommissioned/obliterated. Number of Structures. Estimate the total Number of Structures to be maintained, improved, constructed. Acres of soil productivity improved. Miles of stream/river restored/improved. Miles of fish habitat restored/improved. Acres of native species reestablished. Miles of trail maintained. Miles of trail obliterated. Acres of forest health improved (including fuels reduction). Acres of range land improved. Acres of wildlife habitat restored/improved. Acres of noxious weeds controlled. Timber volume generated. Number of jobs generated. People reached (for environmental education projects/fire prevention). Direct economic activity benefit. Other. Identify Other measure of proposed project accomplishments or expected outcomes if the other categories are inadequate for an accurate description. Make sure to specify the units of measure. 15. Estimated Project Start Date. Use the following format: 04-31-2003. 16. Estimated Project Completion Date: Use the following format: 04-31-2003. 17. How Will Cooperative Relationships Among People That Use Federal Lands Be Improved? List known partnerships or collaborative opportunities. Describe how the proposed project will improve cooperative relationships among people that use National Forest System lands (Forest Service and BLM). For example,will the project bring groups with differing views on natural resource management together in an effort to achieve outcomes pursuant to common interests? (max. 12 lines) 18. How is the project in the best interest of the community/public interest? Identify benefits to communities. Provide a rational for how the proposed project is in the best public interest. (max. 12 lines) 19. How does proiect benefit federal lands/resources? Answer this question only for those Title II projects where implementation is proposed on non-Forest Service or non-BLM lands. Title II projects to be implemented on state, county, or private lands must have a clear description of benefits for federal lands and/or resources. For example, a culvert replacement on non-federal lands may improve passage of coho salmon migrating upstream to federal lands. (max. 12 lines) 19.a Status of Project Planning. a. NEPA Complete. Check "yes" or"no"for completion of required analysis and documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). If NEPA is not complete,give estimated date of completion. Use the following format: 10-01-2001. c. NMFS Sec. 7 ESA Consultation Complete. Check"yes" or"no" if Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation has been completed with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For projects covered under programmatic biological opinions, enter"yes" only if required documentation is completed. d. USFWS Sec. 7 ESA Consultation Complete. Check "yes" or"no" if Section 7 ESA consultation is complete with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). For projects covered under programmatic biological opinions, enter "yes" only if required documentation is completed. e. Survey& Manage Complete. Check the appropriate box denoting completion of required surveys for Survey and Manage Species under the Northwest Forest Plan. For projects occurring on non-Forest Service or non-BLM lands,these surveys are not required. f. DSL/ODFW Permits for In-stream Restoration Work Obtained. Check the appropriate box denoting whether or not the required in-stream restoration work permits have been obtained from the Division of State Lands (DSL) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). g. DSL/COE 404 Fill/Removal Permit Obtained. Check the appropriate box denoting whether or not the required fill/removal permit has been obtained from the Division of State Lands (DSL) and Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the proposed project work falls under the regional permit, then check"yes." h. SHPO Concurrence Received. Check the appropriate box denoting whether or not project-level concurrence has been received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). i. Project Design(s) Completed. Check the appropriate box denoting whether or not the required project designs are completed. 20. What is the Proposed Method(s)of Accomplishment? (Check at least 1) Check the method(s) of accomplishment that apply and/or specify "other" and describe. 21. Will the Project Generate Merchantable Materials? Check "yes" or "no." This applies to those projects involving the sale of merchantable material using separate contracts for: (i) the harvesting or collection of merchantable material; and (ii) the sale of such material. 22. Anticipated Project Costs. 22a. Total Title II Funds Requested. Identify the total amount of Title II funds requested. This amount will equal that identified for the Total Cost Estimate in Column B of Worksheet 1. 23. Identify Source(s)of Other Funding. List the sources of other funding. 24. Monitoring Plan (can be provided as an attachment) 1. Describe method of measurement for whether the project met or exceeded the desired ecological conditions. (Photo points, on the ground measurements, etc.,that describe the specific evaluations to be made in order to determine how well the proposed project meets its stated goals and objectives, particularly in regard to the desired ecological conditions. Identify who will be responsible for completing this monitoring item. (max. 7 lines) a. List the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for monitoring: b. Identify the funding needs and source of funding for this item: 2. How will the project be evaluated to determine if it created local employment or training opportunities, including summer youth job programs? (max. 7 lines) a. List the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for completing this monitoring item: b. Identify the funding needs and source of funding for this item: 3. How will the project be evaluated to determine if the project improved the use of, or added value to, any products removed from the land consistent with the purposes of Title II? (Describe the manner in which you will measure or evaluate the improvements in use of or resource values of National Forest System lands resulting from the proposed project.) (max. 7 lines) a. List the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for monitoring: b. Identify the funding needs and source of funding for this item: Project Cost Analysis Worksheet 1: a. Field Work& Site Surveys b. NEPA/CEQA c. ESA Consultation d. Permit Acquisition. Identify the costs for acquiring all required permits for project implementation. e. Project Design& Engineering. Identify the costs for Project Design and Engineering support. f. Contract/Grant Preparation. Identify the costs for developing necessary contracts for advertisement and award. If the Project Sponsor is a federal entity, then include costs for contracting officer support. g. Contract/Grant Administration. Identify the costs for administering all necessary contracts. Include costs for contracting officer's support. If the Project Sponsor is a federal entity,then include costs for contracting officer support. h. Contract/Grant Cost. Provide an estimate for the actual Contract Cost. i. Salaries. Provide an estimate for the actual Workforce Cost. j. Materials&Supplies. Identify the costs associated with all Materials and Supplies necessary to complete the project. k. Monitoring. Identify the costs to complete the required Monitoring components outlined in the Monitoring Plan. I. Other(specify). Identify any other costs associated with the project and specify. m. Project Sub-Total. The sum of Cost Items worksheet items a. through I. n. Indirect Costs. Include a standard indirect cost (overhead) rate of 12.5%applied to the Project Sub- Total. For multi-year funding requests, the total amount of Indirect Costs for the entire project should be reflected. Be sure to request the appropriate amount of Indirect Costs for each fiscal year in Items c, d, e, f, and g for projects involving a multi-year funding request. Total Cost Estimate. The sum of Project Sub-Total (Cost Item) and Indirect Costs (Cost Item). Table 1, Column A—Federal Agency Appropriated Contribution. Identify any funding matches provided through Federal agency appropriations for each cost item in Column A. [Complete this column only if the Project Sponsor is a federal entity.] Table 1, Column B—Requested County Title II Contribution. Identify all Title II funds requested for each cost item in Column B. Table 1, Column C—Other Contributions. Identify any other matching contributions provided from non- Forest Service or non-BLM appropriations for each cost item in Column C(e.g., funds secured through the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board). Table 1, Column D—Total Available Funds. Column D is the sum of Columns A, B, and C. USDA Service Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act Reauthorized by Public Law 115-141 Title II FS-1800-0030 orvmx Project Submission Form EXP. Resource Advisory Committee Project Number v gSI,y1 i dFmwoffian Funding Fiscal Year (s): 2. Project Name: 3a. State: 3b. County(s): 4. Project Submitted By: 5. Date: 6. Contact Phone Number: Ott wane QAllDdrrYY Fhme wmtl(123)4j6-7U0 7. Contact E-mail: 8. Project Location: a.National Forest(s): b. Forest Service District: c. Location(Township-Range-Section) 9. Project Goals and Objectives: 10. Project Description: a. Brief: (in one sentence) b. Detailed: 11. Types of Lands Involved? State/Private/Other lands involved? OYes ONo Land Status: If Yes, specify: 12. How does the proposed project meet purposes of the Legislation? (select at least 1) Improves maintenance of existing infrastructure. ❑ Implements stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems. ❑ Restores and improves land health. Restores water quality File Code: 1800 Page ! of 4 Ver. October 2020 FS-1800-0030 OMB/! DC?. 13. Project Type a.Select an that apply.(select at least 1) Road Maintenance Trail Maintenance ❑ Road Decommission/Obliteration ❑ Trail Obliteration ❑ Other Infrastructure Maintenance(specify): ❑ Soil Productivity Improvement ❑ Forest Health Improvement ❑ Watershed Restoration&Maintenance ❑ Wildlife Habitat Restoration ❑ Fish Habitat Restoration ❑ Control of Noxious Weeds ❑ Reestablish Native Species ❑ Fuels Management/Fire Prevention ❑ Implement CWPP Project ❑ Other Project Type(specify): b. Primary Purpose(select only 1 from above): 14. Identify What the Project Will Accomplish Miles of road maintained: Miles of road decommissioned/obliterated: Number of structures maintained/improved: Acres of soil productivity improved: Miles of stream/river restored/improved: Miles of fish habitat restored/improved: Acres of native species reestablished: Acres of hazardous fuel treatment Miles of trail maintained: Miles of trail obliterated: Acres of forest health improved(including fuels reduction): Acres of rangeland improved: Acres of wildlife habitat restoredtimproved: Acres of noxious weeds controlled: Timber volume generated(mbt): Jobs generated in full time equivalents(FIE)to nearest tenth. One FTE is 52 forty how weeks: People reached(for environmental education projects/fire prevention): Direct economic activity benefit: Other: File Code: 1800 2 of 4 Ver. October 2020 FS-1800-0030 OMB/! BXP. 15. Estimated Project Start Date: 16.Estimated Project Completion Date: at—mu+rmrrrr at—mu+rm m 17. List known partnerships or collaborative opportunities. 18. Identify benefits to communities. 19. How does the project benefit federal lands/resources? 20.What is the Proposed Method(s)of Accomplishment? (sdect at least 1) ❑ Contract ❑ Federal Workforce ❑ County Workforce ❑ Volunteers ❑ Grant ❑ Agreement ❑ Americorps ❑ YCC/CCC Crews ❑ Job Corps ❑ Stewardship Contract ❑ Merchantable Timber Pilot ❑ Other(specify): 21. Will the Project Generate Merchantable Timber? 0 Yes 0 No 22. Anticipated Project Costs a. Title II Funds Requested: b. Is this a multi-year finding request? Q Yes Q No 23. Identify Source(s) of Other Funding: 24. Monitoring Plan (provide as attachment) a. Provide a plan that describes your process for tracking and explaining the effects of this project on your environmental and community goals outlined above. b. Identify who will conduct the monitoring: c. Identify total funding needed to carry out specified monitoring tasks (Worksheet 1, Itemk): 25. Identify remedies for failure to comply with the terms of the agreement. If project cannot be completed under the terms of this agreement: ❑ Unused funds will be retained to the RAC account. ❑ Other,please explain: Project Recommended By: Project Approved By: Chairperson Forest Supervisor Resource Advisory Committee National Forest File Code: 1800 3 of 4 Ver. October 2020 FS-1800-0030 OMB# EXP. Project Cost Analysis Worksheet Worksheet 1 Please submit this worksheet with your proposal Column A Column B Column C Column D Fed.Agency Requested Other Total Appropriated Title II Contributions Available Item Contribution Contribution Funds a. Field Work& Site Surveys b.NEPA/CEQA c. ESA Consultation d. Permit Acquisition e. Project Design&Engineering £ Contract/Grant Preparation g. Contract/Grant Administration h. Contract/Grant Cost i. Salaries j. Materials& Supplies k. Monitoring 1. Other-ex Partner Indirect Cost m. Project Sub-Total n. FS Indirect Costs Total Cost Estimate $0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NOTES: Col.A:FS costs incurred as part of proposal implementation. Coordinate with FS to identify any FS cost for items in Col.A. Col.B:Title II funding requested to implement the proposal. Col.C:Matching funds being contributed by proponent or third parties.Proposals funded with a Participating Agreement will require a minimum 20%match. Col.D: Sum of columns A,B,and C for each individual row. Row A: Costs associated with project planning,not project implementation, such as assessment of miles of trail needing maintenance. Assessments and planning needed to develop a specific proposal.For Col.B:proponents must request permission in advance to request Title II funds to complete NEPA/CEQA analyses,as this is expected to be completed prior to proposal submission. Rows B,C,D,and E: cost associated with environmental compliance and project design.Proponents must request permission in advance to request Title II funds to complete NEPA/CEQA analyses,as this is expected to be completed prior to proposal submission. Row G:Costs associated with preparation of contract or agreement instruments used to implement the proposal.Contracts used to complete projects have special provisions;contact the FS to identify these early in the process. Row G: Costs associated with administration of contract or agreement instruments used to implement the proposal. Row H:Estimated value of any contracts/agreements used to implement proposal.Contracts/agreements used to complete projects have special provisions;contact the FS to identify these early in the process. Row I:Cost of salaries to implement project Row L:Examples include overhead charges from other partners,vehicles,equipment rentals,travel,etc. Row K: Costs associated with performing monitoring described in Items 24a,24b,and 24c.Amounts should be similar between Item 24 and Row K. Row N:Forest Service indirect costs,including contracting/grant officer costs if needed. File Code: 1800 4 of 4 Ver. October 2020 USDA Forest Service us. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Olympic National Forest 1 June 2026 Title II Project Proposal Supplement for Non-Forest Service Applicants Please fill out this supplemental form and submit it, along with the Title II project proposal form to jennifer.garciasantiago(c�usda.gov Project Name: Click or tap here to enter text. Project Applicant: Click or tap here to enter text. Email: Click or tap here to enter text. Phone Number: Click or tap here to enter text. This supplemental information will help the Forest understand the scope and scale of the proposed project and determine whether we have the workforce capacity to support tasks related to implementation. All projects must have regulatory compliance (NEPA) completed and must cost a minimum of$10,000. The agency will review each proposal to ensure it complies with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Service management policy. If a proposal exceeds the Forest's capacity to complete required compliance or administrative work, or if it does not align with agency direction, the project sponsor will be contacted by the RAC Coordinator to discuss potential revisions. If updates are not possible the project will not be forwarded to the RAC for review. 1. Please identify the Forest Service staff member you have worked with(or are currently working with) during the development or design of the project. If you have not yet connected with a Forest Service staff member,please refer to the contact list below and reach out to the person who best aligns with your project. Applicants must coordinate with the appropriate staff member before submitting an application. • Which Olympic National Forest staff member have you coordinated with on this project? Click or tap here to enter text. • Will the Forest be involved in implementation? ❑Yes ❑ No Program Area Contact Email Engineering Juan Mendoza Juan.Mendoza(2Iusda.gov Recreation Josh Parker Joshua.Parker3gusda.gov Natural Resources Alison Center alison.center(a�usda.gov Youth Crews Jenni Garcia-Santiago jennifer.garciasantiago(aiusda.gov Archelogy Kevin Bruce kevin.brucenusda.gov USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 2. All non-Forest Service projects require an agreement to enable transfer of funds. Is an agreement currently in place, and if so, what type, and what is the name/number? Click or tap here to enter text. 3. Have you/your organization registered in the SAM.gov program? ❑Yes ❑No 4. Can this project be implemented in phases or with less than the requested amount? If yes, by how much and what would not be accomplished with reduced funding (for example—$30,000 (full funding) would result in 50 miles of road maintenance and 50% funding would result in 25 miles of road maintenance; or phase 1 would cost x and result in x miles of road maintenance). Click or tap here to enter text. For Forest Service Point of Contact Completion: I have reviewed the proposal and confirm that: • I support the project; • the project provides a direct or indirect benefit to National Forest System lands; and • NEPA compliance is complete. The following individual has been designated as the Forest Service point of contact responsible for coordinating work related to this project on National Forest System lands. Name: Click or tap here to enter text. Signature: 2 Mason County Agenda Request Form 9 To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Tania Kenner for John Taylor Ext: 806 Department: Emergency Management Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): 7/13/26 Agenda Date(s): 7/21/26 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources © Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: FY25 Homeland Security Grant Program (25HSGP/SHSP), Contract E26-342 Background/Executive Summary: The Mason County Emergency Management Division is part of Homeland Security Region 3(Mason, Lewis,Thurston, Grays Harbor, and Pacific Counties).This is an annual grant from the US Department of Homeland Security, passed through the Washington State Military Department (EMD)to the Homeland Security Regions.At the regional level,funding is distributed using a formula based on a base amount plus population. Mason County has received the SHSP Grant annually since 2003. This grant supports POETE capability areas (Planning, Organization, Equipment,Training, and Exercises) by funding the purchase of equipment, specifically multiband radios for DEM and Central Mason Fire to integrate with MCSO. This year's grant award is$19,508, a decrease of$72 from last year's award of$19,580. This grant has been reviewed and signed by Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,Timothy Whitehead. Associated Costs/Budget Impact (amount,funding source, budget amendment, etc.): Increase 2026 budget revenue for Emergency Management and spending authority for the grant amount of$19,508. Public Outreach: N/A Requested Action: Approval of the FY25 Homeland Security Grant Program (25HSGP/SHSP), Contract E26-342, awarding$19,508 from the Washington State Military Department(EMD)and US Department of Homeland Security to Mason County,for the performance period of September 1, 2025 through September 1, 2027. Attachment(s): E26-342 Mason County 25SHSP E26-342_Mason County 25SHSP_TW Legal Review-Signed (signature page) E26-342_Mason County_Debarment E26-342_Mason County_SAF Washington Military Department HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT FACE SHEET 1. Subrecipient Name and Address: 2. Grant Agreement Amount: 3. Grant Agreement Number: Mason County $19,508 E26-342 Emergency Management 100 West Public Works Drive, Building I Shelton,WA 98584-9714 4. Subrecipient Contact, phone/email: 5. Grant Agreement Start Date: 6. Grant Agreement End Date: Tania Kenner,360-427-9670 Ext 800 September 1, 2025 August 31, 2027 tkenne masoncoun wa. ov 7. Department Contact, phone/email: 8. Unique Entity Identifier(UEI): 9. UBI#(state revenue): Jocelyn Overby,253-512-7226 SNAXPBGW4VR4 232-002-101 Jocel n.Overb mil.wa. ov 10. Funding Authority: Washington Military Department the Department)and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 11. Federal Funding Identification#: 12. Federal Award Date: 13. Assistance Listings#&Title: EMW-2025-SS-05030 1/30/2026 97.067-25HSGP(SHSP) 14. Total Federal Award Amount: 15. Program Index#&OBJ/SUB-OBJ: 16. EIN $19,631,821.00 75358,753SC, 753SH,753SL,753SQ,753SZ/NZ 91-6001354 17. Service Districts: 18. Service Area by County(ies): 19. Women/Minority-Owned, State BY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS: 35 Mason Certified: Z N/A ❑ NO BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS:6, 10 ❑ YES, OMWBE# 20. Agreement Classification 21. Contract Type(check all that apply): O Personal Services O Client Services Z Public/Local Gov't O Contract ® Grant Z Agreement ❑ Research/Development ❑A E O Other O Intergovernmental (RCW 39.34) ❑ Interagency 22. Subrecipient Selection Process: 23. Subrecipient Type(check all that apply) 0 "To all who apply&qualify" ❑ Competitive Bidding ❑ Private Organization/Individual ❑ For-Profit ❑ Sole Source ❑ A/E RCW ❑ N/A ® Public Organization/Jurisdiction ❑ Non-Profit ❑ Filed w/OFM? ❑ Advertised? O YES ❑ NO ❑ CONTRACTOR Z SUBRECIPIENT ❑ OTHER 24. PURPOSE&DESCRIPTION: The objective of the Federal Fiscal Year(FFY)2025 Homeland Security Grant Program(25HSGP)is to enhance state,local,tribal,and territorial efforts to prevent,protect against,and respond to terrorist attacks,to strengthen the nations communities against potential terrorist threats. 25HSGP provides funding to implement investments that build,sustain,and deliver the core capabilities essential to achieving the National Preparedness Goal of a prepared and resilient nation. 25HSGP supports core capabilities across the five mission areas of prevention, protection,mitigation, response,and recovery based on allowable costs.HSGP is comprised of three interconnected grant programs:State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), and Operation Stonegarden (OPSG). Together, these grant programs fund a range of preparedness activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and management and administration. The Department is the Recipient and Pass-through Entity of the 25HSGP DHS Award Letter for Grant No.EMW-2025-SS-05030("the Grant"), which is incorporated in and attached hereto as Attachment C and has made a subaward of Federal award funds to the Subrecipient pursuant to this Agreement.The Subrecipient is accountable to the Department for use of Federal award funds provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Department and Subrecipient acknowledge and accept the terms of this Agreement, including all referenced attachments which are hereby incorporated, and have executed this Agreement as of the date below. This Agreement Face Sheet; Special Terms & Conditions (Attachment A); General Terms and Conditions (Attachment B); DHS Award Letter EMW-2025SS-05030 (Attachment C), Work Plan (Attachments D-1, Budget(Attachment E),Timeline(Attachment F);Build America,Buy America Act Self-Certification(Attachment G)and all other documents and attachments expressly referenced and incorporated herein contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties and govern the rights and obligations of the parties to this Agreement.No other understandings,oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement,unless otherwise provided herein,the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: 1. Applicable Federal and State Statutes and Regulations 4.Special Terms and Conditions 2. DHS/FEMA Award and program documents 5.General Terms and Conditions,and, 3. Work Plan,Timeline,and Budget 6.Other provisions of the Agreement incorporated by reference. WHEREAS,the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year last specified below. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: FOR THE SUBRECIPIENT: Signature Date Signature Date Seth Nickerson, Chief Financial Officer Travis Adams, County Administrator Washington Military Department Mason County BOILERPLATE APPROVED TO FORM: APPROVED AS T applicable): David Merchant 10/31/2025 ('I-jo I ul Assistant Attorney General Signa ure Date DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 1 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment A SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE I. KEY PERSONNEL The individuals listed below shall be considered key personnel for point of contact under this Agreement. Any substitution of key personnel by either party shall be made by written notification to the current key personnel. SUBRECIPIENT DEPARTMENT Name Tania Kenner Name Jocelyn Overby Title Senior EM Coordinator Title Program Coordinator Email tkenner@masoncountywa.gov Email Jocelyn.Overby@mil.wa.gov Phone 360-427-9670 Ext. 800 Phone 253-512-7226 Name John M. Taylor Name Gail Cram Title Emergency Management, Parks & Title Program Manager Recreations Manager Email jtaylor@masoncountywa.gov Email ail.cram@mil.wa. ov Phone 360-427-9670, Ext. 806 Phone 253-512-7472 Name Name General Information Title Email Email Preparedness.grants@mil.wa.gov Phone ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS The Subrecipient shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, requirements and program guidance identified or referenced in this Agreement and the informational documents published by DHS/FEMA applicable to the 25HSGP program, including, but not limited to, all criteria, restrictions, and requirements of "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program" (hereafter "the NOFO"), the Preparedness Grants Manual FM 207-23-0001 August 2025 (hereafter "the Manual"), the DHS Award Letter for the Grant, and the federal regulations commonly applicable to DHS/FEMA grants, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. The DHS Award Letter is incorporated in this Agreement as Attachment C. The Subrecipient acknowledges that since this Agreement involves federal award funding, the period of performance may begin prior to the availability of appropriated federal funds. The Subrecipient agrees that it will not hold the Department, the state of Washington, or the United States liable for any damages, claim for reimbursement, or any type of payment whatsoever for services performed under this Agreement prior to distribution of appropriated federal funds, or if federal funds are not appropriated or in a particular amount. A. STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DHS/FEMA PREPAREDNESS GRANTS: The following requirements apply to all DHS/FEMA Preparedness Grants administered by the Department. 1. SUBAWARDS & CONTRACTS BY SUBRECIPIENTS a. The Subrecipient must make a case-by-case determination whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of 25HSGP funds received under this Agreement casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or contractor in accordance with 2 CFR 200.331. b. If the Subrecipient becomes a pass-through entity by making a subaward to a subrecipient: i. The Subrecipient must comply with all federal laws and regulations applicable to pass- through entities of 25HSGP funds, including, but not limited to, those contained in 2 CFR 200. ii. The Subrecipient shall require its subrecipient(s) to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, requirements and program guidance identified or referenced in this Agreement and the informational documents published by DHS/FEMA applicable to the 25HSGP Program, including, but not limited to, all criteria, restrictions, and requirements of the NOFO, the Manual, the DHS Award Letter for the Grant in Attachment C, and the federal regulations commonly applicable to DHS/FEMA grants. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 2 of 54 Mason County E26-342 iii. The Subrecipient shall be responsible to the Department for ensuring that all 25HSGP federal award funds provided to its subrecipients are used in accordance with applicable federal and state statutes and regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award set forth in this Agreement (Attachment C). iv. The Subrecipient must follow their own policies and procedures to eliminate or reduce the impact of conflicts of interest when making subawards, adhering to any applicable federal or state statutes or regulations. Any real or potential conflicts of interest must be reported to the Department in writing upon discovery. 2. BUDGET, REIMBURSEMENT, AND TIMELINE a. Within the total Grant Agreement Amount, travel, subcontracts, salaries, benefits, printing, equipment, and other goods and services or other budget categories will be reimbursed on an actual cost basis upon completion unless otherwise provided in this Agreement. b. The maximum amount of all reimbursement requests permitted to be submitted under this Agreement, including the final reimbursement request, is limited to and shall not exceed the total Grant Agreement Amount. c. If the Subrecipient chooses to include indirect costs within the Budget (Attachment E), additional documentation is required based on the applicable situation. As described in 2 CFR 200.414 and Appendix VII to 2 CFR 200: i. If the Subrecipient receives direct funding from any Federal agency(ies), documentation of the rate must be submitted to the Department Key Personnel per the following: A. More than thirty five million dollars ($35,000,000), the approved indirect cost rate agreement negotiated with its federal cognizant agency. B. Less than thirty five million dollars ($35,000,000), the indirect cost proposal developed in accordance with Appendix VII of 2 CFR 200 requirements. ii. If the Subrecipient does not receive direct federal funds (i.e., only receives funds as a subrecipient), the Subrecipient must either elect to charge a de minimis rate of fifteen percent (15%)or 15% of modified total direct costs or choose to negotiate a higher rate with the Department. d. For travel costs, the Subrecipient shall comply with 2 CFR 200.475 and should consult their internal policies, state rates set pursuant to RCW 43.03.050 and RCW 43.03.060 as now existing or amended, and federal maximum rates set forth at https://www.gsa.gov, and follow the most restrictive. If travel costs exceed set state or federal limits, travel costs shall not be reimbursed without prior written approval by Department Key Personnel. All international travel requires prior FEMA approval. e. Reimbursement requests will include a properly completed State A-19 Invoice Form and Reimbursement Spreadsheet (in the format provided by the Department) detailing the expenditures for which reimbursement is sought. Reimbursement requests must be submitted to Reimbursements(a�mil.wa.gov no later than the due dates listed within the Timeline (Attachment F). Reimbursement request totals should be commensurate to the time spent processing by the Subrecipient and the Department. f. Receipts and/or backup documentation for any approved items that are authorized under this Agreement must be maintained by the Subrecipient consistent with record retention requirements of this Agreement and be made available upon request by the Department and auditors. g. The Subrecipient must request prior written approval from Department Key Personnel to waive or extend a due date in the Timeline (Attachment F). Waiving or missing deadlines serves as an indicator for assessing an agency's level of risk of noncompliance with the regulations, requirements, and the terms and conditions of the Agreement and may increase required monitoring activities. For waived or extended reimbursement due dates, all allowable costs should be submitted on the next scheduled reimbursement due date contained in the Timeline. Any DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 3 of 54 Mason County E26-342 request for a waiver or extension of a due date in the Timeline must be submitted to the Department Key Personnel sufficiently in advance of the due date to provide adequate time for Department review and consideration and may be granted or denied within the Department's sole discretion. h. For SHSP and UASI subrecipients, the total Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities (LETPA)amount included in the Budget(Attachment E) must be used for eligible LETPA activities following FEMA guidance. i. All work under this Agreement must end on or before the Grant Agreement End Date, and the final reimbursement request must be submitted to the Department within the time period notated in the Timeline (Attachment F) except as otherwise authorized by either (1) written amendment of this Agreement or (2) written notification from the Department to the Subrecipient to provide additional time for completion of the Subrecipient's subproject(s). If funds are not required, the Subrecipient shall notify the Department Key Personnel. j. All costs for equipment and supplies must be incurred, and received, before the Grant Agreement End Date. k. Failure to submit timely, accurate, and complete reports and reimbursement requests as required by this Agreement (including, but not limited to, those reports in the Timeline [Attachment F]) will prohibit the Subrecipient from being reimbursed until such reports are submitted and the Department has had reasonable time to conduct its review. I. Final reimbursement requests will not be approved for payment until the Subrecipient is current with all reporting requirements contained in this Agreement. m. For SHSP and UASI funding, deviations from the Budget(Attachment E)are allowed as described below and will require an amendment if the identified threshold is exceeded: i. With Enduring Needs (EN) funding: A. If there is only one subproject, the Subrecipient is allowed to move funding between solution areas until cumulative transfers exceed ten percent (10%) of the subproject amount. B. If there are multiple subprojects, the Subrecipient is allowed to move funding between subprojects until cumulative transfers exceed ten percent (10%) of the subproject amount. ii. With National Priority Area (NPA) funding: A. If there is only one NPA project, the Subrecipient is allowed to transfer funding between solution areas until cumulative transfers exceed ten percent (10%) of the NPA project amount. B. If there are multiple projects within one NPA, the Subrecipient is allowed to transfer funding between projects until cumulative transfers exceed ten percent (10%) of the NPA amount. C. To ensure applicable federal requirements are met, funding may not be transferred between projects of different NPAs. iii. Funding cannot be transferred between EN subprojects and NPA projects. n. For OPSG subrecipients, any deviations from the approved direct budget categories will require additional federal approvals and possibly a written amendment. o. Subrecipients shall only use federal award funds under this Agreement to supplement existing funds and will not use them to replace (supplant) non-federal funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose. The Subrecipient may be required to demonstrate and document that the reduction in non-federal resources occurred for reasons other than the receipt or expected receipt of federal funds. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 4 of 54 Mason County E26-342 3. REPORTING a. With each reimbursement request, the Subrecipient shall report how the expenditures, for which reimbursement is sought, relate to the Work Plan (Attachments D-1, D-2) activities in the format provided by the Department. b. With the final reimbursement request, the Subrecipient shall submit a final report to Reimbursements(a)-mil.wa.gov (in the format provided by the Department) describing all completed activities under this Agreement. c. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) and related OMB Guidance consistent with Public Law 109-282 as amended by section 6202(a) of Public Law 110-252 (see 31 U.S.C. 6101 note) and complete and return to the Department an Audit Certification/FFATA Form. This form is required to be completed once per calendar year, per Subrecipient, and not per agreement. The Department's Contracts Office will request the Subrecipient submit an updated form at the beginning of each calendar year in which the Subrecipient has an active agreement. d. To document compliance with the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the Subrecipient shall complete the annual NIMS survey conducted by Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD). 4. NIMS COMPLIANCE a. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) identifies concepts and principles that answer how to manage emergencies from preparedness to recovery regardless of their cause, size, location, or complexity. NIMS provides a consistent, nationwide approach and vocabulary for multiple agencies or jurisdictions to work together to build, sustain, and deliver the core capabilities needed to achieve a secure and resilient nation. b. Consistent implementation of NIMS provides a solid foundation across jurisdictions and disciplines to ensure effective and integrated preparedness, planning, and response. NIMS empowers the components of the National Preparedness System, a requirement of Presidential Policy Directive 8, to guide activities within the public and private sector and describes the planning, organizational activities, equipping, training, and exercising needed to build and sustain the core capabilities in support of the National Preparedness Goal. c. In order to receive federal preparedness funding from the Department, the Subrecipient must ensure and maintain adoption and implementation of NIMS. See Agreement Attachment A,Article II section 3.d. for associated reporting requirements. The list of objectives used for progress and achievement reporting can be found at https://www.fema.gov/emergency- managers/nims/implementation-training. 5. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT a. The Subrecipient and any subrecipient to which the Subrecipient makes a subaward shall comply with 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327, and all Washington State procurement statutes, when procuring any equipment or supplies under this Agreement, 2 CFR 200.313 for management of equipment, and 2 CFR 200.314 for management of supplies, to include, but not limited to: i. Upon successful completion of the terms of this Agreement, all equipment and supplies purchased through this Agreement will be owned by the Subrecipient, or a recognized subrecipient to which the Subrecipient has made a subaward, for which a contract, subrecipient grant agreement, or other means of legal transfer of ownership is in place. ii. All equipment, and supplies as applicable, purchased under this Agreement will be recorded and maintained in the Subrecipient's inventory system. iii. Inventory system records shall include: A. Description of the property B. Manufacturer's serial number, model number, or other identification number C. Funding source for the property, including the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) (Face Sheet, Box 11) DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 5 of 54 Mason County E26-342 D. Assistance Listings Number (Face Sheet, Box 13) E. Who holds the title F. Acquisition date G. Cost of the property and the percentage of federal participation in the cost H. Location, use and condition of the property at the date the information was reported I. Disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property iv. The Subrecipient shall take a physical inventory of the equipment, and supplies as applicable, and reconcile the results with the property records at least once every two years. Any differences between quantities determined by the physical inspection and those shown in the records shall be investigated by the Subrecipient to determine the cause of the difference. The Subrecipient shall, in connection with the inventory, verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment. v. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for any and all operational and maintenance expenses and for the safe operation of the equipment and supplies including all questions of liability. The Subrecipient shall develop appropriate maintenance schedules and procedures to ensure the equipment, and supplies as applicable, are well-maintained and kept in good operating condition. A. For SHSP and UASI subrecipients, the Subrecipient is responsible for routine upkeep (i.e. gasoline, tire replacement, routine oil changes, monthly inspections, etc.) and shall not use SHSP or UASI funding for this purpose. vi. The Subrecipient shall develop a control system to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, and theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft shall be investigated, and a report generated and sent to the Department's Key Personnel. vii. The Subrecipient must obtain and maintain all necessary certifications and licenses for the equipment. viii. If the Subrecipient is authorized or required to sell the property, proper sales procedures must be established and followed to ensure the highest possible return. For disposition, if upon termination or at the Grant Agreement End Date, when original or replacement supplies or equipment acquired under a federal award are no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a federal awarding agency, the Subrecipient must comply with the following procedures: A. For Supplies: If there is a residual inventory of unused supplies exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in total aggregate value upon termination or completion of the project or program and the supplies are not needed for any other federal award, the Subrecipient must retain the supplies for use on other activities or sell them, but must, in either case, compensate the federal government for its share. The amount of compensation must be computed in the same manner as for equipment. B. For Equipment: 1) Items with a current per-unit fair-market value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less may be retained, sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of with no further obligation to the federal awarding agency. 2) Items with a current per-unit fair-market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) may be retained or sold. The Subrecipient shall compensate the federal awarding agency in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 200.313 (e) (2). C. Notify Department Key Personnel to initiate the disposition process by the federal awarding agency. ix. Records for equipment shall be retained by the Subrecipient for a period of six (6) years from the date of the disposition, replacement, or transfer. If any litigation, claim, or audit is DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 6 of 54 Mason County E26-342 started before the expiration of the six-year period, the records shall be retained by the Subrecipient until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. b. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Department's Purchase Review Process, which is incorporated by reference and made part of this Agreement. No reimbursement will be provided unless the appropriate approval has been received. c. Allowable equipment categories for the grant program are listed on the Authorized Equipment List (AEL) located on the FEMA website at https://www.fema.gov/qrants/guidance-tools/authorized- equipment-list. It is important that the Subrecipient and any subrecipient to which the Subrecipient makes a subaward regard the AEL as an authorized purchasing list identifying items allowed under the specific grant program; the AEL includes items that may not be categorized as equipment according to the federal, state, local, and tribal definitions of equipment. The Subrecipient is solely responsible for ensuring and documenting purchased items under this Agreement are authorized as allowed items by the AEL at time of purchase. If the item is not identified on the AEL as allowable under the grant program, the Subrecipient must contact the Department Key Personnel for assistance in seeking FEMA approval prior to acquisition. d. Equipment might require more than one waiver. The Subrecipient must contact the Department Key Personnel for assistance in identifying what waivers are needed for FEMA approval prior to acquisition. e. Equipment purchases (those with a current per-unit fair market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be identified and explained to the Department. Use, management, and disposition of such equipment is subject to requirements outlined in 2 CFR 200.313. Before making such purchases, the Subrecipient should analyze the cost benefits of purchasing versus leasing equipment, especially high-cost items and those subject to rapid technical advances. f. Unless expressly provided otherwise, all equipment must meet all mandatory regulatory state and DHS/FEMA adopted standards to be eligible for purchase using federal award funds. g. If funding is allocated to support emergency communications activities, the Subrecipient must ensure that all projects comply with SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants, located at https://www.cisa.gov/safecom/funding, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications. h. Effective August 13, 2020, FEMA recipients and subrecipients, as well as their contractors and subcontractors, may not obligate or expend any FEMA award funds to: i. Procure or obtain any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology of any system ii. Enter into, extend, or renew a contract to procure or obtain any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology of any system iii. Enter into, extend, or renew contracts with entities that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system This prohibition regarding certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment is mandated by section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY 2019 NDAA), Pub. L. No. 115-232 (2018) and 2 CFR 200.216, 200.327, 200.471, and Appendix 11 to 2CFR200. Recipients and subrecipients may use DHS/FEMA grant funding to procure replacement equipment and services impacted by this prohibition, provided the costs are otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Manual and the NOFO. Per subsections 889(f)(2)-(3) of the FY 2019 NDAA, and 2 CFR 200.216, covered telecommunications equipment or services means: DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 7 of 54 Mason County E26-342 i. Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation, (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities) ii. For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities) iii. Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment iv. Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country i. For OPSG subrecipients, items budgeted as equipment in an approved Operations Order should be marked prominently with "Purchased with DHS funds for Operation Stonegarden Use" when practicable. j. The Subrecipient must pass through equipment and supply management requirements that meet or exceed the requirements outlined above to any subrecipient to which the Subrecipient makes a subaward of federal award funds under this Agreement. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION a. The Subrecipient shall ensure full compliance with the DHS/FEMA Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Program. EHP program information can be found at https://www.fema.gov/grants/guidance-tools/environmental-historic all of which are incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. b. Projects that have historical impacts or the potential to impact the natural or built environment, including, but not limited to, construction of communication towers; modification or renovation of existing buildings, structures and facilities; installation of sonar system; or new construction, including replacement of facilities, must participate in the DHS/FEMA EHP review process prior to project initiation. Modification of existing buildings, including minimally invasive improvements such as attaching monitors to interior walls, and training or exercises occurring outside in areas not considered previously disturbed also require a DHS/FEMA EHP review before project initiation. c. The EHP review process involves the submission of a detailed project description that includes the entire scope of work, including any alternatives that may be under consideration, along with supporting documentation so FEMA may determine whether the proposed project has the potential to impact environmental resources and/or historic properties. d. The Subrecipient agrees that, to receive any federal preparedness funding, all EHP compliance requirements outlined in applicable guidance must be met. The EHP review process must be completed and FEMA approval must be received by the Subrecipient before any work is started for which reimbursement will be later requested. Expenditures for projects started before completion of the EHP review process and receipt of approval by the Subrecipient will not be reimbursed. 7. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall comply with all procurement requirements of 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327 and as specified in the General Terms and Conditions (Attachment B, A.10). a. For all contracts expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, per 2 CFR 200.1, the Subrecipient must notify the Department. The Department may request pre-procurement documents, such as request for proposals, invitations for bids and independent cost estimates. This requirement must be passed on to any subrecipient to which the Subrecipient makes a DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 8 of 54 Mason County E26-342 subaward, at which point the Subrecipient will be responsible for requesting and reviewing pre- procurement documents. b. For all sole source contracts expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold per 2 CFR 200.1, the Subrecipient must submit justification to the Department for review and approval. This requirement must be passed on to any subrecipient to which the Subrecipient makes a subaward, at which point the Subrecipient will be responsible for reviewing and approving sole source justifications to any subrecipient to which Subrecipient makes any award. c. The Subrecipient as well as its contractors and subcontractors must comply with the Build America, Buy America Act(BABAA), which was enacted as a part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act §§ 70901-70297, Pub. L. No. 117-58 (2021); and Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers. BABAA requires any infrastructure project receiving federal funding must ensure: i. All iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States. This means all manufacturing processes, from initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States. ii. All manufactured products must be produced in the United States. For a manufactured product to be considered produced in the United States, the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States must be greater than 55% of the total cost of all minimum amount of domestic content of manufactured product, unless subject to another standard. iii. All construction materials are manufactured in the United States. This means that all manufacturing processes for construction material occurred in the United States. Additionally, applicable infrastructure projects are subject to domestic preference requirements. A domestic preference does not apply to non-infrastructure spending under an award that also includes a covered project. A domestic preference applies to an entire infrastructure project, even if it is funded by both federal and non-federal funds under one or more awards. i. Domestic preferences under BABAA only apply to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or affixed to an infrastructure project. As such, it does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a domestic preference apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project but are not an integral part of or permanently affixed to the structure. ii. Infrastructure, for the purposes of BABAA, includes, at a minimum, the structures, facilities, and equipment for, in the United States, roads, highways and bridges; public transportation; dams, ports, harbors and other maritime facilities; intercity passenger and freight railroads; freight and intermodal facilities; airports; water systems, including drinking water and wastewater systems; electrical transmission facilities and systems; utilities; broadband infrastructure; and buildings and real property. Infrastructure includes facilities that generate, transport, and distribute energy. iii. The Subrecipient's contractors and their subcontractors who apply or bid for an award for an infrastructure project subject to the domestic preference requirement in the BABAA shall file a required certification to the Subrecipient with each bid or offer for an infrastructure project unless a domestic preference requirement is waived by FEMA. Contractors and subcontractors must certify that no federal financial assistance funding for infrastructure projects will be provided unless all the iron, steel, manufactured projects, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. BABAA, Pub. L. No. 117- 58, §§ 70901-52. Contractors and subcontractors shall also disclose any use of federal financial assistance for infrastructure projects that does not ensure compliance with BABAA domestic preference requirement. Such disclosures shall be forwarded to the Subrecipient who will forward them to the Department who, in turn, will forward the disclosures to FEMA. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 9 of 54 Mason County E26-342 The Build America, Buy America Act Self-Certification form is included herein as Attachment G. If the Subrecipient is interested in applying for a waiver, the Subrecipient should contact the Department Key Personnel to determine the requirements. All waiver requests must include a detailed justification for the use of goods, products, or materials mined, produced, or manufactured outside the United States and a certification that there was a good faith effort to solicit bids for domestic products supported by terms included in requests for proposals, contracts, and nonproprietary communications with potential suppliers. 8. SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING a. The Department will monitor the activities of the Subrecipient from award to closeout. The goal of the Department's monitoring activities will be to ensure that subrecipients receiving federal pass- through funds are in compliance with this Agreement, federal and state audit requirements, federal grant guidance, and applicable federal and state financial regulations, as well as 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F. b. To document compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F requirements, the Subrecipient shall complete and return to the Department an Audit Certification/FFATA Form. Reporting requirements are referenced in section 3.d. c. Monitoring activities may include, but are not limited to: i. Review of financial and performance reports ii. Monitoring and documenting the completion of Agreement deliverables iii. Documentation of phone calls, meetings (e.g., agendas, sign-in sheets, meeting minutes), e- mails and correspondence iv. Review of reimbursement requests and supporting documentation to ensure allowability and consistency with Agreement Work Plan (Attachments D-1, D-2, D-3), Budget (Attachment E), and federal requirements v. Observation and documentation of Agreement-related activities, such as exercises, training, events, and equipment demonstrations vi. On-site visits to review equipment records and inventories, to verify source documentation for reimbursement requests and performance reports, and to verify completion of deliverables d. The Subrecipient is required to meet or exceed the monitoring activities, as outlined above, for any subrecipient to which the Subrecipient makes a subaward as a pass-through entity under this Agreement. e. Compliance will be monitored throughout the performance period to assess risk. Concerns will be addressed through a Corrective Action Plan. 9. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 TITLE VI) a. The Subrecipient must comply with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, which requires that subrecipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services. FEMA Policy FP-256-23-001 (https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema policy-language-access.pdf) further stresses this requirement applies to anyone awarded FEMA funding. Providing meaningful access for persons with LEP may entail providing language assistance services, including oral interpretation and written translation. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000), requires federal agencies to issue guidance to recipients, assisting such organizations and entities in understanding their language access obligations. DHS published the required recipient guidance in April 2011, DHS Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition against National Orig Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 76 Fed. Reg. 21755-21768, (April 18, 2011). The Guidance provides helpful information such as how a recipient can determine the DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 10 of 54 Mason County E26-342 extent of its obligation to provide language services, selecting language services, and elements of an effective plan on language assistance for LEP persons. b. Subrecipients are encouraged to perform and document their analysis of the most appropriate language assistance services necessary to ensure a LEP individual has meaningful access to the Subrecipient's programs and activities. The analysis should consider: i. The number or proportion of LEP individuals eligible to be served or likely encountered by the program ii. The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program iii. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people's lives iv. The resources available to the program and costs B. HSGP SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS The objectives of the HSGP are to (1) build and sustain core capabilities, including Law Enforcement and Terrorism Prevention Activities and the National Priority Areas; (2) address capability gaps identified in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) process; and (3) implement a comprehensive and coordinated approach to address enduring security needs of communities that includes planning, training and awareness campaigns, equipment and capital projects, and exercises. 1. The Subrecipient must use HSGP funds only to perform tasks as described in the Work Plan (Attachments D-1, D-2), as approved by the Department, and in compliance with this Agreement. a. SHSP-funded projects must assist state, local, tribal, and territorial efforts to build, enhance, and sustain the capabilities needed to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. All tasks must have a nexus to terrorism and address capability gaps identified through the Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)/Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) process. b. UASI-funded projects must enhance the security and resilience of high-risk urban areas to build, sustain, and improve the capabilities necessary to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. All tasks must have a nexus to terrorism and address capability gaps identified through the THIRA/SPR process. c. OPSG-funded projects must support enhanced cooperation and coordination among Customs and Border Protection, United States Border Patrol, and federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies to support joint efforts to secure the United States' borders along routes of ingress/egress to and from international borders, to include travel corridors in states bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as states and territories with international water borders. State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies utilize their inherent law enforcement authorities to support the border security mission and do not receive any additional authority by participating in OPSG. d. State agencies, including law enforcement, must comply with RCW 43.17.425 and may not use agency funds (including this grant), facilities, property, equipment, or personnel, to investigate, enforce, cooperate with, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal registration or surveillance programs or any other laws, rules, or policies that target Washington residents solely on the basis of race, religion, immigration, or citizenship status, or national or ethnic origin, except as provided in RCW 43.17.425 (3). 2. The Budget (Attachment E) may include the following caps and thresholds: a. If funds are allotted for Management and Administration (M&A), such expenditures must be related to administration of the grant. The maximum percentage of the Grant Agreement Amount that may be used for M&A costs when allocated under this Agreement shall not exceed five percent (5%) but may be less. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 11 of 54 Mason County E26-342 b. At least thirty percent (35%) of the combined HSGP award allocated under SHSP and UASI must be dedicated to law enforcement terrorism prevention activities (LETPA). To meet this requirement, the Subrecipient has agreed, at a minimum, to meet the LETPA percentage indicated in the Budget. If the Subrecipient anticipates spending less than the indicated amount, a budget amendment is required. c. The maximum percentage of the Grant Agreement Amount that may be used for personnel expenses under this Agreement is identified in the Budget. If the Subrecipient anticipates spending more on personnel costs, an amendment is required. Additional approval steps may also be required before the personnel percentage can be increased. 3. If funding is allocated for intelligence analysts, analytical personnel must demonstrate qualifications that meet or exceed competencies identified in the Common Competencies for state, local, and tribal intelligence analysts, which outlines the minimum categories of training needed for intelligence analysts. All training to ensure baseline proficiency in intelligence analysis and production must be completed within six (6) months of hiring unless the analyst has previously served as an intelligence analyst for a minimum of two (2) years. Documentation of this requirement must be accessible to the Department Key Personnel as applicable. 4. If funding is allocated to non-DHS FEMA training, the Subrecipient must request prior written approval from the Department Key Personnel before attending the training. The Department will coordinate approval with the State Training Point of Contact. Pursuant to DHS/FEMA Grant Programs Directorate Information Bulletin No. 432, Review and Approval Requirements for Training Courses Funded Through Preparedness Grants, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 04/Training Course Review and Approval IB Final 7 19 18.pdf, the training must fall within the FEMA mission scope and be in alignment with the Subrecipient's Emergency Operations Plan. This requirement only applies to training courses and does not include attendance at conferences. Furthermore, additional federal approvals are required for courses that relate to Countering Violent Extremism. 5. Except for an elevated National Terrorism Advisory System alert, prior written approval is required before SHSP and UASI funds may be used for operational overtime. Requests must be submitted to the Department Key Personnel in advance of the expenditure to ensure all additional approval steps can be met. 6. To gather data for the required FEMA deliverables (i.e., SPR, THIRA), EMD is continuing the pilot of the three-year County Emergency Preparedness Assessment (CEPA) process with workshops, occurring in a third of the 39 counties each calendar year 2024-2026. All SHSP Subrecipients that have not completed a CEPA workshop in calendar year 2024 or 2025 must participate in and complete a CEPA workshop located in their county in calendar year 2026 to receive SHSP funding. C. DHS TERMS AND CONDITIONS As a subrecipient of 25HSGP funding, the Subrecipient shall comply with all applicable DHS terms and conditions of the 25HSGP Award Letter and its incorporated documents for the Grant, which are incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement as Attachment C. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 12 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment B Washington Military Department GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grants A.1 DEFINITIONS As used throughout this Agreement, the terms will have the same meaning as defined in 2 CFR 200 Subpart A (which is incorporated herein by reference), except as otherwise set forth below: a. "Agreement" means this Grant Agreement. b. "Department" means the Washington Military Department, as a state agency, any division, section, office, unit or other entity of the Department, or any of the officers or other officials lawfully representing that Department. The Department is a recipient of a federal award directly from a federal awarding agency and is the pass-through entity making a subaward to a Subrecipient under this Agreement. c. "Monitoring Activities" means all administrative, financial, or other review activities that are conducted to ensure compliance with all state and federal laws, rules, regulations, authorities and policies. d. "Subrecipient" when capitalized is primarily used throughout this Agreement in reference to the non-federal entity identified on the Face Sheet of this Agreement that has received a subaward from the Department. However, the definition of"Subrecipient" is the same as in 2 CFR 200.1 for all other purposes. A.2 ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROHIBITED The Department shall make no payments in advance or in anticipation of goods or services to be provided under this Agreement. The Subrecipient shall not invoice the Department in advance of delivery and invoicing of such goods or services. A.3 AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS The Subrecipient or the Department may request, in writing, an amendment or modification of this Agreement. However, such amendment or modification shall not be binding, take effect or be incorporated herein until made in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the Department and the Subrecipient. No other understandings or agreements, written or oral, shall be binding on the parties. The Agreement performance period shall only be extended by (1) written notification of DHS/FEMA approval of the Award performance period, followed up with a mutually agreed written amendment, or(2) written notification from the Department to the Subrecipient to provide additional time for completion of the Subrecipient's project(s). A.4 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101 ET SEQ. AND ITS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "ADA" 28 CFR Part 35. Except as provided herein, the Subrecipient must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunication. If the ADA does not apply to the Subrecipient because the Subrecipient is a federal recognized Indian Tribe, then the acceptance by the Tribe of, or acquiescence to, these General Terms and Conditions does not change or alter its inapplicability to the Indian Tribe. The execution of grant documents is not intended to change, alter, amend, or impose additional liability or responsibility upon the Tribe where it does not already exist. A.5 ASSURANCES The Department and Subrecipient agree that all activity pursuant to this Agreement will be in accordance with all the applicable current federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 13 of 54 Mason County E26-342 A.6 CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, OR INELIGIBILITY As federal funds are a basis for this Agreement, the Subrecipient certifies that the Subrecipient is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this Agreement by any federal department or agency. The Subrecipient shall complete, sign, and return a Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion form located at http://mil.wa.gov/emergency-management- division/grants/reguiredgrantforms.Any such form completed by the Subrecipient for this Agreement shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Further, the Subrecipient agrees to comply with all applicable federal regulations concerning the federal debarment and suspension system, including 2 CFR Part 180. The Subrecipient certifies that it will ensure that potential contractors or subrecipients or any of their principals are not debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in "covered transactions" by any federal department or agency. "Covered transactions" include procurement contracts for goods or services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement)that are expected to equal or exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), and subawards to subrecipients for any amount. With respect to covered transactions, the Subrecipient may comply with this provision by obtaining a certification statement from the potential contractor or subrecipient or by checking the System for Award Management (https://sam.gov/SAM/) maintained by the federal government. The Subrecipient also agrees not to enter into any arrangements or contracts with any party on the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries' "Debarred Contractor List' (https://secure.Ini.wa.gov/debarandstrike/ContractorDebarList.aspx). The Subrecipient also agrees not to enter into any agreements or contracts for the purchase of goods and services with any party on the Department of Enterprise Services' "Vendors Not Allowed to Bid(Debarment)"list (Vendors Not Allowed to Bid (Debarment) I Department of Enterprise Services (DES)). A.7 CERTIFICATION REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING As required by 44 CFR Part 18, the Subrecipient hereby certifies that to the best of its knowledge and belief: (1) no federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the Subrecipient to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; (2) that if any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; (3) and that, as applicable, the Subrecipient will require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements)and that all Subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into and is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 31 U.S.C. 1352. A.8 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTES, RULES AND DEPARTMENT POLICIES The Subrecipient and all its contractors and subrecipients shall comply with, and the Department is not responsible for determining compliance with, any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders, OMB Circulars, and/or policies. This obligation includes, but is not limited to: nondiscrimination laws and/or policies, Energy Policy and Conservation Act(PL 94-163, as amended), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (PL 93-288, as amended), Ethics in Public Service (RCW 42.52), Covenant Against Contingent Fees (48 CFR Section 52.203-5), Public Records Act (RCW 42.56), Prevailing Wages on Public Works (RCW 39.12), State Environmental Policy Act(RCW 43.21 C), Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58), DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 14 of 54 Mason County E26-342 State Building Code (RCW 19.27), Energy Related Building Standards (RCW 19.27A), Provisions in Buildings for Aged and Handicapped Persons (RCW 70.92), and safety and health regulations. In the event of noncompliance or refusal to comply with any applicable law, regulation, executive order, OMB Circular or policy by the Subrecipient, its contractors or subrecipients, the Department may rescind, cancel, or terminate the Agreement in whole or in part in its sole discretion. The Subrecipient is responsible for all costs or liability arising from its failure, and that of its contractors and subrecipients, to comply with applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, OMB Circulars or policies. A.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST No officer or employee of the Department; no member, officer, or employee of the Subrecipient or its designees or agents; no member of the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the project is undertaken or located; and no other official of the Subrecipient who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the project during his or her tenure, shall have any personal or pecuniary gain or interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the project assisted under this Agreement. The Subrecipient shall incorporate, or cause to incorporate, in all such contracts or subawards, a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to this provision. A.10 CONTRACTING & PROCUREMENT a. The Subrecipient shall use a competitive procurement process in the procurement and award of any contracts with contractors or subcontractors that are entered into under the original agreement award. The procurement process followed shall be in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.318, General procurement standards, through 200.327, Contract provisions. As required by Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, all contracts entered into by the Subrecipient under this Agreement must include the following provisions, as applicable: 1) Contracts for more than the simplified acquisition threshold, which is the inflation adjusted amount determined by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) as authorized by 41 U.S.C. 1908, must address administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as appropriate. 2) All contracts in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must address termination for cause and for convenience by the non-federal entity including the manner by which it will be affected and the basis for settlement. 3) Equal Employment Opportunity. Except as otherwise provided under 41 CFR Part 60, all contracts that meet the definition of"federally assisted construction contract" in 41 CFR Part 60-1.3 must include the equal opportunity clause provided under 41 CFR 60-1.4(b), in accordance with Executive Order 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity' (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 CFR Part, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," and implementing regulations at 41 CFR part 60, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor." 4) Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3141-3148). When required by Federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000) awarded by non-federal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis- Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, "Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction"). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. The non- federal entity must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation. The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The non-federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the federal awarding agency. The contracts must also include a provision for compliance with the Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act (40 DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 15 of 54 Mason County E26-342 U.S.C. 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, "Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States"). The Act provides that each contractor or Subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non-federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the federal awarding agency. 5) Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701-3708). Where applicable, all contracts awarded by the non-federal entity in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with 40 U.S.C. 3702 and 3704, as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5). Under 40 U.S.C. 3702 of the Act, each contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. The requirements of 40 U.S.C. 3704 are applicable to construction work and provide that no laborer or mechanic must be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. 6) Rights to Inventions Made Under a Contract or Agreement. If the federal award meets the definition of"funding agreement" under 37 CFR §401.2 (a) and the recipient or Subrecipient wishes to enter into a contract with a small business firm or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that "funding agreement," the recipient or Subrecipient must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR Part 401, "Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements,"and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency. 7) Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387), as amended—Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) must contain a provision that requires the non- federal award to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387). Violations must be reported to the federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 8) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the government-wide exclusions in the System for Award Management(SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), "Debarment and Suspension." SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. 9) Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment(31 U.S.C. 1352)—Contractors that apply or bid for an award exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) must file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must also disclose any lobbying with non-federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non-federal award. 10) Procurement of recovered materials — As required by 2 CFR 200.323, a non-federal entity that is a state agency or agency of a political subdivision of a state and its contractors must DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 16 of 54 Mason County E26-342 comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)at 40 CFR part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or the value of the quantity acquired during the preceding fiscal year exceeded ten thousand dollars ($10,000); procuring solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines. 11) Notice of federal awarding agency requirements and regulations pertaining to reporting. 12) Federal awarding agency requirements and regulations pertaining to copyrights and rights in data. 13) Access by the Department, the Subrecipient, the federal awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives to any books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor which are directly pertinent to that specific contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. 14) Retention of all required records for six years after the Subrecipient has made final payments and all other pending matters are closed. 15) Mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871). 16) Pursuant to Executive Order 13858 "Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects," and as appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, the non- Federal entity should, to the greatest extent practicable under a Federal award, provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, as required in 2 CFR Part 200.322, in every contract, subcontract, purchase order, or sub-award that is chargeable against federal financial assistance awards. 17) Per 2 C.F.R. § 200.216, prohibitions regarding certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment are mandated by section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY 2019 NDAA), Pub. L. No. 115- 232 (2018). b. The Department reserves the right to review the Subrecipient's procurement plans and documents and require the Subrecipient to make changes to bring its plans and documents into compliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200.317 through 200.327. The Subrecipient must ensure that its procurement process requires contractors and subcontractors to provide adequate documentation with sufficient detail to support the costs of the project and to allow both the Subrecipient and Department to make a determination on eligibility of project costs. c. All contracting agreements entered into pursuant to this Agreement shall incorporate this Agreement by reference. A.11 DISCLOSURE The use or disclosure by any party of any information concerning the Department for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the Department's or the Subrecipient's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this Agreement is prohibited except by prior written consent of the Department or as required to comply with the state Public Records Act, other law or court order. A.12 DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, when a bona fide dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved through discussion and negotiation, either party may request a dispute resolution board to resolve the dispute. A request for a dispute resolution board shall be in writing, state the disputed issues, state the relative positions of the parties, and be sent to all parties. The board shall consist of a representative appointed by the Department, a representative appointed by the Subrecipient, and a third party mutually agreed upon by both parties. The determination of the dispute resolution board DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 17 of 54 Mason County E26-342 shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. Each party shall bear the cost for its member of the dispute resolution board and its attorney fees and costs and share equally the cost of the third board member. A.13 LEGAL RELATIONS It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties to the Agreement and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. To the extent allowed by law, the Subrecipient, its successors or assigns, will protect, save and hold harmless the Department, the state of Washington, and the United States Government and their authorized agents and employees, from all claims, actions, costs, damages or expenses of any nature whatsoever by reason of the acts or omissions of the Subrecipient, its subcontractors, subrecipients, assigns, agents, contractors, consultants, licensees, invitees, employees or any person whomsoever arising out of or in connection with any acts or activities authorized by this Agreement. To the extent allowed by law, the Subrecipient further agrees to defend the Department and the state of Washington and their authorized agents and employees in any litigation; including payment of any costs or attorneys' fees for any claims or action commenced thereon arising out of or in connection with acts or activities authorized by this Agreement. This obligation shall not include such claims, costs, damages or expenses which may be caused by the sole negligence of the Department; provided, that if the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of(1) the Department, and (2) the Subrecipient, its agents, or employees, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Subrecipient, or the Subrecipient's agents or employees. Insofar as the funding source, FEMA, is an agency of the Federal government, the following shall apply: 44 CFR 206.9 Non-liability. The Federal government shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance of, or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Federal government in carrying out the provisions of the Stafford Act. A.14 LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY—AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this Agreement. Only the Department's Authorized Signature representative and the Authorized Signature representative of the Subrecipient or Alternate for the Subrecipient, formally designated in writing, shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this Agreement. Any alteration, amendment, modification, or waiver of any clause or condition of this Agreement is not effective or binding unless made in writing and signed by both parties' Authorized Signature representatives, except as provided for time extensions in Article A.3. Further, only the Authorized Signature representative or Alternate for the Subrecipient shall have signature authority to sign reimbursement requests, time extension requests, amendment and modification requests, requests for changes to projects or work plans, and other requests, certifications and documents authorized by or required under this Agreement. A.15 LOSS OR REDUCTION OF FUNDING In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Agreement and prior to normal completion or end date, the Department may unilaterally reduce the work plan and budget or unilaterally terminate all or part of the Agreement as a "Termination for Cause" without providing the Subrecipient an opportunity to cure. Alternatively, the parties may renegotiate the terms of this Agreement under "Amendments and Modifications" to comply with new funding limitations and conditions, although the Department has no obligation to do so. A.16 NONASSIGNABILITY Neither this Agreement, nor any claim arising under this Agreement, shall be transferred or assigned by the Subrecipient. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 18 of 54 Mason County E26-342 A.17 NONDISCRIMINATION During the performance of this agreement, the Subrecipient shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations. These requirements include, but are not limited to: a. Nondiscrimination in Employment: The Subrecipient shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, age, Vietnam era or disabled veteran status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. This requirement does not apply, however, to a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution or society of its activities. b. The Subrecipient shall take action to ensure that employees are employed and treated during employment without discrimination because of their race, color, sex, sexual orientation religion, national origin, creed, marital status, age, Vietnam era or disabled veteran status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment selection for training, including apprenticeships and volunteers. A.18 NOTICES The Subrecipient shall comply with all public notices or notices to individuals required by applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations and shall maintain a record of this compliance. A.19 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY/HEALTH ACT and WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY/HEALTH ACT (OSHA/WISHA) The Subrecipient represents and warrants that its workplace does now or will meet all applicable federal and state safety and health regulations that are in effect during the Subrecipient's performance under this Agreement. To the extent allowed by law, the Subrecipient further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department and its employees and agents from all liability, damages and costs of any nature, including, but not limited to, costs of suits and attorneys' fees assessed against the Department, as a result of the failure of the Subrecipient to so comply. A.20 OWNERSHIP OF PROJECT/CAPITAL FACILITIES The Department makes no claim to any capital facilities or real property improved or constructed with funds under this Agreement, and by this subaward of funds does not and will not acquire any ownership interest or title to such property of the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall assume all liabilities and responsibilities arising from the ownership and operation of the project and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the Department, the state of Washington, and the United States government harmless from any and all causes of action arising from the ownership and operation of the project. A.21 POLITICAL ACTIVITY No portion of the funds provided herein shall be used for any partisan political activity or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office or influence the approval or defeat of any ballot issue. A.22 PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION The assistance provided under this Agreement shall not be used in payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining approval of the application for such assistance or any other approval or concurrence under this Agreement provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical consultant, managerial, or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as project costs. A.23 PUBLICITY The Subrecipient agrees to submit to the Department prior to issuance all advertising and publicity matters relating to this Agreement wherein the Department's name is mentioned, or language used from which the connection of the Department's name may, in the Department's judgment, be inferred or implied. The Subrecipient agrees not to publish or use such advertising and publicity matters without the prior written consent of the Department. The Subrecipient may copyright original work it develops in the course of or under this Agreement; however, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.315, FEMA reserves a royalty- free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use the work for government purposes. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 19 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Publication resulting from work performed under this Agreement shall include an acknowledgement of FEMA's financial support, by the Assistance Listings Number(formerly CFDA Number), and a statement that the publication does not constitute an endorsement by FEMA or reflect FEMA's views. A.24 RECAPTURE PROVISION In the event the Subrecipient fails to expend funds under this Agreement in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and/or the provisions of the Agreement, the Department reserves the right to recapture funds in an amount equivalent to the extent of noncompliance. Such right of recapture shall exist for the life of the project following Agreement termination. Repayment by the Subrecipient of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within 30 days of demand. In the event the Department is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce the recapture provision, the Department shall be entitled to its costs and expenses thereof, including attorney fees from the Subrecipient. A.25 RECORDS a. The Subrecipient agrees to maintain all books, records, documents, receipts, invoices and all other electronic or written records necessary to sufficiently and properly reflect the Subrecipient's contracts, subawards, grant administration, and payments, including all direct and indirect charges, and expenditures in the performance of this Agreement (the "records"). b. The Subrecipient's records related to this Agreement and the projects funded may be inspected and audited by the Department or its designee, by the Office of the State Auditor, DHS, FEMA or their designees, by the Comptroller General of the United States or its designees, or by other state or federal officials authorized by law, for the purposes of determining compliance by the Subrecipient with the terms of this Agreement and to determine the appropriate level of funding to be paid under the Agreement. c. The records shall be made available by the Subrecipient for such inspection and audit, together with suitable space for such purpose, at any and all times during the Subrecipient's normal working day. d. The Subrecipient shall retain and allow access to all records related to this Agreement and the funded project(s) for a period of at least six (6) years following final payment and closure of the grant under this Agreement. Despite the minimum federal retention requirement of three(3)years, the more stringent State requirement of six (6) years must be followed. A.26 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROJECT/STATEMENT OF WORK/WORK PLAN While the Department undertakes to assist the Subrecipient with the project/statement of work/work plan (project) by providing federal award funds pursuant to this Agreement, the project itself remains the sole responsibility of the Subrecipient. The Department undertakes no responsibility to the Subrecipient, or to any third party, other than as is expressly set out in this Agreement. The responsibility for the design, development, construction, implementation, operation and maintenance of the project, as these phrases are applicable to this project, is solely that of the Subrecipient, as is responsibility for any claim or suit of any nature by any third party related in any way to the project. Prior to the start of any construction activity, the Subrecipient shall ensure that all applicable federal, state, and local permits and clearances are obtained, including, but not limited to, FEMA compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and all other environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders. The Subrecipient shall defend, at its own cost, any and all claims or suits at law or in equity, which may be brought against the Subrecipient in connection with the project. The Subrecipient shall not look to the Department, or to any state or federal agency, or to any of their employees or agents, for any performance, assistance, or any payment or indemnity, including, but not limited to, cost of defense and/or attorneys' fees, in connection with any claim or lawsuit brought by any third party related to any design, development, construction, implementation, operation and/or maintenance of a project. A.27 SEVERABILITY If any court of rightful jurisdiction holds any provision or condition under this Agreement or its application to any person or circumstances invalid, this invalidity does not affect other provisions, terms or conditions DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 20 of 54 Mason County E26-342 of the Agreement, which can be given effect without the invalid provision. To this end, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared severable. A.28 SINGLE AUDIT ACT REQUIREMENTS (including all AMENDMENTS) The Subrecipient shall comply with and include the following audit requirements in any subawards. Subrecipients of a federal award, that expend one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more in one fiscal year of federal funds from all sources, direct and indirect, are required to have a single or a program-specific audit conducted in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F. Subrecipients that spend less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) a year in federal awards are exempt from federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F. As defined in 2 CFR Part 200, the term "subrecipient" means an entity that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out a federal award as a recipient or subrecipient. Subrecipients that are required to have an audit must ensure the audit is performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) as found in the Government Auditing Standards (the Revised Yellow Book) developed by the United States Comptroller General and the OMB Compliance Supplement. The Subrecipient has the responsibility of notifying its auditor and requesting an audit in compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F, to include the Washington State Auditor's Office, a federal auditor, or a public accountant performing work using GAGAS, as appropriate. Costs of the audit may be an allowable grant expenditure as authorized by 2 CFR Part 200.425. The Subrecipient shall maintain auditable records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that any subcontractors also maintain auditable records. The Subrecipient is responsible for any audit exceptions incurred by its own organization or that of its subcontractors. Responses to any unresolved management findings and disallowed or questioned costs shall be included with the audit report. The Subrecipient must respond to Department requests for information or corrective action concerning audit issues or findings within 30 days of the date of request. The Department reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient all disallowed costs resulting from the audit. After the single audit has been completed, and if it includes any audit findings, the Subrecipient must send a full copy of the audit and its Corrective Action Plan to the Department at the following address no later than nine (9) months after the end of the Subrecipient's fiscal year(s): Contracts Office Washington Military Department Finance Division, Building #1 TA-20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5032 OR Contracts.Office(aD_mil.wa.gov The Department retains the sole discretion to determine whether a valid claim for an exemption from the audit requirements of this provision has been established. Conducting a single or program-specific audit in compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F is a material requirement of this Agreement. In the absence of a valid claim of exemption from the audit requirements of 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F, the Subrecipient's failure to comply with said audit requirements may result in one or more of the following actions in the Department's sole discretion: a percentage of federal awards being withheld until the audit is completed in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F; the withholding or disallowing of overhead costs; the suspension of federal awards until the audit is conducted and submitted; or termination of the federal award. A.29 SUBRECIPIENT NOT EMPLOYEE The Subrecipient, and/or employees or agents performing under this Agreement, are not employees or agents of the Department in any manner whatsoever. The Subrecipient will not be presented as nor claim to be an officer or employee of the Department or of the state of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Subrecipient make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right, privilege or benefit applicable to an officer or employee of the Department or of the state of Washington, including, but not limited to, Workers' Compensation coverage, unemployment insurance benefits, social security benefits, retirement membership or credit, or privilege or benefit which would accrue to a civil service employee under Chapter 41.06 RCW; OFM Reg. 4.3.1.1.8. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 21 of 54 Mason County E26-342 It is understood that if the Subrecipient is another state department, state agency, state university, state college, state community college, state board, or state commission, that the officers and employees are employed by the state of Washington in their own right. If the Subrecipient is an individual currently employed by a Washington State agency, the Department shall obtain proper approval from the employing agency or institution before entering into this contract. A statement of"no conflict of interest" shall be submitted to the Department. A.30 TAXES, FEES AND LICENSES Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall be responsible for, pay and maintain in current status all taxes, unemployment contributions, fees, licenses, assessments, permit charges and expenses of any other kind for the Subrecipient or its staff required by statute or regulation that are applicable to Agreement performance. A.31 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement, the Subrecipient may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the Department Key Personnel identified in the Agreement, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Department, in its sole discretion and in the best interests of the state of Washington, may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part ten (10) business days after emailing notice to the Subrecipient. Upon notice of termination for convenience, the Department reserves the right to suspend all or part of the Agreement, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Subrecipient from incurring additional obligations of funds. In the event of termination, the Subrecipient shall be liable for all damages as authorized by law. The rights and remedies of the Department provided for in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. A.32 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION FOR LOSS OF FUNDING The Department may unilaterally terminate or suspend all or part of this Grant Agreement, or may reduce its scope of work and budget, if there is a reduction in funds by the source of those funds, and if such funds are the basis for this Grant Agreement. The Department will email the Subrecipient ten (10) business days prior to termination. A.33 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION FOR CAUSE In the event the Department, in its sole discretion, determines the Subrecipient has failed to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, is in an unsound financial condition so as to endanger performance hereunder, is in violation of any laws or regulations that render the Subrecipient unable to perform any aspect of the Agreement, or has violated any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, the Department has the right to immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement in whole or in part. The Department may notify the Subrecipient in writing of the need to take corrective action and provide a period of time in which to cure. The Department is not required to allow the Subrecipient an opportunity to cure if it is not feasible as determined solely within the Department's discretion. Any time allowed for cure shall not diminish or eliminate the Subrecipient's liability for damages or otherwise affect any other remedies available to the Department. If the Department allows the Subrecipient an opportunity to cure, the Department shall notify the Subrecipient in writing of the need to take corrective action. If the corrective action is not taken within ten (10) calendar days or as otherwise specified by the Department, or if such corrective action is deemed by the Department to be insufficient, the Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part. The Department reserves the right to suspend all or part of the Agreement, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Subrecipient from incurring additional obligations of funds during investigation of the alleged compliance breach, pending corrective action by the Subrecipient, if allowed, or pending a decision by the Department to terminate the Agreement in whole or in part. In the event of termination, the Subrecipient shall be liable for all damages as authorized by law, including, but not limited to, any cost difference between the original Agreement and the replacement or cover Agreement and all administrative costs directly related to the replacement Agreement, e.g., cost of administering the competitive solicitation process, mailing, advertising and other associated staff time. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 22 of 54 Mason County E26-342 The rights and remedies of the Department provided for in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. If it is determined that the Subrecipient: (1)was not in default or material breach, or(2)failure to perform was outside of the Subrecipient's control, fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for convenience. A.34 TERMINATION PROCEDURES In addition to the procedures set forth below, if the Department terminates this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall follow any procedures specified in the termination notice. Upon termination of this Agreement and in addition to any other rights provided in this Agreement, the Department may require the Subrecipient to deliver to the Department any property specifically produced or acquired for the performance of such part of this Agreement as has been terminated. If the termination is for convenience, the Department shall pay to the Subrecipient as an agreed upon price, if separately stated, for properly authorized and completed work and services rendered or goods delivered to and accepted by the Department prior to the effective date of Agreement termination, the amount agreed upon by the Subrecipient and the Department for(i) completed work and services and/or equipment or supplies provided for which no separate price is stated, (ii) partially completed work and services and/or equipment or supplies provided which are accepted by the Department, (iii) other work, services and/or equipment or supplies which are accepted by the Department, and (iv)the protection and preservation of property. Failure to agree with such amounts shall be a dispute within the meaning of the "Disputes" clause of this Agreement. If the termination is for cause, the Department shall determine the extent of the liability of the Department. The Department shall have no other obligation to the Subrecipient for termination. The Department may withhold from any amounts due the Subrecipient such sum as the Department determines to be necessary to protect the Department against potential loss or liability. The rights and remedies of the Department provided in this Agreement shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. After receipt of a notice of termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Department in writing, the Subrecipient shall: a. Stop work under the Agreement on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice b. Place no further orders or contracts for materials, services, supplies, equipment and/or facilities in relation to this Agreement except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the work under the Agreement as is not terminated c. Assign to the Department, in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Department, all of the rights, title, and interest of the Subrecipient under the orders and contracts so terminated, in which case the Department has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such orders and contracts d. Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and contracts, with the approval or ratification of the Department to the extent the Department may require, which approval or ratification shall be final for all the purposes of this clause e. Transfer title to the Department and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Department any property which, if the Agreement had been completed, would have been required to be furnished to the Department f. Complete performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the Department in compliance with all contractual requirements g. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Department may require, for the protection and preservation of the property related to this Agreement which is in the possession of the Subrecipient and in which the Department has or may acquire an interest A.35 MINORITY AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES In accordance with the legislative findings and policies set forth in Chapter 39.19 RCW, the state of Washington encourages participation in all its contracts by MWBE firms certified by the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE). To the extent possible, the Subrecipient will solicit and encourage minority-owned and women-owned business enterprises who are certified by the OMWBE DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 23 of 54 Mason County E26-342 under the state of Washington certification program to apply and compete for work under this contract. Voluntary numerical MWBE participation goals have been established and are indicated herein: Minority Business Enterprises: (MBE's): 10% and Woman's Business Enterprises (WBE's): 6%. A.36 VENUE This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance shall be governed by, the laws of the state of Washington. Except for as provided herein, the exclusive venue of any suit between the parties arising out of this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of Thurston County, Washington, and the Subrecipient, by execution of this Agreement, acknowledges the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Washington. Provided, that if the Subrecipient is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, the parties agree that, in the event either party to this Agreement commences any suit relating to or arising from the Agreement, the United States District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington shall have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over such proceeding. If the court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction, then the Tribe agrees to waive its sovereign immunity from suit for the limited purpose of permitting the State to enforce the terms of this Agreement in the Superior Court of Washington under Washington law, and venue for such suit shall be the Superior Court of Thurston County, Washington. This limited waiver of sovereign immunity is solely for the benefit of the State. This limited waiver of sovereign immunity shall not be for, nor shall it be construed as for, the benefit of any other person or entity, and the Tribe does not waive its immunity with respect to any action brought by, or on behalf of, any other entity or person. A.37 WAIVERS No conditions or provisions of this Agreement can be waived unless approved in advance by the Department in writing. The Department's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision of the Agreement or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof, or the acceptance of any performance during such breach, shall not constitute a waiver of any right under this Agreement. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 24 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment C 25HSGP Award Letter EMW-2025-SS-05030 Amendment Memo U.S.Department of Homeland Security Washington,D.C.20472 Effective date:05/26/2026 FEMA FEMA has made an amendment to your award:EMW-2025-SS-05030.The change to your grant was reviewed and is hereby approved as specified below.All other terms and conditions of the grant remain unchanged. Terms and conditions amendment(s) FEMA has reviewed the terms and conditions of your award. The following terms and conditions have been added to your award: Article 75 National Priority Area Program Hold (30%) Consistent with the FY 2025 HSGP NOFO,the recipient is prohibited from drawing down funding for projects needed to meet the 30%minimum spending requirements for National Priority Areas under this award until each project is reviewed by FEMA/GPD to determine effectiveness.Per IB 550,the 45-day pass through period will not begin for these funds until this hold is lifted. Article 76 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities Program Hold (35%) Consistent with the FY 2025 HSGP NOFO,the recipient is prohibited from drawing down funding for projects needed to meet the 35%minimum allocation requirements for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Activities(LETPA)under this award until each project is reviewed by FEMA/GPD to determine alignment with LETPA requirements.Per IB 550,the 45-day pass through period will not begin for these funds until this hold is lifted. The following terms and conditions have been removed from your award: Article 57 Funding Hold:Additional Information Required FEMA has placed a funding hold on this award,and$19,631,821 is on hold in the FEMA financial systems. The recipient is prohibited from obligating,expending,or drawing down the funds associated with the following Homeland Security Grant Program subprograms)/investment(s).To release the funding hold,the recipient must provide a detailed cost breakdown and justification for the investments/projects listed above. FEMA will rescind the funding hold upon its review and approval of the detailed cost breakdown and justification. If you have questions about this funding hold,please contact the DHS/FEMA Headquarters Preparedness Officer. Your amended award package is included below.The amended award package incorporates changes approved in this amendment as well as any previously approved amendments. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 25 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Award Letter U.S.Department of Homeland Security Washington,D.C.20472 Effective date:05/26/2026 FEMA Gail Cram MILITARY DEPARTMENT,WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING 1 MILITIA DR STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES CAMP MURRAY,WA 98430 EM W-2025-SS-05030 Dear Gail Cram, Congratulations on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security,your application submitted for the Fiscal Year(FY)2025 Homeland Security Grant Program,has been approved in the amount of$19.631,821.00 in Federal funding.This award of federal assistance is executed as a Grant. Before you request and receive any of the Federal funds awarded to you,you must establish acceptance of the award through the FEMA Grants Outcomes(FEMA GO)system.By accepting this award,you acknowledge that the terms of the following documents are incorporated into the terms of your award: • Award Summary-included in this document • Agreement Articles-included in this document • Obligating Document-included in this document • Fiscal Year(FY)2025 Homeland Security Grant Program(HSGP) Notice of Funding Opportunity • The Preparedness Grant Manual(PGM) Please make sure you read,understand,and maintain a copy of these documents in your official file for this award. Sincerely, David Gudinas Deputy Assistant Administrator(Acting) Grant Programs Directorate I Resilience DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 26 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Award Summary Program:Fiscal Year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program Recipient:MILITARY DEPARTMENT,WASHINGTON STATE UEI-EFT:D2EJRGZ2PLG8 Award number:EMW-2025-SS-05030 Summary description of award The Fiscal Year(FY)2025 Homeland Security Grant Program(HSGP)is one of three grant programs that constitute the DHS/FEMA focus on enhancing the ability of state,local,tribal,and territorial governments,as well as nonprofits,to prevent,protect against,respond to,and recover from terrorist attacks.These grant programs are part of a comprehensive set of measures authorized by Congress and implemented by DHS to help strengthen the Nation's communities against potential terrorist attacks.Among the five basic homeland security missions noted in the DHS Strategic Plan,the HSGP supports the goal to Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience. Amount awarded table The amount of the award is detailed in the attached Obligating Document for Award. The following are the budgeted estimates for object classes for this amended award(including Federal share plus your cost share,if applicable): Object Class Total Personnel $1,643,728.00 Fringe benefits $290,825.00 Travel $36,702.00 Equipment $5,693,365.00 Supplies $16,675.00 Contractual $1,024,796.00 Construction $0.00 Other $10,772,782.00 Indirect charges $152,948.00 Federal $19,631,821.00 Non-federal $0.00 Total $19,631,821.00 Program Income $0.00 Approved scope of work FEMA has approved the below scope of work. Differences between the approved scope of work in this amendment and the previously approved scope of work are justified below.You must submit scope or budget revision requests for FEMA's prior approval,via an amendment request,as appropriate per 2 C.F.R.§ 200.308 and the FY2025 HSGP NOFO. //due to new system inclusion of information with no context, pages 5-42 not included— available on request// DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 27 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Agreement ides Program Fiscal Year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program Recipient:MILITARY DEPARTMENT,WASHINGTON STATE UEI-EFT:D2EJRGZ2PLG8 Award number:EMW-2025-SS-05030 Tabe of contents Article Assurance,Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles, Representations,and 1 Certifications Article General Acknowledgements and Assurances 2 Article Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS 3 Article Activities Conducted Abroad 4 Article Age Discrimination Act of 1975 5 Article Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 6 Article Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information 7 Article CHIPS and Science Act of 2022,Public Law 117-167 CHIPS 8 Article Civil Rights Act of 1964—Title VI 9 Article Civil Rights Act of 1968 10 Article Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and 11 Immigration Officials Article Copyright 12 Article Debarment and Suspension 13 Article Drug-Free Workplace Regulations 14 Article Duplicative Costs 15 Article Education Amendments of 1972(Equal Opportunity in Education Act)—Title IX 16 Article Energy Policy and Conservation Act 17 Article Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations 18 Article Anti-Discrimination 19 Article False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies 20 Article Federal Debt Status 21 Article Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving 22 Article Fly America Act of 1974 23 Article Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 24 Article John S.McCain National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019 25 Article Limited English Proficiency(Civil Rights Act of 1964,Title VI) 26 Article Lobbying Prohibitions 27 Article National Environmental Policy Act 28 DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 28 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article National Security Presidential Memorandum-33(NSPM-33)and provisions of the CHIPS 29 and Science Act of 2022,Pub.L.117-167,Section 10254 Article Non-Supplanting Requirement 30 Article Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements 31 Article Patents and Intellectual Property Rights 32 Article Presidential Executive Orders 33 Article Procurement of Recovered Materials 34 Article Rehabilitation Act of 1973 35 Article Reporting Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters 36 Article Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation 37 Article Required Use of American Iron,Steel, Manufactured Products,and Construction Materials 38 Article SAFECOM 39 Article Subreclplent Monitoring and Management 40 Article System for Award Management and Unique Entity Identifier Requirements 41 Article Termination of a Federal Award 42 Article Terrorist Financing 43 Article Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000(TVPA) 44 Article Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 45 and Obstruct Terrorism(USA PATRIOT)Act of 2001,Pub. L.107-56 Article Use of DHS Seal,Logo and Flags 46 Article Whistleblower Protection Act 47 Article Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation(EHP)Review 48 Article Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribal Nations 49 Article Acceptance of Post Award Changes 50 Article Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award 51 Article Prior Approval for Modification of Approved Budget 52 Article Indirect Cost Rate 53 Article Build America, Buy America Act(BABAA)Required Contract Provision&Self-Certification 54 Article OPSG Program Performance Goal 55 Article HSGP Performance Goal 56 DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 29 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article This article has been removed 57 Article Operation Stonegarden Program Hold 58 Article Non-Applicability of Specific Agreement Articles 59 Article Period of Performance and Budget Period 60 Article State Homeland Security Program:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law 61 Article State Homeland Security Program:Non-Applicability of Specific Terms and Agreement 62 Articles Article State Homeland Security Program:Impact of San Francisco v.Trump Preliminary 63 Injunction Article State Homeland Security Program:Impact of State of Illinois v. FEMA Injunction 64 Article Urban Area Security Initiative:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law 65 Article Urban Area Security Initiative:Non-Applicability of Specific Terms and Agreement Articles 66 Article Urban Area Security Initiative:Impact of San Francisco v.Trump Preliminary Injunction 67 Article Urban Area Security Initiative:Impact of State of Illinois v. FEMA Injunction 68 Article Operation Stonegarden:Non-Applicability of Specific Terms and Agreement Articles 69 Article Summary Description of Award and Subprograms 70 Article State Homeland Security Program:Rescission of Agreement Articles Pursuant to State of 71 Illinois,et al.V. FEMA,et al. Article Urban Area Security Initiative:Rescission of Agreement Articles Pursuant to State of 72 Illinois,et al.v. FEMA,et al. Article Amended Award Amount Pursuant to State of Illinois,et al.v.Krlstl Noem,et al.(D.RI). 73 Article Amended Period of Performance and Budget Period Pursuant to State of Illinois,et al.v. 74 Kristl Noem,et al.(D.RI)and State of Michigan et al.v.Kristi Noem et al.(D.OR). Article National Priority Area Program Hold(30%) 75 Article Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities Program Hold(35%) 76 DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 30 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 1 Assurance,Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles,Representations,and Certifications I.Recipients must complete either the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)Standard Form 424B Assurances-Non-Construction Programs,or OMB Standard Form 424D Assurances-Construction Programs,as applicable.Certain assurances in these documents may not be applicable to your program and the DHS financial assistance office(DHS FAO)may require applicants to certify additional assurances.Applicants are required to fill out the assurances,as instructed. Article 2 General Acknowledgements and Assurances Recipients are required to follow the applicable provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles,and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in effect as of the federal award date and located in Title 2,Code of Federal Regulations,Part 200 and adopted by DHS at 2 C.F.R.§ 3002.10.All recipients and subrecipients must acknowledge and agree to provide DHS access to records,accounts,documents,information,facilities,and staff pursuant to 2 C.F.R.§200.337.I. Recipients must cooperate with any DHS compliance reviews or compliance investigations.II.Recipients must give DHS access to examine and copy records,accounts,and other documents and sources of information related to the federal award and permit access to facilities and personnel. III.Recipients must submit timely, complete,and accurate reports to the appropriate DHS officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports.IV. Recipients must comply with all other special reporting,data collection,and evaluation requirements required by law,federal regulation,Notice of Funding Opportunity,federal award specific terms and conditions, and/or DHS Component program guidance.Organization costs related to data and evaluation are allowable.The definition of data and evaluation costs is in 2 C.F.R.§ 200.455(c),the full text of which is incorporated by reference.V.Recipients must complete DHS Form 3095 within 60 days of receipt of the Notice of Award for the first award under which this term applies.For further instructions and to access the form, please visit:httpsJ/www.dhs.gov/civil-rightsresources-recipients-dhs-financial- assistance. Article 3 Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS Recipients must acknowledge their use of federal award funding when issuing statements,press releases,requests for proposal,bid invitations,and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal award funds. Article 4 Activities Conducted Abroad Recipients must coordinate with appropriate government authorities when performing project activities outside the United States obtain all appropriate licenses,permits,or approvals. Article 5 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act oil975,Pub. L No.94-135(codified as amended at Title 42, U.S.Code§6101 et seq.),which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Article 6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Recipients must comply with the requirements of Titles I,II,and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,Pub.L. No. 101- 336(1990)(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.§§12101-12213),which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems,places of public accommodation,and certain testing entities. Article 7 Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information(1) Recipients who collect personally identifiable information(P11)as part of carrying out the scope of work under a federal award are required to have a publicly available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of the PII they collect.(2) Definition. DHS defines"Pit"as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred,including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual.Recipients may also find the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments:Privacy Guidance and Privacy Template as useful resources respectively. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 31 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 8 CHIPS and Science Act of 2022,Public Law 117-167 CHIPS(1)Recipients of DHS research and development(R&D)awards must report to the DHS Component research program office any finding or determination of sex based and sexual harassment and/or an administrative or disciplinary action taken against principal investigators or co- investigators to be completed by an authorized organizational representative(AOR)at the recipient institution.(2)Notification.An AOR must disclose the following information to agencies within 10 days of the date/the finding is made,or 10 days from when a recipient imposes an administrative action on the reported individual,whichever is sooner.Reports should include:(a)Award number,(b)Name of PI or Co-PI being reported,(c)Awardee name,(d)Awardee address,(e)AOR name,title,phone,and email address,(f)Indication of the report type:(i)Finding or determination has been made that the reported individual violated awardee policies or codes of conduct,statutes, or regulations related to sexual harassment,sexual assault,or other forms of harassment, including the date that the finding was made.(ii)Imposition of an administrative or disciplinary action by the recipient on the reporting individual related to a finding/determination or an investigation of an alleged violation of recipient policy or codes of conduct,statutes,or regulations,or other forms of harassment.(iii)The date and nature of the administrative/disciplinary action,including a basic explanation or description of the event,which should not disclose personally identifiable information regarding any complaints or individuals involved.Any description provided must be consistent with the Family Educational Rights in Privacy Act.(3)Definitions.(a)An "authorized organizational representative(AOR)"is an administrative official who,on behalf of the proposing institution,is empowered to make certifications and representations and can commit the institution to the conduct of a project that an agency is being asked to support as well as adhere to various agency policies and award requirements.(b)"Principal investigators and co-principal investigators"are award personnel supported by a grant,cooperative agreement,or contract under Federal law. (c)A"reported individual"refers to recipient personnel who have been reported to a federal agency for potential sexual harassment violations.(d)"Sex based harassment" means a form of sex discrimination and includes harassment based on sex,sex stereotypes,sex characteristics,pregnancy or related conditions,sexual orientation,and gender identity.(e) "Sexual harassment"means unwelcome sexual advances,requests for sexual favors,and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment,unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance,or creates an intimidating,hostile,or offensive work environment,whether such activity is carried out by a supervisor or by a co-worker, volunteer,or contractor. Article 9 Civil Rights Act of 1964—Title VI Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,Pub.L.No.88-352(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.§2000d et seq.),which provides that no person in the United States will,on the grounds of race,color,or national origin,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.DHS implementing regulations for the Act are found at 6 C.F.R.Part 21.Recipients of a federal award from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)must also comply with FEMA's implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R. Part 7. Article 10 Civil Rights Act of 1968 Recipients must comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,Pub.L.No.90284(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.§3601 et seq.)which prohibits recipients from discriminating in the sale,rental,financing,and advertising of dwellings,or in the provision of services in connection.therewith,on the basis of race, color,national origin,religion,disability,familial status,and sex,as implemented by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R.Part 100.The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e.,the public and common use areas and individual apartment units(all units in buildings with elevators and ground-floor units in buildings without elevators)—be designed and constructed with certain accessible features.(See 24 C.F.R.Part 100,Subpart D.) DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 32 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 11 Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials(1)All recipients and other recipients of funds under this award must agree that they will comply with the following requirements related to coordination and cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and immigration officials:(a)They must comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C.§§1373 and 1644. These statutes prohibit restrictions on information sharing by state and local government entities with DHS regarding the citizenship or immigration status,lawful or unlawful,of any individual.Additionally,8 U.S.C.§1373 prohibits any person or agency from prohibiting,or in any way restricting,a Federal,State,or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status of any individual:1)sending such information to,or requesting or receiving such information from,Federal immigration officials;2)maintaining such information;or 3)exchanging such information with any other Federal,State,or local government entity;(b)They must comply with other relevant laws related to immigration,including prohibitions on encouraging or inducing an alien to come to,enter,or reside in the United States in violation of law,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv),prohibitions on transporting or moving illegal aliens,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(ii),prohibitions on harboring,concealing,or shielding from detection illegal aliens,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(iii),and any applicable conspiracy,aiding or abetting,or attempt liability regarding these statutes;(c)That they will honor requests for cooperation,such as participation in joint operations,sharing of information,or requests for short term detention of an alien pursuant to a valid detainer.A jurisdiction does not fail to comply with this requirement merely because it lacks the necessary resources to assist in a particular instance;(d)That they will provide access to detainees,such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien;and(e)That they will not leak or otherwise publicize the existence of an immigration enforcement operation.(2)The recipient must certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1746 and using a form that is acceptable to DHS,that it will comply with the requirements of this term.Additionally,the recipient agrees that it will require any subrecipients or contractors to certify in the same manner that they will comply with this term prior to providing them with any funding under this award.(3)The recipient agrees that compliance with this term is material to the Government's decision to make or continue with this award and that the Department of homeland Security may terminate this grant,or take any other allowable enforcement action,if the recipient fails to comply with this term. Article 12 Copyright Recipients must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C.§§401 or 402 to any work first produced under federal awards and also include an acknowledgement that the work was produced under a federal award(including the federal award number and federal awarding agency).As detailed in 2 C.F.R.§200.315,a federal awarding agency reserves a royalty-free,nonexclusive,and irrevocable right to reproduce,publish,or otherwise use the woric for federal purposes and to authorize others to do so. Article 13 Debarment and Suspension Recipients must comply with the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689 set forth at 2 C.F.R.Part 180 as implemented by DHS at 2 C.F.R.Part 3000.These regulations prohibit recipients from entering into covered transactions(such as subawards and contracts)with certain parties that are debarred,suspended,or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities. Article 14 Drug-Free Workplace Regulations Recipients must comply with drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B(or Subpart C,if the recipient is an individual)of 2 C.F.R.Part 3001,which adopts the Government-wide implementation(2 C.F.R.Part 182)of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988(41 U.S.C.§§8101-8106). Article 15 Duplicative Costs Recipients are prohibited from charging any cost to this federal award that will be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federal award in either the current or a prior budget period.See 2 C.F.R.§ 200.403(f). However,recipients may shift costs that are allowable under two or more federal awards where otherwise permitted by federal statutes,regulations,or the federal award terms and conditions. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 33 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 16 Education Amendments of 1972(Equal Opportunity In Education Act)—Title IX Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,Pub.L.No.92-318(codified as amended at 20 U.S.C.§1681 et seq.),which provide that no person in the United States will,on the basis of sex,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.DHS implementing regulations are codified at 6 C.F.R. Part 17. Recipients of a federal award from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)must also comply with FEMA's implementing regulations at 44 C.F.R.Part 19. Article 17 Energy Policy and Conservation Act Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,Pub.L. No.94-163(1975)(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.§6201 et seq.),which contain policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act. Article 18 Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations It is DHS policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith-based organizations in social service programs administered or supported by DHS or its component agencies,enabling those organizations to participate in providing important social services to beneficiaries. Recipients must comply with the equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R. Part 19 and other applicable statutes,regulations,and guidance governing the participations of faith-based organizations in individual DHS programs. Article 19 Antl-Discrimination Recipients must comply with all applicable Federal anti- discrimination laws material to the government's payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C.§372(b)(4).(1)Definitions.As used in this clause-(a)DEI means"diversity, equity,and inclusion"(b)DEIA means"diversity,equity,inclusion,and accessibility"(c) Discriminatory equity ideology has the meaning set forth in Section 2(b)of Executive Order 14190 of January 29,2025.(d)Federal anti-discrimination laws mean Federal civil rights law that protect individual Americans from discrimination on the basis of race, color,sex,religion,and national origin (e) Illegal immigrant means any alien,as defined in 8 U.S.C.§1101(a)(3),who has no lawful immigration status in the United States.(2) Grant award certification.(a)By accepting the grant award,recipients are certifying that: (i)They do not,and will not during the term of this financial assistance award,operate any programs that advance or promote DEI,DEIA,or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws;and(ii)They do not engage in and will not during the term of this award engage in,a discriminatory prohibited boycott.(iii)They do not,and will not during the term of this award,operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration (3) DHS reserves the right to suspend payments in whole or in part and/or terminate financial assistance awards if the Secretary of Homeland Security or her designee determines that the recipient has violated any provision of subsection(2).(4)Upon suspension or termination under subsection(3),all funds received by the recipient shall be deemed to be in excess of the amount that the recipient is determined to be entitled to under the Federal award for purposes of 2 C.F.R. §200.346.As such,all amounts received will constitute a debt to the Federal Government that may be pursued to the maximum extent permitted by law. Article 20 False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Recipients must comply with the requirements of the False Claims Act,31 U.S.C.§§3729-3733,which prohibit the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Federal Government.(See 31 U.S.C.§§3801-3812,which details the administrative remedies for false claims and statements made.) Article 21 Federal Debt Status All recipients are required to be non-delinquent in their repayment of any federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances,and benefit overpayments.See OMB Circular A-129. Article 22 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving Recipients are encouraged to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving recipient- owned,recipient-rented,or privately owned vehicles when on official government business or when performing any work for or on behalf of the Federal Government. Recipients are also encouraged to conduct the initiatives of the type described in Section 3(a)of Executive Order 13513. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 34 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 23 Fly America Act of 1974 Recipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers(a list of certified air carriers can be found at:Certificated Air Carriers List I US Department of Transportation,https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation- policy/certificated-aircarriers-list)for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available,in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974,49 U.S.C.§40118,and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981,amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942. Article 24 Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 Recipients must ensure that all conference, meeting,convention,or training space funded entirely or in part by federal award funds complies with the fire prevention and control guidelines of Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C.§2225a. Article 25 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019 Recipients,subrecipients,and their contractors and subcontractors are subject to the prohibitions described in section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019,Pub. L. No. 115-232(2018)and 2 C.F.R.§§ 200.216,200.327,200.471,and Appendix II to 2 C.F.R.Part 200.The statute-as it applies to DHS recipients,subrecipients,and their contractors and subcontractors- prohibits obligating or expending federal award funds on certain telecommunications and video surveillance products and contracting with certain entities for national security reasons. Article 26 Limited English Proficiency(Civil Rights Act of 1964,Title VI)Recipients must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C.§2000d et seq.)prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin,which requires that recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency(LEP)to their programs and services.For additional assistance and information regarding language access obligations,please refer to the DHS Recipient Guidance:https://www.dhs.gov/guidance-published-help- department-supported-organizationsprovi de-meaningful-access-people-limited and additional resources on httpJ/www.lep.gov. Article 27 Lobbying Prohibitions Recipients must comply with 31 U.S.C.§1352 and 6 C.F.R. Part 9,which provide that none of the funds provided under a federal award may be expended by the recipient to pay any person to influence,or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency,a Member of Congress,an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any federal action related to a federal award or contract,including any extension,continuation,renewal,amendment, or modification.Per 6 C.F.R. Part 9,recipients must file a lobbying certification form as described in Appendix A to 6 C.F.R.Part 9 or available on Grants.gov as the Grants.gov Lobbying Form and file a lobbying disclosure form as described in Appendix B to 6 C.F.R. Part 9 or available on Grants.gov as the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities(SF-LLL). Article 28 National Environmental Policy Act Recipients must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,Pub.L.No.91-190(1970)(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.§4321 et seq.)(NEPA)and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO)Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA,which require recipients to use all practicable means within their authority,and consistent with other essential considerations of national policy,to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social,economic,and other needs of present and future generations of Americans. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 35 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 29 National Security Presidential Memorandum-33(NSPM-33)and provisions of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022,Pub.L.117-167,Section 10254(1)Recipient research institutions("covered institutions")must comply with the requirements in NSPM-33 and provisions of Pub.L.117-167,Section 10254(codified at 42 U.S.C.§ 18951)certifying that the institution has established and operates a research security program that includes elements relating to:(a)cybersecurity;(b)foreign travel security, (c)research security training;and(d)export control training,as appropriate.(2) Definition."Covered institutions"means recipient research institutions receiving federal Research and Development(R&D)science and engineering support"in excess of$50 million per year." Article 30 Non-Supplanting Requirement Recipients of federal awards under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that federal funds supplement but do not supplant non-federal funds that,in the absence of such federal funds,would otherwise have been made available for the same purpose. Article 31 Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements All the instructions,guidance, limitations,scope of work,and other conditions set forth in the Notice of Funding Opportunity(NOFO)for this federal award are incorporated by reference.All recipients must comply with any such requirements set forth in the NOFO.If a condition of the NOFO is inconsistent with these terms and conditions and any such terms of the federal award,the condition in the NOFO shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.The remainder of that condition and all other conditions set forth in the NOFO shall remain in effect. Article 32 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights Recipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C.§200 et seq.and applicable regulations governing inventions and patents, including the regulations issued by the Department of Commerce at 37 C.F.R.Part 401 (Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms under Government Awards,Contracts,and Cooperative Agreements)and the standard patent rights clause set forth at 37 C.F.R.§401.14. Article 33 Presidential Executive Orders Recipients must comply with the requirements of Presidential Executive Orders related to grants(also known as federal assistance and financial assistance),the full text of which are incorporated by reference. Article 34 Procurement of Recovered Materials States,political subdivisions of states,and their contractors must comply with Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,Pub.L.No. 89-272(1965)(codified as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at 42 U.S.C.§6962)and 2 C.F.R.§200.323.The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)at 40 C.F.R.Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable,consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition. Article 35 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Recipients must comply with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,Pub.L.No.93-112(codified as amended at 29 U.S.C.§794),which provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individuals in the United States will,solely by reason of the handicap,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Article 36 Reporting Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters If the total value of any currently active grants,cooperative agreements,and procurement contracts from all federal awarding agencies exceeds$10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of the federal award,then the recipient must comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide federal award term and condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters is in 2 C.F.R. Part 200,Appendix XII,the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Article 37 Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation For federal awards that total or exceed$30,000,recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide federal award term and condition on Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation set forth at 2 C.F.R.Part 170,Appendix A,the full text of which is incorporated by reference. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 36 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 38 Required Use of American Iron,Steel, Manufactured Products,and Construction Materials(1) Recipients of a federal award from a financial assistance program that provides funding for infrastructure are hereby notified that none of the funds provided under this federal award may be used for a project for infrastructure unless:(a)all iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States—this means all manufacturing processes,from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings,occurred in the United States;(b)all manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States—this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States;and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined,produced,or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product,unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation;and(c) all construction materials are manufactured in the United States—this means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States.(2) The Buy America preference only applies to articles,materials,and supplies that are consumed in,incorporated into,or affixed to an infrastructure project.As such,it does not apply to tools,equipment,and supplies,such as temporary scaffolding,brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a Buy America preference apply to equipment and furnishings,such as movable chairs,desks,and portable computer equipment,that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project but are not an integral part of the structure or permanently affixed to the infrastructure project.(3)Waivers When necessary,recipients may apply for,and the agency may grant,a waiver from these requirements.The agency should notify the recipient for information on the process for requesting a waiver from these requirements.(a)When the Federal agency has determined that one of the following exceptions applies,the federal awarding official may waive the application of the domestic content procurement preference in any case in which the agency determines that:(i)applying the domestic content procurement preference would be inconsistent with the public interest;(ii)the types of iron,steel,manufactured products,or construction materials are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality;or(iii)the inclusion of iron,steel,manufactured products,or construction materials produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.(b)A request to waive the application of the domestic content procurement preference must be in writing.The agency will provide instructions on the format,contents,and supporting materials required for any waiver request.Waiver requests are subject to public comment periods of no less than 15 days and must be reviewed by the Made in America Office.(c)There may be instances where a federal award qualifies,in whole or in part,for an existing waiver described at"Buy America"Preference in FEMA Financial Assistance Programs for Infrastructure FEMA.gov.(4)Definitions.The definitions applicable to this term are set forth at 2 C.F.R. §184.3,the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Article 39 SAFECOM Recipients receiving federal awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants,including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications.The SAFECOM Guidance is updated annually and can be found at Funding and Sustainment I CISA. Article 40 Subreclplent Monitoring and Management Pass-through entities must comply with the requirements for subrecipient monitoring and management as set forth in 2 C.F.R.§§ 200.331-333. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 37 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 41 System for Award Management and Unique Entity Identifier Requirements Recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the governmentwide federal award term and condition regarding the System for Award Management and Unique Entity Identifier Requirements in 2 C.F.R. Part 25,Appendix A,the full text of which is incorporated reference. Article 42 Termination of a Federal Award(1)By DHS.DHS may terminate a federal award,in whole or in part,for the following reasons:(a)If the recipient fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the federal award;(b)With the consent of the recipient,in which case the parties must agree upon the termination conditions,including the effective date,and in the case of partial termination,the portion to be terminated;or(c)Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the federal award,including,to the extent authorized by law,if the federal award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.(3)By the Recipient.The recipient may terminate the federal award,in whole or in part,by sending written notification to DHS stating the reasons for such termination,the effective date,and in the case of partial termination,the portion to be terminated.However,if DHS determines that the remaining portion of the federal award will not accomplish the purposes for which the federal award was made,DHS may terminate the federal award in its entirety.(4) Notice. Either party will provide written notice of intent to terminate for any reason to the other party no less than 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the termination.(5)Compliance with Closeout Requirements for Terminated Awards.The recipient must continue to comply with closeout requirements in 2 C.F.R.§§ 200.344200.345 after an award is terminated. Article 43 Terrorist Financing Recipients must comply with Executive Order 13224 and applicable statutory prohibitions on transactions with,and the provisions of resources and support to,individuals and organizations associated with terrorism.Recipients are legally responsible for ensuring compliance with the Executive Order and laws. Article 44 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000(TVPA)Recipients must comply with the requirements of the government-wide federal award term and condition which implements Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,Pub.L. No.106-386,§106 (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C.§7104).The federal award term and condition is in 2 C.F.R.§175.105,the full text of which is incorporated by reference. Article 45 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism(USA PATRIOT)Act of 2001,Pub.L.107-56 Recipients must comply with the requirements of Pub.L. 107-56,Section 817 of the USA PATRIOT Act,which amends 18 U.S.C.§§175-175c. Article 46 Use of DHS Seal,Logo and Flags Recipients must obtain written permission from DHS prior to using the DHS seals,logos,crests,or reproductions of flags,or likenesses of DHS agency officials.This includes use of DHS component(e.g.,FEMA,CISA,etc.) seals,logos,crests,or reproductions of flags,or likenesses of component officials. Article 47 Whlstleblower Protection Act Recipients must comply with the statutory requirements for whistleblower protections in 10 U.S.C§470141 U.S.C.§4712. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 38 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 48 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP)Review DHS/FEMA funded activities that could have an impact on the environment are subject to the FEMA EHP review process.This review does not address all federal,state,and local requirements.Acceptance of federal funding requires the recipient to comply with all federal,state,and local laws. DHS/FEMA is required to consider the potential impacts to natural and cultural resources of all projects funded by DHS/FEMA grant funds,through its EHP review process,as mandated by:the National Environmental Policy Act; Endangered Species Act;National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended;Clean Water Act;Clean Air Act;National Flood Insurance Program regulations;and any other applicable laws,regulations and executive orders.General guidance for FEMA's EHP process is available on the DHS/FEMA Website.Specific applicant guidance on how to submit information for EHP review depends on the individual grant program.Applicants should contact their grant Program Officer to be put into contact with EHP staff responsible for assisting their specific grant program.The FEMA EHP review process must be completed before funds are released to carry out the proposed project, otherwise,DHS/FEMA may not be able to fund the project due to noncompliance with EHP laws,executive orders,regulations,and policies.DHS/FEMA may also need to perform a project closeout review to ensure the applicant complied with all required EHP conditions identified in the initial review.If ground disturbing activities occur during construction,the applicant will monitor the ground disturbance,and if any potential archaeological resources are discovered,the applicant will immediately cease work in that area and notify the pass-through entity,if applicable,and DHS/FEMA. EO 11988, Floodplain Management,and EO 11990,Protection of Wetlands,require that all federal actions in or affecting the floodplain or wetlands be reviewed for opportunities to relocate, and be evaluated for social,economic,historical,environmental,legal,and safety considerations. FEMA's regulations at 44 C.F.R.Part 9 implement the EOs and require an eight-step review process if a proposed action is in a floodplain or wetland or has the potential to affect or be affected by a floodplain or wetland.The regulation also requires that the federal agency provide public notice of the proposed action at the earliest possible time to provide the opportunity for public involvement in the decision-making process(44 C.F.R.§9.8).Where there is no opportunity to relocate the federal action, FEMA is required to undertake a detailed review to determine what measures can be taken to minimize future damages to the floodplain or wetland. Article 49 Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribal Nations The DHS Standard Terms and Conditions are a restatement of general requirements imposed upon recipients and flow down to sub-recipients as a matter of law,regulation,or executive order. If the requirement does not apply to Tribal Nations,or there iS a federal law or regulation exempting its application to Tribal Nations,then the acceptance by Tribal Nations,or acquiescence to DHS Standard Terms and Conditions does not change or alter its inapplicability to a Tribal Nation.The execution of grant documents is not intended to change,alter,amend,or impose additional liability or responsibility upon the Tribal Nations where it does not already exist. Article 50 Acceptance of Post Award Changes In the event FEMA determines that an error in the award package has boon made,or if an administrative change must be made to the award package,recipients will be notified of the change in writing.Once the notification has been made,any subsequent requests for funds will indicate recipient acceptance of the changes to the award. Please email FEMA Grant Management Operations at:ASK- GMD@foma.dhsgov for any questions. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 39 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 51 Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award When original or replacement equipment acquired under this award is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a federal awarding agency,the non-state recipient or subrecipient(including subrecipients of a State or Tribal Nation),must request instructions from FEMA to make proper disposition of the equipment pursuant to 2 C.F.R.section 200.313(e).State recipients must follow the disposition requirements in accordance with State laws and procedures.2 C.F.R. section 200.313(b).Tribal Nations must follow the disposition requirements in accordance with Tribal laws and procedures noted in 2 C.F.R.section 200.313(b);and if such laws and procedures do not exist,then Tribal Nations must follow the disposition instructions in 2 C.F.R.section 200.313(e). Article 52 Prior Approval for Modification of Approved Budget Before making any change to the FEMA approved budget for this award,a written request must be submitted and approved by FEMA as required by 2 C.F.R.section 200.308. For purposes of non- construction projects,FEMA is utilizing its discretion to impose an additional restriction under 2 C.F.R.section 200.308(i)regarding the transfer of funds among direct cost categories,programs,functions,or activities.For awards with an approved budget where the federal share is greater than the simplified acquisition threshold(currently$250,000) and where the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed ten percent(10%)of the total budget FEMA last approved,transferring funds among direct cost categories,programs,functions,or activities is unallowable without prior written approval from FEMA.For purposes of awards that support both construction and non- construction work,2 C.F.R.section 200.308((f)(9)requires the recipient to obtain prior written approval from FEMA before making any fund or budget transfers between the two types of work.Any deviations from a FEMA approved budget must be reported in the first Federal Financial Report(SF-425)that is submitted following any budget deviation, regardless of whether the budget deviation requires prior written approval. Article 53 Indirect Cost Rate 2 C.F.R.section 200.211(b)(16)requires the terms of the award to include the indirect cost rate for the federal award.If applicable,the indirect cost rate for the award is stated in the budget documents or other materials approved by FEMA and included in the award file. Article 54 Build America,Buy America Act(BABAA)Required Contract Provision&Self- Certification in addition to the DHS Standard Terms&Conditions regarding Required Use of American Iron,Steel,Manufactured Products,and Construction Materials, recipients and subrecipients of FEMA financial assistance for programs that are subject to BABAA must include a Buy America preference contract provision as noted in 2 C.F.R. section 184.4 and a self-certification as required by the FEMA Buy America Preference in FEMA Financial Assistance Programs for Infrastructure(FEMA Interim Policy#207-22- 0001).This requirement applies to all subawards,contracts,and purchase orders for work performed,or products supplied under the FEMA award subject to BABAA. Article 55 OPSG Program Performance Goal In addition to the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report(BSIR)submission requirements outlined in the Preparedness Grants Manual,recipients must demonstrate how the grant-funded project addressed the core capability gap associated with this project and identified in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis(THIRA)or Stakeholder Preparedness Review(SPR)or sustains existing capabilities as applicable.The capability gap reduction or capability sustainment must be addressed in the Project Description of the BSIR for each project. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 40 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 56 HSGP Performance Goal In addition to the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR)submission requirements outlined in the Preparedness Grants Manual,recipients must demonstrate how the grant-funded project addressed the core capability gap associated with this project and identified in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis(THIRA)or Stakeholder Preparedness Review(SPR)or sustains existing capabilities as applicable.The capability gap reduction must be addressed in the Project Description of the BSIR for each project. Article 57 This article has been removed Article 58 Operation Stonegarden Program Hold The recipient is prohibited from drawing down OPSG funding under this award or reimbursing OPSG subrecipients of this award until each unique,specific,or modified county level,tribal,or equivalent Operations Order or Fragmentary Order(FRAGO)has been reviewed by FEMA/GPD and Customs and Border Protection/United States Border Patrol(CBP/USBP).The recipient will receive the official notification of approval from FEMA/GPD. Article 59 Non-Applicability of Specific Agreement Articles Notwithstanding its inclusion in this award package,the following Agreement Article does not apply to this grant award: 1. Termination of a Federal Award.This provision is consistent with any terms of the Notice of Funding Opportunity that state Paragraph C.XL(Termination of a Federal Award)of the FY 2025 DHS Standard Terms and Conditions does not apply to this award.Refer to the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the terms governing award termination. Article 60 Period of Performance and Budget Period Notwithstanding language in the Obligating Document or in the other terms of this award package,the Period of Performance and the Budget Period for this grant award is October 1,2025 to September 30,2026.The Period of Performance and Budget Period stated in the Obligating Document shall not apply. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 41 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 61 State Homeland Security Program:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law The following term applies to State Homeland Security Program funding under this award:1.Prohibition a.The state,territorial,or local recipient is prohibited from being designated by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice as a sanctuary jurisdiction.If the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice designates a state or territory as a sanctuary jurisdiction after the Department of Homeland Security makes a grant award,the state or territorial recipient is prohibited from making any financial obligations under the grant award on or after the date of designation until the Department of Homeland Security removes that designation.The Department of Homeland Security will suspend that portion of the grant award supported by risk-based funding and not make payments to the state or territorial recipient on or after the date of designation until the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice removes that designation.This term and condition applies to the funding provided under the relative risk methodology pursuant to Section 2007 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C.§608)and does not apply to the minimum allocation to that state or territory required by Section 2004(e)of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C.§ 605(e)).b.The state,territorial,or local recipient is prohibited from making subawards to a state,territorial,or local government that the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice has designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction_If the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice designates a state,territorial,or local government as a sanctuary jurisdiction after the state,territorial,or local government recipient makes a subaward to that state,territorial,or local government,the state, territorial,or local recipient must suspend the subaward,the state,territorial,or local recipient must not make any additional payments to the state,territorial,or local government,and the state,territorial,or local government is prohibited from making any financial obligations under the subaward on and after the date of designation until the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice removes that designation. This term and condition applies to all funding provided to the state or territorial recipient, including both the statutory minimum as well as risk-based funding allocations.c.The Department of Homeland Security designates a state,territory,or local government as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it fails to comply with that requirements set forth in paragraphs 2.a.i to v of this term and condition.2.Certification a.The state,territorial or local recipient and subrecipients must certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1746,and using a form that is acceptable to the Department of Homeland Security,that they will comply with the following requirements related to coordination and cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and immigration officials:i.They will comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C.§§1373 and 1644.These statutes prohibit restrictions on information sharing by state and local government entities with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the citizenship or immigration status,lawful or unlawful,of any individual.Additionally,8 U.S.C.§1373 prohibits any person or agency from prohibiting,or in any way restricting,a Federal,state,or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status of any individual:(1)sending such information to,or requesting or receiving such information from, Federal immigration officials;(2)maintaining such information;or(3) exchanging such information with any other Federal,state,or local government entity.ii. They will comply with other relevant laws related to immigration,including prohibitions on encouraging or inducing an alien to come to,enter,or reside in the United States in violation of law,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv),prohibitions on transporting or moving illegal aliens,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(ii),prohibitions on harboring,concealing,or shielding from detection illegal aliens,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(iii),and any applicable conspiracy,aiding or abetting,or attempt liability regarding these statutes.iii.They will honor requests for cooperation,such as participating in joint operations,sharing of information,or requests for short term detention of an alien pursuant to a valid detainer.A jurisdiction does not fail to comply with this requirement merely because it lacks the necessary resources to assist in a particular instance.iv.They will provide access to detainees,such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien.v.They will not leak or otherwise publicize the existence of an immigration enforcement operation.b.The state or territorial recipient must require a state,territorial,or local government subrecipient to make the certification above before providing them with any funding under the subaward.3.Materiality and Remedies for Noncompliance This term and condition is material to the Department of Homeland Security's decision to continue with this grant award and the Department of Homeland Security may take any remedy for noncompliance,including termination,if the state or territorial recipient or a local government subrecipient fails to comply with this term and condition. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 42 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 62 State Homeland Security Program:Non-Applicability of Specific Terms and Agreement Articles The following term applies to State Homeland Security Program funding under this award:Notwithstanding their inclusion in this award package,the following terms and Agreement Articles do not apply to this grant award:(1)paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package;and(2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii) (Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled "Anti-Discrimination"in this award package. Article 63 State Homeland Security Program:Impact of San Francisco v-Trump Preliminary Injunction The following term applies to State Homeland Security Program funding under this award:Pursuant to the preliminary injunction order issued on August 22,2025,in City and County of San Francisco,et al.v.Trump,et al.,No.3:25-cv-01350 (N.D.Cal.),the following terms and conditions do not apply to awards or subawards issued to any of the plaintiffs subject to the preliminary injunction order while the order remains in effect:(1)paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package; (2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti-Discrimination"in this award package,and(3)the"State Homeland Security Program:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article.If the preliminary injunction is stayed,vacated,or extinguished,the"State Homeland Security Program:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article will immediately become effective. Article 64 State Homeland Security Program: Impact of State of Illinois v.FEMA Injunction Pursuant to the memorandum and order issued on September 24,2025,in State of Illinois,et al.v.Federal Emergency Management Agency,et.al,No.25-206(D.R.I.),the following terms and conditions do not apply to awards or subawards issued to any of the plaintiffs subject to the injunction order while the order remains in effect:(1)paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package;(2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti- Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti- Discrimination"in this award package;and(3)the"State Homeland Security Program: Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article.If the injunction is stayed, vacated,or extinguished,the"State Homeland Security Program:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article will immediately become effective. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 43 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 65 Urban Area Security Initiative:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law The following term applies to Urban Area Security Initiative funding under this award:1. Prohibition a.The state,territorial,or local government recipient is prohibited from being designated by the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice as a sanctuary jurisdiction.If the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice designates the state,territory,or local government as a sanctuary jurisdiction after the Department of Homeland Security has made the grant award,the state,territorial,or local government recipient is prohibited from making any financial obligations under the grant award on or after the date of designation until the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice removes that designation.The Department of Homeland Security will suspend the grant award and not make payments to the state,local,or territorial recipient on or after the date of designation until the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice removes that designation.b.The state,local,or territorial recipient is prohibited from making subawards to a state,local,or territorial government that the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice has designated as sanctuary jurisdiction. If the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice designates a state,local,or territorial government as a sanctuary jurisdiction after the recipient makes a subaward,the recipient must suspend the subaward,the recipient must not make any additional payments to the subrecipient,and the subrecipient is prohibited from making any financial obligations under the subaward on and after the date of designation until the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Justice removes that designation.c.The Department of Homeland Security designates a state,territory,or local government as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it fails to comply with that requirements set forth in paragraphs 2.a.i to v of this term and condition.2.Certification a.The state, territorial or local recipient and subrecipients must certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1746,and using a form that is acceptable to the Department of Homeland Security,that they will comply with the following requirements related to coordination and cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and immigration officials:i.They will comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C.§§1373 and 1644.These statutes prohibit restrictions on information sharing by state and local government entities with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the citizenship or immigration status,lawful or unlawful,of any individual.Additionally,8 U.S.C.§1373 prohibits any person or agency from prohibiting,or in any way restricting,a Federal,state,or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status of any individual:(1)sending such information to,or requesting or receiving such information from,Federal immigration officials;(2)maintaining such information;or(3)exchanging such information with any other Federal,state,or local government entity.ii.They will comply with other relevant laws related to immigration, including prohibitions on encouraging or inducing an alien to come to,enter,or reside in the United States in violation of law,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv),prohibitions on transporting or moving illegal aliens,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A)(ii),prohibitions on harboring,concealing,or shielding from detection illegal aliens,8 U.S.C.§1324(a)(1)(A) (iii),and any applicable conspiracy,aiding or abetting,or attempt liability regarding these statutes.iii.They will honor requests for cooperation,such as participating in joint operations,sharing of information,or requests for short term detention of an alien pursuant to a valid detainer.A jurisdiction does not fail to comply with this requirement merely because it lacks the necessary resources to assist in a particular instance.iv. They will provide access to detainees,such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien.v.They will not leak or otherwise publicize the existence of an immigration enforcement operation.b.The state or territorial recipient must require a state,territorial,or local government subrecipient to make the certification above before providing them with any funding under the subaward. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 44 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 66 Urban Area Security Initiative:Non-Applicability of Specific Terms and Agreement Articles The following term applies to Urban Area Security Initiative funding under this award:Notwithstanding their inclusion in this award package,the following terms and Agreement Articles do not apply to this grant award:(1)paragraph C.IX (Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package;and(2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii) (Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled "Anti-Discrimination"in this award package. Article 67 Urban Area Security Initiative:impact of San Francisco v.Trump Preliminary Injunction The following term applies to Urban Area Security Initiative funding under this award:Pursuant to the preliminary injunction order issued on August 22,2025,in City and County of San Francisco,et al.v.Trump,et al.,No.3:25-cv-01350(N.D.Cal.),the following terms and conditions do not apply to awards or subawards issued to any of the plaintiffs subject to the preliminary injunction order while the order remains in effect:(1) paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package;(2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti-Discrimination"in this award package;and(3)the"Urban Area Security Initiative:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article.If the preliminary injunction is stayed,vacated,or extinguished,the"Urban Area Security Initiative;Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article will immediately become effective. Article 68 Urban Area Security Initiative:Impact of State of Illinois v.FEMA Injunction The following term applies to Urban Area Security Initiative funding under this award: Pursuant to the memorandum and order issued on September 24,2025,in State of Illinois,et al.v.Federal Emergency Management Agency,et.al,No.25-206(D.R.I.),the following terms and conditions do not apply to awards or subawards issued to any of the plaintiffs subject to the injunction order while the order remains in effect:(1)paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package;(2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti- Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti- Discrimination"in this award package;and(3)the"Urban Area Security Initiative: Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article.If the injunction is stayed, vacated,or extinguished,the"Urban Area Security Initiative:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law"Agreement Article will immediately become effective. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 45 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 69 Operation Stonegarden:Non-Applicability of Specific Terms and Agreement Articles The following term applies to Operation Stonogarden funding under this award. Notwithstanding their inclusion in this award package,the following terms and Agreement Articles do not apply to this grant award:(1)paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and the Agreement Article titled"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"in this award package;and(2)paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti-Discrimination"in this award package. Article 70 Summary Description of Award and Subprograms The purpose of the FY 2025 HSGP is to support state and local efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events and to prepare the Nation for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security of the United States.The HSGP provides funding to implement investments that build,sustain,and deliver the 32 core capabilities essential to achieving the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient Nation.Among the five basic homeland security missions noted in the DHS Quadrennial Homeland Security Review,HSGP supports the goal to Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience The building, sustainment,and delivery of these core capabilities are not exclusive to any single level of government,organization,or community,but rather,require the combined effort of the whole community.This HSGP award consists of State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)funding in the amount of$4,362,750,Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI) funding in the amount of$11,782,120 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Urban Area,and Operation Stonegarden(OPSG)funding in the amount of$1,435,000. Article 71 State Homeland Security Program: Rescission of Agreement Articles Pursuant to State of Illinois,et al.v.FEMA,et al.In accordance with the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island's Order in State of Illinois,et al.v.FEMA,et al.,No.25-206 (D.R.I.),dated October 14,2025,and FEMA Information Bulletin No.538,the following terms and conditions are rescinded with respect to the State Homeland Security Program funding under this award: 1. Paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. 2.Paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. 3.The"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"Agreement Article. 4.Paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti-Discrimination". 5.The"State Homeland Security Program:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law" Agreement Article. 6.The"State Homeland Security Program:Impact of State of Illinois v. FEMA Injunction" Agreement Article. 7.The"State Homeland Security Program:Impact of San Francisco v.Trump Preliminary Injunction"Agreement Article. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 46 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Article 72 Urban Area Security Initiative: Rescission of Agreement Articles Pursuant to State of Illinois,et al.v.FEMA,et al. In accordance with the U.S.District Court for the District of Rhode Island's Order in State of Illinois,et al.v.FEMA,et al.,No.25-206(D. R.I.),dated October 14,2025,and FEMA Information Bulletin No.538,the following terms and conditions are rescinded with respect to the Urban Area Security Initiative funding under this award: 1.Paragraph C.IX(Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. 2. Paragraph C.XVII(2)(a)(iii)(Anti-Discrimination Grant Award Certification regarding immigration)of the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. 3.The"Communication and Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration Officials"Agreement Article. 4.Paragraph(2)(a)(iii)of the Agreement Article titled"Anti-Discrimination". 5.The"Urban Area Security Initiative:Compliance with Federal Immigration Law" Agreement Article. 6.The"Urban Area Security Initiative:Impact of State of Illinois v.FEMA Injunction" Agreement Article. 7.The"Urban Area Security Initiative:Impact of San Francisco v.Trump Preliminary Injunction"Agreement Article. Article 73 Amended Award Amount Pursuant to State of Illinois,et al-v-Krlstl Noem,et al- (D.RI). Pursuant to the Permanent Injunction Order issued by the U.S.District Court for the District of Rhode Island in State of Illinois,et al.v. Kristi Noem,et al.,No. 1:25-cv- 00495,dated December 22,2025,and Information Bulletin(I B)540,the amount of funding awarded by this Fiscal Year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program(HSGP) grant has been amended to reflect the amount set forth in the Notice of Funding Opportunity dated August 1,2025.Further,the"Summary Description of Award and Subprograms"is amended to read as follows:The purpose of the FY 2025 HSGP is to support state and local efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events and to prepare the Nation for the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security of the United States.The HSGP provides funding to implement investments that build, sustain,and deliver the 32 core capabilities essential to achieving the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient Nation.Among the five basic homeland security missions noted in the DHS Quadrennial Homeland Security Review,HSGP supports the goal to Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience.The building, sustainment,and delivery of these core capabilities are not exclusive to any single level of government,organization,or community,but rather,require the combined effort of the whole community.This HSGP award consists of State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)funding in the amount of$5,483,241,Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI) funding in the amount of$12,713,580 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Urban Area,and Operation Stonegarden(OPSG)funding in the amount of$1,435,000. Article 74 Amended Period of Performance and Budget Period Pursuant to State of Illinois,et al.v. Kristl Noem,et al.(D.RI)and State of Michigan et al.v. Kristi Noem et al.(D.OR).Pursuant to the Permanent Injunction Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island in State of Illinois,et al.v.Kristi Noem,et al., No. 1:25-cv-00495,dated December 22,2025 and the Permanent Injunction Order issued by the U.S.District Court for the District of Oregon in State of Michigan,et al.v. Kristi Noem et al.,No 6:25-cv-02053-AP,dated December 23,2025,the Agreement Article titled"Period of Performance and Budget Period")of your award package is rescinded.The new Period of Performance and Budget Period for this award is September 1,2025 to August 31,2028. Article 75 National Priority Area Program Hold(30%)Consistent with the FY 2025 HSGP NOFO,the recipient is prohibited from drawing down funding for projects needed to meet the 30%minimum spending requirements for National Priority Areas under this award until each project is reviewed by FEMA/GPD to determine effectiveness.Per IB 550,the 45-day pass through period will not begin for these funds until this hold is lifted. Article 76 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities Program Hold(35%)Consistent with the FY 2025 HSGP NOFO,the recipient is prohibited from drawing down funding for projects needed to meet the 35%minimum allocation requirements for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Activities(LETPA)under this award until each project is reviewed by FEMA/GPD to determine alignment with LETPA requirements.Per IB 550, the 45-day pass through period will not begin for these funds until this hold is lifted. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 47 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Obligating document 1.Agreement 2. 3. Recipient 4.Type of 5. Control No. No. Amendment No. Action WX04775N2025T, EMW-2025- No. 916001095 AMENDMENT WX04777N2025T, SS-05030 1 WX04778N2025T 6. Recipient Name and Address 7. Issuing FEMA Office I. Payment Office and MILITARY DEPARTMENT, and AddressAddress WASHINGTON STATE Grant Programs Directorate FEMA, Financial CAMP MURRY BUILDING 1 500 C Street, S.W. Services Branch CAMP MURRAY,WA 98430 Washington DC, 20528-7000 500 C Street, S.W., 1-866-927-5646 Room 723 Washington DC, 20742 9. Name of Recipient 9a. Phone 10. Name of FEMA Project 10a. Phone Project Officer No. Coordinator No. Gail Cram 253- Homeland Security Grant Program 1-877-585- 5127472 Grant Program 3242 12. Method of 13.Assistance 14. Performance Payment Arrangement Period 11. Effective Date of This Action 09/01/2025 to OTHER -FEMA COST 08/31/2028 05/26/2026 GO REIMBURSEMENT Budget Period 09/01/2025 to 08/31/2028 15. Description of Action a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes) Accounting Amount Program Assistance Data Prior Total Awarded Current Total Cumulative Name (ACCS Award This Award Non-Federal Listing No. Abbreviation Code) Action+ Commitment or(-) 2025-FA- HSGP 97.067 GG01 - $5,483,241.00 $0.00 $5,483,241.00 See Totals P410-xxxx- 4101-D 2025-FA- HSGP 97.067 GH01 - $12,713,580.00$0.00 $12,713,580.00 See Totals P410-xxxx- 4101-D 2025-FA- HSGP 97.067 GG02- 1$1,435,000.00 $0.00 $1,435,000.00 See Totals P410-xxxx- 4101-D Totals$19,631,821.00$0.00 $19,631,821.00$0.00 b.To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes,attach schedule and check here: N/A 1FOR NON DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE(3)COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO FEMA(See Block 7 for address) This field is not applicable for digitally signed grant agreements 17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL(NcN11c ond Titic) (Recipients are not required to sign and return copies of this document. However, recipients should keep a copy of this documents for their records.) 18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL(Name and Title) DATE David Gudinas, Deputy Assistant Administrator(Acting)Grant Programs 01/30/2026 Directorate I Resilience DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 48 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment D-1 25SHSP ENDURING SECURITY NEEDS (EN) Work Plan Mason County Emergency Management SHSP Enduring Security Needs (EN) The State is divided into nine Homeland Security (HLS) Regions which differ in geography (marine to desert), major industry (large business to agricultural), and population (dense urban settings to rural). Each region develops projects to address their specific risks and hazards which sustain previously built capabilities or to close identified gaps. The HLS Regions have identified several key investments that support core capabilities through Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, and Exercise activities with a focus to effectively build, sustain, and deliver capabilities necessary to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. The specific core capabilities and what the investments will deliver are outlined under each project description. This investment was developed in alignment with the FY 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program Notice of Funding Opportunity, relevant FEMA guidance, the Washington State Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review(SPR), as well as applicable state and local strategic plans. All funding to support emergency communications investments will comply with the SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants (SAFECOM Guidance)to ensure that federally funded investments are compatible, interoperable, resilient, and support national goals and objectives for improving emergency communications. ENDURING NEEDS PROJECT: SHSP EN: Region 3 — Homeland Security Project This regional investment funds salaries, benefits, travel, planning support costs, equipment, and training and exercise support costs. Homeland Security (HLS) Region 3 (R3) is comprised of Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston counties. Focus areas include: (1) Regional training and exercises to support HLS Region 3 efforts (2) Special teams' equipment and accessories (3) EOC operations and readiness[GC12.1][WS(12.2] (4) Interoperable communications and amateur radio equipment (5) Target hardening measures (6) Cybersecurity measures (7) Medical related supplies[ Activities may include: - Conduct workshop, seminar, functional, and/or full-scale exercises within R3 -Adress and update R3 planning gaps, including integrated preparedness planning - Submit Environmental & Historic Preservation (EHP)waiver requests as required - Procure and install equipment -Train users on equipment use Planned equipment meet HSGP's LETPA requirement because PPE is articled in IB 485 and the FY 2007 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Guidance. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 49 of 54 Mason County E26-342 This project sustains and enhances the core capabilities of Planning, Mass Search & Rescue Operations, Operational Coordination, Operational Communications, Physical Protective Measures, Cybersecurity, On- scene Security, Protection, & Law Enforcement, and Public Health, Healthcare, and Emergency Medical Services. The core capability gaps from the State SPR that will be addressed are - Lack of funds to support planning - Lack of communication equipment, coordination equipment, stabilization equipment, surveillance equipment, the lack of or inadequate cyber security tools and technologies, and the lack of mass casualty equipment. The State SPR "Approaches for Addressing Capability Gaps and Sustainment Needs' identified the following ways to address the identified gaps: - Developing inter-agency partnerships and establishing dedicated planners - Purchasing necessary equipment to enhance technological capabilities, law enforcement capabilities, special teams' capabilities, emergency communication capabilities, redundant communications, monitoring and detection capabilities, and purchasing mass casualty equipment. SUBPROJECTS (SP): SP #1 Mason County-Interoperable Communications SOLUTION AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION EQUIPMENT TRAINING EXERCISE TOTAL $0.00 I $0.00 I $19,508.00 I $0.00 I $0.00 I $19,508.00 CORE CAPABILITY BEING ADDRESSED Operational Communications Project Overview This project funds interoperable communications equipment and capabilities that improve the reliability, resilience, and interoperability of communications among emergency management and response agencies. Enhanced communications support effective coordination, information sharing, and operational response during terrorism-related incidents and other emergencies. NEXUS TO TERRORISM Terrorism incidents require rapid, coordinated response among multiple agencies and jurisdictions. This project improves interoperable communications capabilities that enable responders to share critical information, maintain situational awareness, coordinate resources, and operate effectively during terrorism- related incidents. Enhanced communications directly support the prevention, protection, and response missions associated with acts of terrorism. ACTIVITIES TO BE PERFORMED - Solicit quotes - Purchase equipment - Install equipment as applicable DESIRED OUTCOMES Agencies will be able to communicate seamlessly across disciplines during terrorism-related incidents, improving coordination, information sharing, situational awareness, responder safety, and overall operational effectiveness. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 50 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment D-2 The Subrecipient has not been allocated National Priority Project funding under this Agreement, so there is no associated Work Plan. DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 51 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment E 25SHSP Budget Overview Mason County Emergency Management TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT $19,508.00 AMOUNT TOTAL LETPA $6,828.00 35% of the agreement total TOTAL PERSONNEL $0.00 0% of the agreement total ENDURING NEEDS (EN) SUBPROJECT BUDGET TITLE AMOUNT SP #1 Mason County- Interoperable Communications $19,508.00 EN M&A $0.00 EN SUBTOTAL $19,508.00 EN INDIRECT $0.00 EN TOTAL $19,508.00 DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 52 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment F 25SHSP TIMELINE Mason County Emergency Management TASK September 1, 2025 Grant Agreement start date September 1, 2026 Estimated date work scheduled September 1, 2027 Grant Agreement end date October 16, 2027 Submit Final Reimbursement Request & Closeout Report HSGP Performance Period: September 1, 2025 to August 31, 2028 DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 53 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Attachment G BUILD AMERICA, BUY AMERICA ACT SELF-CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that: The Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) requires that no federal financial assistance for"infrastructure" projects is provided "unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States." Section 70914 of Public Law No. 117-58, §§ 70901-52. The undersigned certifies that for the Insert Project Name and Location that the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in this contract are in full compliance with the BABAA requirements including: 1. All iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States. This means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States. 2. All manufactured products purchased with FEMA financial assistance must be produced in the United States. For a manufactured product to be considered produced in the United States, the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55% of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation. 3. All construction materials are manufactured in the United States. This means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States. "The [Contractor or Subcontractor], , certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of each statement of its certification and disclosure, if any. In addition, the [Contractor or Subcontractor] understands and agrees that the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38, Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements, apply to this certification and disclosure, if any." Signature of [Contractor's or Subcontractor's] Authorized Official Enter Name and Title Name and Title of[Contractor's or Subcontractor's] Authorized Official DHS-FEMA-HSGP-SHSP-FY25 Page 54 of 54 Mason County E26-342 Washington Military Department Contract Number: 26-342 Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility or Voluntary Exclusion Certification Form NAME Doing business as(DBA) Mason County Division of Emergency Management ADDRESS Applicable Procurement WA Uniform Business Federal Employer Tax 100 W Public Works Dr or Solicitation#,if any: Identifier(UBI) Identification#: Shelton, WA 98584 232-002-101 91-6001354 This certification is submitted as part of a request to contract. Instructions For Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING THE CERTIFICATION. Federal regulations require contractors and bidders to sign and abide by the terms of this certification, without modification, in order to participate in certain transactions directly or indirectly involving federal funds. 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department, institution or office to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or had become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under the applicable CFR, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under applicable CFR, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business activity. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under applicable CFR, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal or contract, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this form. Bidder or Contractor Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: Travis Adams, County Administrator Washington Military Department Contract Number:26-342 FEDERAL DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION INELIGIBILITY and VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION (FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS) What is "Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion"? These terms refer to the status of a person or company that cannot contract with or receive grants from a federal agency. In order to be debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded, you must have: • had a contract or grant with a federal agency, and • gone through some process where the federal agency notified or attempted to notify you that you could not contract with the federal agency. • Generally, this process occurs where you, the contractor, are not qualified or are not adequately performing under a contract, or have violated a regulation or law pertaining to the contract. Why am I required to sign this certification? You are requesting a contract or grant with the Washington Military Department. Federal law (Executive Order 12549) requires Washington Military Department ensure that persons or companies that contract with Washington Military Department are not prohibited from having federal contracts. What is Executive Order 12549? Executive Order 12549 refers to Federal Executive Order Number 12549. The executive order was signed by the President and directed federal agencies to ensure that federal agencies, and any state or other agency receiving federal funds were not contracting or awarding grants to persons, organizations, or companies who have been excluded from participating in federal contracts or grants. Federal agencies have codified this requirement in their individual agency Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). What is the purpose of this certification? The purpose of the certification is for you to tell Washington Military Department in writing that you have not been prohibited by federal agencies from entering into a federal contract. What does the word "proposal" mean when referred to in this certification? Proposal means a solicited or unsolicited bid, application, request, invitation to consider or similar communication from you to Washington Military Department. What or who is a "lower tier participant"? Lower tier participants means a person or organization that submits a proposal, enters into contracts with, or receives a grant from Washington Military Department, OR any subcontractor of a contract with Washington Military Department. If you hire subcontractors, you should require them to sign a certification and keep it with your subcontract. What is a covered transaction when referred to in this certification? Covered Transaction means a contract, oral or written agreement, grant, or any other arrangement where you contract with or receive money from Washington Military Department. Covered Transaction does not include mandatory entitlements and individual benefits. Sample Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, Voluntary Exclusion Contract Provision Debarment Certification. The Contractor certifies that the Contractor is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this Contract by any Federal department or agency. If requested by Washington Military Department, the Contractor shall complete a Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion form. Any such form completed by the Contractor for this Contract shall be incorporated into this Contract by reference. SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION FORM (SAF) WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT Camp Murray, Washington 98430-5122 Please read instructions on page 2 before completing this form. NAME OF ORGANIZATION DATE SUBMITTED Mason County Division of Emergency Management 6/30/2026 GRANT PROGRAM -Acronyms Accepted AGREEMENT NUMBER(S) 25 SHSP E26-342 1. AUTHORIZING AUTHORITY PHYSICAL SIGNATURE E-SIGNATURE PRINT OR TITLE &TERM OF OFFICE TYPE NAME (If applicable) Pat Tarzwell Chair, Board of County Commissioners Randy Netherlin Vice Chair, Board of County Commissioners Sharon Trask County Commissioner 2. AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AGREEMENTS /AMENDMENTS PHYSICAL SIGNATURE E-SIGNATURE PRINT OR TITLE &TERM OF OFFICE TYPE NAME (If applicable) Travis Adams County Administrator 3. AUTHORIZED TO SIGN REQUESTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT PHYSICAL SIGNATURE E-SIGNATURE PRINT OR TITLE &TERM OF OFFICE TYPE NAME (If applicable) John Taylor MC DEM Manager Tania Kenner Sr EM Coordinator SAF Revised 5/8/2024 Page 1 of 1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION FORM (SAF) This form identifies the authorizing authority(ies) and person(s) who have the authority to sign agreements, amendments, and requests for reimbursement. It is required for the management of your agreement with the Washington Military Department (WMD). Please complete all sections. The signature and/or e-signatures included on this SAF must match what is on the agreement, amendment, debarment form, and A-1 9 invoice voucher submitted. It is required that the signatures in WMD's files are current. Changes in staffing or responsibilities will require a new SAF. At least one person must be assigned to each of the three roles and the same person can be assigned to multiple roles. If more than one individual will be signing an agreement, amendment, or reimbursement request please make sure everyone signs this form. If additional lines are needed, please fill out two forms and title them 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. 1. Authorizing Authority. Generally, the person(s) signing in this section heads the governing body of the organization such as the board chair or mayor. In some cases, the chief executive officer may have been delegated this authority. 2. Authorized to Sign Agreements /Amendments. The person(s) given the authority to bind the agency/organization to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Usually, it is the county commissioner, mayor, executive director, city clerk, etc. 3. Authorized to Sign Requests for Reimbursement. Often the executive director, city clerk, treasurer, or administrative assistant have this authority. When a request for reimbursement is received, the signature on the A-19 invoice voucher is verified that it matches the signature on this form. It is advisable to have more than one person authorized to sign reimbursement requests. This will help prevent delays in processing a request if one person is temporarily unavailable. The payment can be delayed if the request is presented without the proper signature. Once filled out, send the original to WMD with the signed agreement. It is recommended you keep a copy with the executed agreement in your files. Multiple grant agreements can be included on one SAF if they are all under the same grant program (e.g., 22EMPG and 23EMPG). Two distinct grant programs cannot be included on the same SAF (e.g., SHSP and EMPG). If you have any questions regarding this form or to request new forms, please call your main grant point of contact at WMD. Mason County Agenda Request Form issa To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Travis Adams Ext: 530 Department: County Administrator Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): July 13,2026 Agenda Date(s): July 21,2026 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Wake Boat Advisory Committee Appointments Background/Executive Summary: On June 9,2026,the Board of County Commissioners established the Wake Boat Advisory Committee (WBAC)via Resolution 2026-021.Applications were received from Commissioner District 1 and 2,but no applications were received from District 3. Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): N/A Public Outreach: News release, social media, county website. Requested Action: Approval to appoint Spencer Pruitt,James East,Art Whitson,David Meinert,Jannette Harmon,and Mike Jones to the Wake Boat Advisory Committee. Attachment(s): Applications Mason County Agenda Request Form issa To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: McKenzie Smith Ext: 589 Department: Support Services Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): July 13,2026 Agenda Date(s): July 21,2026 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Letter of Support for Island Enterprises, Inc. Background/Executive Summary: Island Enterprises, Inc. reached out requesting a letter of support from Mason County for their Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities(BRIC) sub-application to allow the Squaxin Island Tribe to address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities affecting Clam Fresh operations. Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): None. Public Outreach: None. Requested Action: Approval of the letter of support for Island Enterprises,Inc.'s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities(BRIC) sub-application. Attachment(s): Letter ,v cot+ July 21,2026 Woody Anderson Chief Executive Officer 7854 Island Enterprises,Inc. MASON COUNTY Re: Island Enterprises,Inc.'s Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Building BOARD Resilient Infrastructure and Communities(BRIC) Sub-Application OF COMMISSIONERS Dear Mr.Anderson, On behalf of Mason County,I am pleased to express support for Island Enterprises,Inc.'s efforts to 1ST District prepare a FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities(BRIC) sub-application to the RANDY NEATHERLIN Squaxin Island Tribe to address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities affecting Clam Fresh operations. 2nd District Mason County recognizes the important role that the Squaxin Island Tribe plays as a valued Tribal PAT TARZWELL government, economic partner, and steward of the natural resources that contribute to the identity and prosperity of our region. The Tribe's investments in shellfish resources and related enterprises 3rd District provide meaningful benefits through economic activity, employment opportunities, cultural SHARON TRASK preservation,and continued stewardship of the marine environment. The shellfish industry is an important component of the regional economy and reflects the deep connection between communities throughout the Pacific Northwest and the waters that sustain them. Mason County Building 1 The Squaxin Island Tribe's Clam Fresh operations represent an important Tribal economic asset that supports responsible resource management,contributes to the regional seafood economy,and helps preserve the long-term viability of shellfish-related activities. 411 North Fifth Street The landslide impacting infrastructure supporting Clam Fresh operations demonstrates the Shelton,WA 98584-3400 increasing need to protect critical economic assets from natural hazards. Proactive investments in hazard mitigation and resilient infrastructure are essential to reducing future losses, maintaining (360)427-9670 ext.419 continuity of operations, and strengthening the ability of communities and businesses to recover from disruptive events. Fax(360)427-8437 Mason County supports Island Enterprises,Inc.'s pursuit of FEMA BRIC funding for this important resilience initiative.The proposed project represents a forward-looking investment that will benefit not only the Squaxin Island Tribe, but also the broader Mason County community by protecting jobs,supporting regional economic activity,and strengthening the resilience of an important coastal industry. We appreciate the leadership of Island Enterprises,Inc. and the Squaxin Island Tribe in advancing this effort and their continued commitment to collaboration,stewardship,and long-term resilience. Sincerely, Sharon Trask, Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner Mason County Agenda Request Form issa To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Nichole Wilston Ext: 643 Department: Risk Management Briefing: Action Agenda: Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): 7/20/2026 Agenda Date(s): 7/21/2026 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑0 Legal ❑ IT ❑X Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: The following Mason County Officers, Employee's and former Employee's, pursuant to Mason County Ordinance 06-18,request for Defense&Indemnification coverage assigned by the County as named defendants in the case of Joan Bayley; Philip Bayley v State of Washington, et al., cause no. 26-2-00484- 23, served upon Mason County on July 10, 2026,via Auditor's Office: Sheriff Ryan Spurling. Background/Executive Summary: Per Ordinance No. 06-18, Mason County Policy and Procedure for Defense and Indemnity of Employees,any officer,employee or volunteer who is subject to a claim for damages may request that Mason County authorize and provide the defense of the claim. The Board of County Commissioners shall authorize the payment for the defense and any nonpunitive monetary judgment awarded in the case as outlined in the Ordinance arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties. Per Ordinance No. 06-18 Mason County reserves the right to pay punitive monetary judgments entered against any of the named defendants,until,and if,a judgment is awarded. Requested Action: Approval of the following Mason County Officers, Employee's and former Employee's,pursuant to Mason County Ordinance 06-18,request for Defense&Indemnification coverage assigned by the County as named defendants in the case of Joan Bayley; Philip Bayley v State of Washington, et al., cause no. 26-2-00484-23, served upon Mason County on July 10, 2026, via Auditor's Office: Sheriff Ryan Spurling. Attachment(s): Joan Bayley;Philip Bayley v State of Washington, et al.,cause no. 26-2-00484-23 on file with Clerk of the Board Mason County Agenda Request Form 185 To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Travis Adams Ext: 530 Department: Central Services Briefing: Action Agenda: ❑ Public Hearing: ❑ Special Meeting: ❑ Briefing Date(s): 6/15/26 Agenda Date(s): 6/23/26 Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Purdy Creek Bridge naming Notice of Hearing Background/Executive Summary: Public hearing will be to take public comment on the petition to name the bridge crossing Purdy Creek along HWY 101 the "Senator Tim Sheldon Bridge". Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment,etc.): N/A Public Outreach: Publish to the Mason County Website Publish to the Shelton Journal Requested Action: Approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday,July 7 and 21 and August 4 and 18,2026, at 9:15 a.m. to take public comment on the petition to name the Senator Tim Sheldon Bridge. Attachment(s): Purdy Creek Bridge naming Notice of Hearing NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will hold public hearings in Mason County Building I,Commission Chambers,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, WA 98584 on July 7t",July 21St, August 4th,and August 18th 2026,at 9:15 AM. SAID HEARING will be to take public comment on the petition to name the bridge crossing Purdy Creek along HWY 101 the "Senator Tim Sheldon Bridge". Public testimony will be available in-person or via Zoom. The URL is available on the County website https://www.masoncountywa.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 msmithkmasoncountywa.gov or mail to the Commissioners' Office, 411 N 5th 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 23rd day of June, 2026. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board Bill: Commissioners 411 N 5ti'St. Shelton,WA 98584 Cc: Commissioners Shelton Journal: Publ. 2t: 6/25/2026 &7/3/2026 Mason County Agenda Request Form To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No. From: Travis Adams Ext: 530 Department: Support Services Briefing: ☒ Action Agenda: ☒ Public Hearing: ☒ Special Meeting: ☐ Briefing Date(s): 4/6/2026 Agenda Date(s): 4/28/2026, 5/26/2026, 7/21/2026 Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☒ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other (Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting Department) Item: Wake Boat Ordinance with Legal Review Background/Executive Summary: The Board of County Commissioners has received complaints regarding wake-enhanced motorboat operation causing property damage to shoreline property. The Mason County Code does not currently have any Ordinance surrounding the use of wake-enhanced motorboats. This Ordinance would ensure proper wake-enhanced motorboat operation occurs in a safe environment where no threat to property or life is present. Associated Costs/Budget Impact (amount, funding source, budget amendment, etc.): N/A Public Outreach: Public hearing to be held on 5/26/26 Requested Action: Approval of the Ordinance regulating wake-enhanced motorboat operation on lakes within Mason County. Attachment(s): Notice of Hearing Wake Boat Ordinance with Legal Review From: Heather Weaver To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wake Boat Ban-Concerns of Mason Lake Impact Date: Friday,April 17,2026 12:43:28 PM Please share with the county commissioners and county administrator. I could not find individual email addresses. Dear Commissioners, I recently learned about a proposal to ban wake boats on all county lakes except for Lake Cushman and Mason Lake. I agree that these boats can cause a lot of damage to shoreline and habitats, and I understand the intent behind it. I am writing because I have major concerns of how the implementation of this ban will funnel additional wake boat traffic on to Mason Lake. We already have a large number of wake boats on Mason Lake, and an influx of additional boats that do not typically use the lake will be detrimental to the quality of life for those on the lake. While Mason Lake is a large lake, it has never had much if any enforcement presence and I don't expect the county has the resources to change that and continuously enforce a 250- foot shoreline limit. While some wake boats are considerate and keep a distance from the shoreline, many do not. Our family has owned property on Mason Lake since the 70s and we have seen the changes in quantity and types of watercrafts over the decades. We already have issues with huge crashing waves hitting the shore and the docks on Mason Lake and it damages our lake too. I cannot speak to Lake Cushman. This new ordinance will just move the problem from smaller lakes onto a bigger lake and make the existing issue worse for Mason Lake residents. While I recognize the intent behind the ordinance, you are not considering the impact that it will have to the two remaining lakes where wake boats will be allowed. I guarantee our shorelines, bulk heads, docks and boats are experiencing the same damage due to wake boats—I have seen it firsthand as have many others. This ordinance will only move the problem from some lakes and make it exponentially worse on the two remaining lakes. While I agree this is a growing issue that is worth examining, it is not fair to shift the burden of additional damage to Mason Lake and Lake Cushman. Sincerely, Heather Weaver From: Travis Duty To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wakeboard Boat Ban Date: Wednesday,April 22,2026 5:47:44 AM Dear Mason Count Commissioners et al, I am a resident on Mason Lake and am reaching out to express concern over the proposal to ban wakeboard boats on all lakes EXCEPT Mason Lake and Lake Cushman. I whole heartedly oppose this terrible idea. It seems short sighted to funnel all wakeboard boats to one or two lakes which would gravely impact the property of Mason Lake residents (docks, shorelines, etc)not to mention the safety of the community who resides there. Pushing all the boat traffic here would all but eliminate activities such as kayaking,paddle boarding, and swimming for my children. What's more important to point out is that equality and equity of the burden to accommodate the general public who wishes to use one of the many Great Lakes in our region should not be forced upon one or two communities -that just on the surface does not seem right. Per the article that was published you have been receiving complaints about the property damage caused by these boats on smaller lakes, so I'd like to ask you why would it be fair to punish the property owners of Mason Lake and force more boat traffic here so that we bear the burden of the damage. That seems absolutely disingenuous and frankly un-American. Singling out one or two communities to cover damages caused by the masses is an invisible tax on our freedom and livelihood. But hey, welcome to the new Washington state right?! Punish the people who pay the majority of taxes for the sake of all others. Please take a moment and provide a thoughtful response as to why you believe it would be just and right to move forward with this plan. Thanks, Travis From: Josh Steele To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Opposition to Proposed Wake Boat Ban on Lost Lake Date: Monday,April 27,2026 6:54:54 AM Dear Mason County Commissioners, I am writing as a property owner on Lost Lake to express my opposition to the proposed ban on wake boats. My family recently invested in this community and obtained permits to build a home on the lake. Access to responsible boating, including the use of our wake boat, was an important part of that decision. We value the lake not only as property owners, but as active and respectful users. From my experience, many of the concerns associated with lake congestion and unsafe boating practices are largely tied to non-resident use, particularly during peak periods. As a resident, I make a point to avoid operating my boat during the busiest times out of consideration for safety and the enjoyment of others. I believe many other resident boaters take a similarly responsible approach. Rather than implementing a full ban, I would encourage the County to consider alternatives that address the root of the problem. Increased law enforcement presence and active patrolling on the lake would help ensure that all users—residents and visitors alike—are following existing safety and operational guidelines. Targeting unsafe behavior directly is, in my view, a more balanced and effective solution than prohibiting a specific type of boat. A blanket restriction on wake boats would impact responsible property owners without fully addressing the broader issues of congestion and misuse. I respectfully urge the Commissioners to reconsider this proposal and explore solutions that promote safe, shared use of Lost Lake. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Josh Steele Sent from my iPhone From: Brian Bare To: Sharon Trask Subject: Wake Boat Ordnance Date: Friday,April 24,2026 9:53:05 AM To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my support for implementing restrictions or an outright ban on wake- enhancing boats on smaller lakes in Mason County. Wake-enhancing boats, by design, generate significantly larger and more powerful waves than traditional watercraft. While these vessels may be appropriate for larger bodies of water, their use on smaller lakes presents serious concerns for both environmental health and shoreline infrastructure. First, the amplified wakes contribute to accelerated shoreline erosion. The repeated impact of large waves destabilizes banks, destroys natural vegetation, and degrades critical habitat for fish, amphibians, and other wildlife. Many smaller lakes rely on delicate ecological balances, and increased turbidity and sediment displacement can have lasting negative effects on water quality and aquatic life. Second, these wakes pose a direct threat to private and public property. Docks, bulkheads, and moored boats are not typically designed to withstand continuous high-energy wave action. Property owners are left to absorb the cost of repairs and maintenance caused by conditions that did not previously exist on these lakes. Additionally, smaller lakes often lack the size and depth necessary to safely dissipate these waves. This results in waves reflecting back and forth across the lake, compounding their impact and increasing safety risks for swimmers, paddlers, and other recreational users. For these reasons, it is both reasonable and necessary to consider regulations that limit or prohibit wake-enhancing boats on smaller lakes within Mason County. Protecting shoreline integrity, preserving wildlife habitat, and preventing unnecessary property damage should be a priority for our community. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Captain Brian Bare From: Kevin Rae To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Mason County Wake Enhanced Boating Date: Sunday,April 26,2026 6:29:31 AM Good morning McKenzie, I hope this email finds you well and can be directed to the board of commissioners, My name is Kevin Rae, and I'm a property owner on Lost Lake in Mason County. I want to be very clear—I do not support this proposed wake-enhanced motorboat ordinance. I understand the concern about shoreline damage, and I think that concern is valid. Everyone who lives on these lakes has an interest in protecting them. But this proposal does not take a balanced or practical approach to that goal. As written, this functions as a ban on many lakes in Mason County. Requiring both 250 feet from shore and 20 feet of depth at the same time leaves little to no usable water on a large number of lakes. That means this isn't really regulating behavior—it's eliminating an activity outright, even in places where it has been done responsibly for years. It also oversimplifies the cause of shoreline impacts. Erosion is not driven by a single source. Wind-driven waves, water level fluctuations, and shoreline conditions like vegetation removal or hardened structures all play a major role. This ordinance singles out one type of boating without addressing the broader factors that actually affect shoreline health. In other states that have spent years studying this issue, like Minnesota and Wisconsin, the approach has generally not been to impose blanket bans. Instead, they've focused on setbacks, education, and in some cases lake-specific rules. Even where concerns are high, like in Connecticut, regulators have been cautious about overreaching and have not moved straight to broad prohibitions like this. That's the key issue here—this proposal is more restrictive than what many other areas are doing, even those that have studied this more extensively. What actually makes a difference on the water is how boats are operated. Responsible operators already adjust where they run, avoid shallow areas, and limit repeated passes near shore. That kind of real-world behavior is what reduces impact—not rigid criteria that don't reflect how lakes are actually used. I'm also concerned about enforcement. Relying on things like "wake characteristics" or visible ballast use introduces a level of subjectivity that could lead to inconsistent enforcement and unnecessary conflict. I'm not opposed to reasonable regulation. If there are specific problem areas, address those. If better education or clearer guidance is needed, that makes sense. But this proposal is too broad, too restrictive, and ultimately punishes responsible users without clearly solving the problem it's trying to address. I would strongly urge you to reconsider this ordinance and work toward a more balanced approach that protects the lakes without effectively eliminating a lawful and widely enjoyed activity. Thank you. Kevin From: tstodd50(cbyahoo.conn To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wake boats ordinance Date: Thursday,April 23,2026 8:38:08 PM My name is Teresa Stoddard and I live at Lost Lake I purchased my waterfront lot in 1994. I had a bulkhead built with large 18x12x10 inch cement blocks that are held together with fiberglass pins. The bulkhead had been stable for over 20 years until property close by sold(2 parcels) and the new owners built homes, docks and each have large boats that hold water in the ballast that they surf behind. Within 2 summers of this boating activity the wake undermined the bottom level of my bulkhead and half of it collapsed into the lake. My walkway to my dock is the type that rides on wheels as lake level changes,the wake from these large boat causes my dock to bounce around so much it has destroyed 4 sets of wheels. My dock took such a beating last year the 20 ft pipes that hold it in place came loose and had to be replaced. The cost of all these repairs has been significant and as a retired senior citizen on a fixed income I cannot afford any.more fixes. I appreciate that your looking into the property damage these wake boats cause. Thank you Teresa Stoddard Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize, Conquer Michael Jones, Owner: Island Lake Science April 22, 2026 Mason County Board of Commissioners 411 N 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584 Subject: Community Conflict and Scientific Concerns Regarding Wake Boat Operation on Island Lake Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a resident of Island Lake, a biologist, and a science educator who operates a research and education laboratory on the lake. I am increasingly concerned about two issues that now require your attention: (1)the scientific incompatibility of wake boat operation on a small, shallow lake such as Island Lake, and(2)the rapid deterioration of community peace and civility as this issue has escalated into verbal hostility among residents. First, the scientific evidence is clear that wake-enhancing vessels are designed to generate large, high-energy waves that require substantial depth and distance to dissipate safely. Island Lake's limited surface area-103 acres, circular shape, and shallow depth make it fundamentally unsuitable for wake-enhanced boating. In shallow basins,wake energy transfers directly into the lakebed, resuspending sediments in the water column done by wake boats, thus mixing nutrients (phosphates and nitrogen compounds from irrigation systems), with plankton causing massive algae blooms. Additionally, damaged septic tank leeching fields add nutrients into the lake. In years past major plankton blooms have turned the lake pea-soup green and caused swimmer's itch. These impacts are well-documented in limnological studies and are observable on our lake. Island Lake simply does not have the depth profile or spatial buffer required to absorb the forces generated by wake boats without ecological harm. Second, the social environment surrounding this issue has deteriorated sharply. A small minority of wake boat owners has become increasingly aggressive in online discussions,particularly on Facebook, where misinformation, misinterpretation of RCWs, and personal attacks have become common. As a science educator, and past official for Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Boating and Ocean Recreation, I am accustomed to addressing misunderstandings, but the level of hostility now present goes far beyond healthy debate. Residents who express concerns are frequently met with verbal abuse, insinuations, and name- calling. Many long-time community members no longer feel comfortable participating in public discussion. The tranquility that has defined Island Lake for decades is being eroded not only by the physical impacts of wake boats, but by the social conflict surrounding them. This situation is escalating, and without intervention, it risks further division and potential confrontation among neighbors. I am deeply concerned that the community fabric is fraying in ways that will be difficult to repair. I respectfully ask the Commission to acknowledge the seriousness of both the environmental and social impacts now unfolding on Island Lake. The wake boat issue is no longer a simple disagreement among residents; it has become a destabilizing force affecting the health of the lake and the well-being of the community. I urge the County to review the scientific evidence regarding wake boat operation on small, shallow lakes and to consider appropriate measures to protect both the ecosystem and the safety and harmony of Island Lake residents. I fully support a ban on wake boat operation on Island Lake as well as other lakes in Mason County. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I would be glad to provide scientific data, field observations, or further testimony if helpful. Sincerely, Mike Jones Biologist and Science Educator Island Lake, Shelton, WA. Contact From: To: McKenzie Smith Subject: FW:Wake board boat ban Date: Wednesday,April 22,2026 3:12:37 PM Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message -------- From: Date: 4/22/26 3:10 PM (GMT-08:00) To: mssmith@masoncountygov.wa Subject: Wake board boat ban I live on Mason Lake and am totally against banning wakeboard boats on all but Mason and Cushman. It will increase that traffic here enormously. Those boats cause enough damage to our properties as it is. The year they closed Cushman, I believe it was 2021, due to so many people up by Party Rock,well, they all came to Mason. It was horrible. Boaters ignoring laws,peeing off their boats into the lake, throwing trash into the water....the boat launch was overflowing onto the road. I for one would love to see them banned altogether, as they do cause many problems here. But banning on all but 2 lakes.....ridiculous. Le Powers Sent from my Galaxy From: David Meinert To: McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; Pat Tarzwell;Sharon Trask Subject: Wake Boat Ordinance Date: Monday,April 20,2026 5:24:11 PM I'm writing in support of the Wake Boat Ordinance. My family and I have owned property on Lost Lake for 6 decades. Since wake boats were introduced and as they have grown in size and power,we have watched our docks destroyed, the shorelines damaged, and aquatic wildlife like bass, catfish, crawdads and salamanders disappear from the lake as invasive weeds come in. This summer our kids were almost thrown off the dock by a massive wake from a wake boat that came within 10 feet of our dock. It is out of control and the owners have proven then cannot be trusted to follow rules. In Lost Lake there is no safe distance for a wake boat to be due to the small size and shape of the lake. The only issue with the ordinance is that it isn't clear enough that a wake boot should NEVER operate on the lake as even with their add on wake enhancements not engaged, their primary wake enhancement is their hull design which cannot be turned off. Please alter the ordinance to clearly ban them from small lakes at all times. Thank you for your excellent work! David Meinert Hold Fast Hospitality Group www.holdfasthospitalitv.com April 27, 2026 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Mason County Board of Commissioners, Tomorrow morning you are considering a motion to approve a Public Hearing to consider and take comment on adopting a proposed wake-enhanced motorboat operation ordinance. I believe that while there has clearly been some research done and you've clearly received complaints and concerns from shoreline property owners and possibly others who feel they have been impacted by this, now is not the specific time to go into great detail regarding the negative impacts of that proposed ordinance. Perhaps you didn't even believe there would be any negative impact, though that would be naive. I will save the detailed counter-arguments for the Public Hearing on May 26th. I will at least summarize a few points though: While it would likely take years to show on the County Assessor's values, this ordinance would drastically affect the marketable property values for anyone looking to buy or sell with the interest of owning or selling property on a "full water sports" lake. I do sincerely hope the Commissioners consider their responsibility to ALL property owners as you weigh these decisions, not only those who have been vocal about their complaints. I do understand the financial concerns for those who need to make repairs to their shoreline, bulkheads and docks. I myself will need to make those same repairs this year. I consider it part of the cost of lakefront ownership that comes with the privilege of enjoying the fruits of those labors in the various water sports activities we enjoy. I do acknowledge that there are some operators who are careless and that property damage has occurred. Plenty of watercraft operators who are NOT wake-enhanced boat operators are equally as careless. Many of those scenarios force towboats (any towboats, not just wake-enhanced) into difficult maneuvers often times closer to shorelines than would be considered reasonable. ANY boat that is towing at lower speeds, regardless of their"wake-enhanced"capability, creates a larger than average wake. I've seen very little effort or responsibility taken by those operators to take the same amount of care and consideration that MOST wake-surf boats take. They either do not care because the focus is on us as the"bad guys"or they are naive to the results of their own actions. We ARE aware of our wakes and DO take all precautions possible to limit any negative effect we have on others enjoyment of the lake. I see it is currently listed as"N/A" under the heading of"Associated Costs/ Budget Impact". I assume that that is only referring to the cost of the next meeting?Surely Mr. Adams can't imagine that this ordinance won't come at a cost to the county in the form legal repercussions from current property owners who are also wake-surf boat owners.The absolute certainty of reduced property value, the difficulty in selling that property and the huge time and financial burden in finding comparable and suitable property on one of the two lakes listed as acceptable wake-enhanced operation lakes, let alone the cost of moving to and/or building on one of those lakes, the negative impact and cost of commuting, especially for those who are full time residents, all carry significant financial impact. I also see that there are two other measures being considered for that May 26th meeting at 9:15. I don't know how heated or involved the Water System Regulations and the Outdoor Burning Program discussions will be, but I am suggesting that the Motorboating ordinance has it's own meeting and that plenty of time is allotted beyond the standard 15 minutes for public discussion. There will no doubt be plenty of property owners with a stake in this from both sides of the argument, all with much to say. Thank you for your time in reading this, we'll see you tomorrow. Doug Stankavich From: Kevin Roscoe To: McKenzie Smith Cc: Melanie Roscoe Subject: Wakeboat restrictions Date: Tuesday,April 28,2026 12:45:45 PM Dear Mason County Commissioners, I am writing as a shoreline resident of Mason Lake to share my perspective on wakeboats and any potential restrictions. My wife, Melanie, has been slalom skiing on Mason Lake since the 1980s and was a top finisher, placing first, second, or third, in the slalom competitions held at Simpson Park in 1982, 1983, and 1984. Her family has been part of the Mason Lake community since 1951. Water sports, particularly wakesurfing, are now an important part of how many families and visitors enjoy the lake. We purchased a small wakeboat in 2009, and some of our fondest memories have come from sharing time on the water with family and friends. It continues to be a highlight of our summers. For many of us, time on the lake is a primary way we connect with family and community. These activities also support local recreation and contribute to the area's economy through tourism, vacation rentals, boat ownership, maintenance, fuel purchases, and local retail. Restrictions or bans on wakeboats would likely have a negative impact on both the local economy and tourism. I understand there are concerns about shoreline impacts, safety, and the overall lake experience, and those concerns deserve thoughtful consideration. At the same time, I believe broad restrictions or bans on wakeboats would be a disproportionate response that limits access to a widely enjoyed activity. Rather than prohibitions, I encourage the County to consider balanced, evidence-based approaches such as: 1. Clear guidance on operating distances from shore, docks, and other water users 2.Education and outreach on responsible wakeboat operation 3.Time-of-day recommendations to reduce congestion and conflict 4.Consistent enforcement of existing boating safety and no-wake regulations These measures can help reduce impacts while preserving access for a wide range of lake users. Mason Lake has long provided a diverse range of recreational activities, encompassing fishing, swimming, kayaking, stand-up paddleboarding, floatplanes, windsurfing, sailing, water skiing, and powerboating. Wake sports are a natural extension of this tradition. With reasonable guidelines and shared responsibility, it is feasible to accommodate multiple uses without diminishing the enjoyment of any particular group. This approach will contribute to the preservation of Mason Lake as a cherished destination for tourism and recreation for future generations. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kevin Roscoe, MD From: Andy Snodgrass To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Proposed Wake Boat Regulation Date: Monday,April 27, 2026 7:30:47 PM Dear Mason County Commissioners/To Whom it May concern, I am writing to address the proposed modification to regulations to wake enhanced boats. My wife and I are owners of a boat equipped with the ability to wake surf. Our family has also owned property on a Mason County lake for decades. I consider ourselves very responsible boat owners and realize that the wake can potentially damage bulk heads and or docks however that can be mitigated by, again, responsible boating. Obviously mistakes happen but they should not be a reason to completely ban the use of the boats from local from lakes. Our children love the boating season and quite honestly the "surfing" is a very minimal part of what we use our boat for when compared to tubing/cruising etc. As a family looking at purchasing an additional residence on a local lake I'm concerned that if this is passed this will drive down lake residence values and or have successful families look outside the county for places to buy a family residence to enjoy years on our local lakes. Lastly, enforcement of this regulation would be, in my opinion, difficult at best to enforce. Obviously if the Sheriff's office was on a lake they would be able to enforce someone using the systems(s). However I could see neighbors calling to report when they suspect someone is using their ballast system. Unless caught using the system this would be very hard to enforce as operators obviously switch and they would most likely not have loaded ballasts when docked leading to even more difficultly enforcing the law. I could also see some people calling on neighbors with the boat that ARE following the regulations. This would be difficult for the owner of the boat to prove they weren't using the systems when contacted by law enforcement. I believe that banning the boats all together is a step Mason County should avoid. I believe that the modification as written would be almost impossible to enforce. If there is an issue with boat operators operating in a reckless or negligent manner they should be dealt with instead of trying to over regulate yet another thing that is difficult at best to regulate for responsible boat owners that have worked hard to provide a family sport in our local area and quite honestly in some cases spent a large sum of money to do so. Thank you for taking my letter into consideration. V/R, J.A. Snodgrass Attention Mason County Commissioners: In strong opposition of enforcing and banning wake surf boats and the family friendly sport of wake surfing.We have lived on Lost Lake for over 20+years and have raised our family surfing and enjoying the activities on Lost lake. We use our boat not only for surfing but fishing, taking grandchildren tubing and 4th of July parade, plus sightseeing/cruising around the lake, it is a multipurpose boat. By banning wake boats completely,you are preventing us from using our boat completely on the lake we pay to live on. We have a great deal invested in the sport of surfing including boats, boards, and safety gear. I was in an accident, and I am only able due to medical disability to surf because it is only done at 1 Omp hour and has a low impact. I was an avid skier and all other water sports. By banning surfing, you are taking away the only sport left I can enjoy. Will there be compensation for the property value reduction and the lower tax base. Lost Lake is classified as an all sports lake with equal to saltwater property values limited sport lakes reduce the value from 30 to 60%this is a major reduction. Will there be compensation for homeowners? Will this bill ban the sport of surfing or just the surf boat. We began surfing behind a water ski boat at slow speeds and advanced to a very expensive surf boat. Would it be legal if we went back to our original old ski boat with five teenagers standing in a rear corner to create a surf there would be no surf enhancing devices or bags and would this be in use? Have the failing bulkhead and docks been permitted, engineered and built to county codes? I have been on lost lake for 20 plus years on a very busy outcropping of the main lake and have had no dock or shore damage due to the surfing I think the best solution would be to limit the surfing and hours to 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM to allow the paddle boarders and fishermen time to enjoy the calm lake this is a fair compromise. We have included a nautical and shoreline depth chart of lost lake that proves we meet the set standers of 250 feet from shore and min of 20 ft depth. It appears Lost Lake should be exempt from the ban. If not, can we please get detailed explanation because here is proof it meets set standers. Curt Harmon f uI . 'r us t'3 so . ) Z21 2322 y m S0� 59 54 �i 1:7 .+41R y'4 A 42 tq 3J 61 T' a, Ss wi Jm0 J2 , y s', to '' I .0 an az a as 4.43Z � sn .. des y, son q f 3u 71 L:,NC VJJi:JNc;ltic 13 1�, r .'- L ,7 -is f:i1 ', + ` p �� �M,Y•��' .�°i 15 • � 17 1} \ � • f 1 S ( , fl , I fl } 4st �?• � 'w: t 11 I $ r . .{ter - ��S 21 2 1. f"�Q d$ 21 - 22 $i __ 20 22 24 23 21 • r a �X26 24 20 27 3029 ( s! ) 2i 20 x 20 28 " 30 21 2225 24 t 23 From: Rhonda Smith To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Re: Opposition to Proposed Wakeboard Ordinance-Lost Lake Mason County Date: Wednesday,April 29,2026 12:19:25 PM Clarification-my opposition is that we would like to wake surf on Lost Lake Rhonda Smith cell: 253-318-6604 On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:44 AM Rhonda Smith<rhonda.l.smithl234(c'gmai1.com>wrote: Dear Mason County Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ordinance that would restrict or prohibit the use of wakeboard boats on Lost Lake to wake surf. My family owns a home on Lost Lake, and like many others in our community, we made a significant financial investment—based in part on the lake's long-standing recreational use, including wake surfing and other water sports. The proposed ordinance would fundamentally change how we are able to use and enjoy our property with our family and friends. I understand that one of the County's primary concerns is shoreline erosion. We share the goal of preserving the health and longevity of the lake and its shoreline. However, a complete or overly broad restriction on wakeboard boats may not be the most balanced or effective solution. Shoreline erosion is influenced by multiple factors, including weather, natural wave action, shoreline development, and existing boat traffic of all kinds. Many lake communities have addressed these concerns through reasonable, targeted measures—such as designated distances from shore, no-wake zones near sensitive areas, and time-of-day restrictions—rather than outright limitations on a specific type of boat. Wake surfing is not simply a pastime for us; it is a central part of how we gather as a family, host guests, and engage with our community. Eliminating or severely restricting this activity would materially diminish our enjoyment of our Lost Lake family home and the intended use of our property. In addition, I am deeply concerned about the broader economic consequences. Policies that limit recreational access on lakes like Lost Lake can significantly reduce property values. Buyers are drawn to these properties specifically because of their recreational opportunities. Restricting those uses risks devaluing not only individual homes but the overall tax base that supports the County. We fully support responsible lake use and would welcome the opportunity to be part of a collaborative solution that addresses shoreline protection while preserving reasonable recreational access. We respectfully ask the County to reconsider this ordinance and work with lake residents to develop balanced guidelines that reflect both environmental stewardship and property owner rights. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rhonda Smith Rhonda Smith From: Kristen Smith To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Opposition to Proposed Wake-Enhanced Motorboat Operation Ordinance—Mason County Date: Thursday,April 30,2026 8:59:00 PM Dear Commissioners, I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposed ordinance restricting wake-enhanced motorboat operations in Mason County, specifically Lost Lake. Our family has a lake house here, and Lost Lake is not just a place we visit—it is where we spend meaningful time together and where our children are growing up making lasting memories. Our two boys, ages 7 and 10, have learned to wake-surf and tube behind our boat, and these activities are a central part of our family time. These are not just recreational moments; they are experiences that build confidence, strengthen family bonds, and create lifelong memories. The proposed ordinance would significantly limit our ability to continue these traditions. Wake-surfing and tubing are activities that require specific conditions and equipment, and restricting wake-enhanced boating would effectively take away a major part of what makes our time at the lake so special. For our boys, this would mean losing opportunities to be active outdoors, develop new skills, and enjoy the lake in a way they truly love. We understand and respect the importance of protecting shoreline integrity,wildlife, and ensuring safety for all lake users. However, we believe there are more balanced approaches that can address these concerns without broadly restricting wake-enhanced boating. Education, designated zones, and reasonable distance requirements could help mitigate impacts while still allowing families like ours to responsibly enjoy the lake. We respectfully ask that you reconsider the scope of this ordinance and explore alternatives that preserve both the health of our lakes and the traditions of the families who cherish them. I have also attached photos of our family enjoying time on the boat at Lost Lake, so you ca see the joy it brings to our family. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kristen Smith From: Troy&Jordon Smith To: jojoblackdoa�a gmail.com;Troy Smith Personal; McKenzie Smith Subject: Lost Lake erosion control and wake surfing Date: Thursday,April 30,2026 5:27:31 PM Dear Commissioner, I am writing as a resident of Lost Lake in Mason County to share our perspective regarding concerns about wake surfing and its potential impact on shoreline erosion. For our family, the lake is an important part of our daily lives and a place where we spend meaningful time together across generations. From our youngest family members to grandparents, wake surfing is an activity that allows us to connect, stay active, and enjoy the natural environment we are fortunate to live in. We understand that there are concerns about erosion related to wake surfing. However,based on our direct, long-term experience, we have not observed any erosion issues along our property. We own approximately 180 feet of shoreline on the north shore of the lake, an area that is regularly exposed to the strongest weather, waves, and seasonal conditions. Over the 22 years we have lived here, our shoreline has remained stable. While high winter water levels occasionally bring in debris such as logs, this has not resulted in erosion damage. Additionally, our dock, which has been in place since we built our home, has not experienced any issues related to wave activity. Given our location and the duration of our experience, we believe our property provides a meaningful example that wake surfing has not caused erosion problems in this area. We respectfully ask that this perspective be considered when evaluating any potential regulations affecting lake use. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Troy smith Dear Commissioners, I am writing regarding the wake boats on Mason County lakes. While I understand it is a concern with smaller lakes, it is also a concern for owners of Mason Lake, and I imagine Lake Cushman as well. I am concerned that it will funnel a lot more boat traffic; specifically wake boats to Mason Lk and Lk Cushman and therefore a safety concern. Boaters don't comply with the 250ft from shoreline as it is now on Mason Lake. Our beach and dock are slammed by the wake boats coming too close. It has a big impact to the slope of our beach and the structural integrity of our dock. Our boat, even with mooring whips, gets hammered too. The boat at times, still hits our dock, and he bilge has filled with water due to some waves. (the stern is toward the beach). In addition, it is a safety concern for small watercrafts -paddle boards,kayaks, and swimmers. If it does pass that wake boats are not allowed on the smaller lakes, I request consideration be made for some system be put in place for property preservation and safety of owners on Mason Lake and Lake Cushman. Possibly like the system for watering lawns during drought season—Can there be odd/even days that wake boats get access to the lake? Or markers on the lake? I think there should be more Sheriff patrols on the lake as well. My family has owned the property/cabin since the early 60's and are very fortunate to have a place o recreate and enjoy the outdoors. Please take my feedback into consideration during your discussions. We appreciate you all. Sue Brooks/Meg Angevin From: VICTORIA BYINGTON To: McKenzie Smith Subject: In Favor of Wakeboat Ban Date: Saturday, May 2,2026 11:10:55 AM Dear Ms. Smith, My family is very personally interested in the issue if a wakeboat ban, of which we are in favor. If you are creating an email list of those who would like to attend the County Commissioners' Hearing later this month, on this matter, please add me to it. Would also appreciate if the contents of the email narrative below* be entered into the official record for the Hearing as there will likely not be enough time for all concerned to speak at the Hearing: *My name is Victoria Byington and I am the current owner, and the granddaughter of Walt and Katie Miller, who made our family's little slice of paradise several decades ago. "The Lake" has been a part of our family for as far back as I can remember, and I am 59 years old.We essentially grew up on Lake Nahwatzel where we spent every summer in this small community of"Lake Family" swimming, row boating, tubing and waterskiing. Our family feels a deep responsibility to truly be "Friends of Lake Nahwatzel" (FoLN). There are a few people who have shared on our FoLN Facebook page that they are against the ban because wakeboats are how they have fun on it. But, the bottom line for the majority of homeowners on this Lake, by far, is that the primary consideration should not be about any ones' "fun"... This is about Nature being Nurtured and our responsibility to be good stewards now, so The Lake can be enjoyed for generations to come and also be a safe haven for The Lake's flora and fauna (except for trout and bass ) As we FoLN know, Lake Nahwatzel's defining features include being shallow and spring- fed with year-round warm water and year-round creeks (Outlet Creeks) one of which flows into the East Fork of the Satsop River and is part of an ephemeral inlet (wetland) in that one corner. Lake Nahwatzel, and similarly configured lakes, must be better protected against the damage done by wakeboats! [BTW, Lake Nahwatzel has already suffered the loss of our beloved bullheads and salamanders, which used to be so plentiful when we were young, because of someone's ill-conceived notion to add bass to the native trout population of our Lake]. Now, back to the matter at hand. The people who use wakeboats on our Lake argue against a ban because it will deprive them of their fun as if there are no other water sports to be enjoyed here???They argue that a wakeboat ban would be a "slippery slope"to other water sports being banned. We believe the Mason County Commissioners understand that this is about wakeboats and their waves only.There is just no keeping wakeboat waves in the middle of our small Lake, as these wakeboat owners propose they will now do, to avoid being banned. However, there is not enough depth or circumference for these wakeboat waves to adequately disperse even if they stay in the middle of The Lake. Physics is Physics. Just like the earth is an oblate spheroid due to the interaction between gravity and rotation.The physics of wakeboats on small, shallow lakes, like our glorious Lake Nahwatzel, results in significant ecological impacts, because: >>Wakeboat engineering depends on deep water to manage energy<< When operating in shallow water, the high energy from ballast-weighted hulls and powerful propeller wash directly disturbs the lakebed. This destructive force not only causes significant shoreline erosion, but also degrades water quality on a sustained basis, batters and damages our docks well beyond normal wear and tear. Plus, the large, obnoxious wakeboat waves noticeably interfere with the enjoyment of other motorized watercraft, swimmers, kayakers, canoers and paddleboarders. It is crystal clear to folks who fully appreciate the crux of this situation;we who understand the Physics of wakeboats and necessity for consideration of Our Responsibility to Nurture our Natural Resources. We believe wholeheartedly that wakeboats should no more be allowed on Lake Nahwatzel than we should allow barrels of toxic chemicals to be dumped into it... Sincerely, Victoria L Byington Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: J ROBERT STEPHANIE REIME To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wakeboard boats on Lost lake Date: Tuesday, May 12,2026 9:51:31 AM Sent from my iPhone, I am writing to express my concern about the presence of wakeboard boats on Lost Lake in Mason County.Lost Lake has always been cherished for its natural beauty and tranquility,attracting people who enjoy boating, kayaking,paddleboarding,swimming,and fishing in a safe and serene environment.However,the safety concerns and the damage caused to properties,docks,retaining walls,and personal belongings due to the large waves generated by these boats have become significant issues. I respectfully request that the county consider implementing restrictions on wakeboard boats to preserve the lake's natural beauty and ensure a safe and enjoyable environment for all visitors. Sincerely, J Robert Reime ( Shelton *Resident for over 45 years* PORT OF GRAPEVIEW P.O. Box 3 Grapeview, WA 98546 www.portofgrapeview.com 425-610-6552 May 11, 2026 Mason County Board of Commissioners 411 N 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584 VIA EMAIL to Commission Clerk Subject: Community Conflict and Scientific Concerns Regarding Wake Boat Operations on Mason Lake and Lake Cushman Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a resident of Mason Lake, a Professional Engineer, and a Northwest estuarine ecologist. I also currently serve on two Mason County advisory committees: the Onsite Sewage Advisory Committee and the Mason County Clean Water District Advisory Committee. Throughout my professional and volunteer service, I have remained committed to protecting water quality, human health, and aquatic ecosystems within Mason County. As a Port of Grapeview Commissioner, I am equally dedicated to protecting the interests and quality of life of my constituents in Grapeview. I understand the environmental impacts associated with wake boats and large artificial wakes. I have also experienced firsthand the physical effects these waves have caused to my own waterfront property, including damage to my dock, boats, and shoreline. Beyond property impacts, the increasing intensity of boat traffic has created significant safety concerns. Before implementing any policy that may further intensify shoreline wave impacts, I strongly recommend that Mason County Board of County Commissioners formally consult with the Washington State Department of Ecology to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted. See attachment. I have researched how other states have approached this issue. One particularly relevant study was conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources titled "Review of Wake Boat Effects on Aquatic Habitat" (July 2023). The study concluded that the large waves generated by wake boats may require between 400 and 1,023 feet to dissipate to wave heights and energy levels comparable to those produced by conventional recreational boat operating at normal cruising speeds. Email: portofgrapeview@Jgmaii.com Mason County Board of Commissioners Page 2 May 11, 2026 This finding has important implications for Mason Lake. At minimum, a wake boat operating safely away from shorelines and structures would require approximately 800 feet of open water to allow wake energy to dissipate adequately on both sides. Many portions of Mason Lake are less than one-quarter mile wide, or approximately 1,320 feet. When existing buoy setbacks, no-wake zones, docks, and shoreline structures are considered, the remaining operational space for wake-enhanced boating becomes extremely limited. I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to boating or marine recreation. Wake boats are remarkable engineering achievements, and I appreciate their design and recreational value. However, if manufacturers wish to continue expanding this industry responsibly, they should invest in technologies capable of significantly reducing wave energy beyond a short operational distance. As a design engineer holding multiple patents, I believe such systems are technically achievable. The broader boating-management issues on Mason Lake also deserve attention. These include: • Excessive-speed boating near shoreline areas and buoy lines • Operators unfamiliar with Washington boating regulations • Excessive boat noise and amplified music • Jet boats operating without properly functioning mufflers • Use of buoy lines as slalom courses • Wake boats with limited forward visibility striking buoys • Jet skis interfering with amphibious firefighting aircraft during water-scooping operations These issues exist largely because a small percentage of boaters consistently ignore established safety regulations. Unfortunately, the Mason County Sheriff's Department claims he lacks sufficient staffing and resources to effectively monitor and enforce boating laws across all county lakes and salt waters. Currently, residents are encouraged to document violations and report vessel registration numbers. In reality, most incidents occur too quickly or too far away for accurate reporting by shoreline residents. In conclusion, the wake boat issue in Mason County is not an isolated recreational debate. It is part of a much larger challenge involving public safety, environmental protection, aquatic habitat preservation, invasive species management, shoreline erosion, and law-enforcement capability. Email: portofgrapeview@gmail.com Mason County Board of Commissioners Page 3 May 11, 2026 I believe this presents Mason County with an opportunity to become a regional leader in developing balanced, science-based boating policies that protect both recreational access and aquatic ecosystems. To help break the current impasse, I recommend the County establish a short-term advisory committee with a clearly defined scope and timeline. The committee should include stakeholders representing: • Lakefront property owners • Recreational boaters • Scientists and technical experts • Environmental specialists • Law-enforcement representatives • Local government officials From the Municipal Research and Services Center: "Volunteer citizen advisory boards are an integral part of American local government. The creation of advisory boards is a way for local governments to engage citizens in the democratic process. Their primary purpose is to provide judicious advice from a citizen perspective. The activities of an advisory board may include the study of critical issues, taking public testimony, performing independent research, and reviewing staff reports and recommendations. These prepare the advisory body to discuss, analyze," I hope the information and recommendations provided above assist the County in understanding the broader scope of boating-related issues facing Mason County lakes and adjacent saltwater to encourage a thoughtful, science-based approach to future policy decisions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Art Whitson, PE Port of Grapeview Commissioner District 1 Attachment: (1) Email: portofgrapeview@gmail.com May 11, 2026 Art Whitson, PE to the Mason County Board of Commissioners In Washington, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is generally required under the State Environmental Policy Act when a government agency determines that a proposed action is likely to cause"significant adverse environmental impacts." The process works like this: 1. A project or government action is proposed. 2. The lead agency performs a SEPA"threshold determination." 3. The agency issues one of three findings: o DNS = Determination of Non-Significance o MDNS = Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance o DS = Determination of Significance If the agency issues a DS, then an EIS is required. Typical projects that may trigger an EIS include: • Large residential or commercial developments • Major shoreline or waterfront projects • Ports, marinas, and industrial facilities • High-impact mining, logging, or energy projects • Highway expansions • Large zoning or comprehensive plan changes • Projects affecting wetlands, fish habitat, water quality, traffic, noise, or endangered species Under SEPA, "significant" usually means impacts that are: • more than moderate, • widespread, • long-lasting, • difficult to mitigate, • potentially severe even if unlikely. Many smaller projects do not require an EIS because they: • are categorically exempt, • receive a DNS, • or can be mitigated enough to receive an MDNS instead. For shoreline and lake issues like wake boats, erosion, sediment transport, habitat impacts, or cumulative environmental effects, an EIS can become relevant if: • a county adopts or changes regulations, May 11, 2026 Mason County Board of Commissioners Page 2 • or evidence shows probable significant environmental harm requiring broader analysis. The legal standard comes from: • RCW 43.21C (SEPA) • WAC 197-11-330 An EIS is required for"major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Source: MRSC to Port of Grapeview during Fair Harbor Boat Complex planning. From: Kiersten Kellogg To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wake Boats on Lost Lake Date: Monday,May 11,2026 3:11:22 PM To Whom It May Concern, I am a resident of Lost Lake and strongly support banning wake boats on our lake. This issue is deeply personal to me because I grew up spending my summers at Lost Lake. I am raising my own young children there. Unfortunately, the lake is no longer the safe and peaceful place it once was. The large waves created by wake boats have made the lake unsafe for families and children. I am genuinely scared for my children when they paddleboard or kayak because of the size and force of the wakes created by these boats. Even in our designated swimming area, my children become fearful of the water due to the constant, large waves, to the point where many times they no longer feel comfortable swimming at all. In addition to the safety concerns, the waves are damaging our property. Many residents have invested significant time, money, and care into maintaining safe waterfront areas, and those efforts are being undermined. Lost Lake is simply too small to safely handle the size of the wakes and the increased traffic these boats create. The impacts affect not only shoreline erosion and property damage, but also the quality and safety for families who use the lake for traditional recreation like swimming, kayaking, canoeing, and paddleboarding. As someone who has loved this lake since childhood and now experiences it as a parent, I believe this is an urgent matter. I respectfully urge Mason County to take action to protect Lost Lake and preserve it for future generations of families. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kjersten Kellogg From: Katriina Dunn To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wake Boat Ban Date: Monday,May 11,2026 1:56:51 PM I am writing this email to express my support for the ban on wake boats, specifically on Lost Lake. As someone who has spent 36 summers on that lake, I have noticed major changes in the atmosphere of the lake since those big boats have arrived. It is no longer safe to pull kids behind tubes when boats are throwing up huge unsafe wakes. I have two young children and they have been tossed around by the huge waves that these boats create and it's simply dangerous to have children out on the water when they are out there, even if you are the one going slow. It is also scary when small children are swimming in the water and the hazardous waves come crashing in. Each year Camp Bishop hosts hundreds of kids to this lake who swim, boat and spend time in kayaks. It is a family friendly lake and has always been, I am asking you to please help us keep it that way. The small channel in the middle of the lake is way too narrow for two boats to pass each other. I have seen some close calls that could have ended way worse. This lake is just way too small for these oversized boats that we have been seeing. I believe a better place for these boats is on bigger lakes that can handle them. Large waves generated from these boats are causing ongoing property damage to lakeside homes, docks & waterfront areas. Please take into consideration the safety of others as your main concern, along with destruction of property when you are looking into this issue. Sincerely, Katriina Dunn From: Stephanie Reime To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Fwd:Wake boats on Lost Lake Date: Monday,May 11,2026 12:14:10 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Stephanie Reime< Date: May 11, 2026 at 12:10:58 PM PDT To: J ROBERT STEPHANIE REIME < Subject: Fwd: Wake boats on Lost Lake Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Stephanie Reime< Date: May 11, 2026 at 12:10:05 PM PDT To: Msmith@masoncounty.gov Subject: Wake boats on Lost Lake Sent from my iPhone I am writing as a concerned, property owner, and longtime resident of Lost Lake in Mason County. This letter is in regards to the growing concern of wakeboard and surf boats and the impact they are having on our Lake.. The excessive wakes are contributing to Shoreline erosion dock, damage, and property damage to ourselves and many of our neighbors. I also believe they are creating unsafe, conditions for swimmers, kayaks,paddle boards, and fisherman. I have seen firsthand people fall off their paddle boards after those boats go by... many of these people are small children. I have four grandchildren that swim, practically every single day of the summer and are always cautious as the waves after those boats go by.. in addition to safety concerns, the Non stop traffic and noise has changed the peaceful character of our small Lake. Please consider enforcing rules that will stop these boats from changing our wonderful little lake.. We have owned our house for more than 40 years and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Lost Lake. We 100%have always supported water recreation,but these boats are just too big for our little Lost Lake.. thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Stephanie Reime Donald A. Robbins May 8, 2026 Mason County Board of Commissioners 411 North 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584 msmith@masoncountywa.gov RE: Public Testimony in Support — Proposed Wake-Enhanced Motorboat Operation Ordinance (Chapter 9.04 MCC § 9.04.4XX); Public Hearing May 26, 2026 Dear Commissioners Tarzwell, Trask, and Neatherlin: I write in support of the proposed wake-enhanced motorboat operation ordinance set for public hearing on May 26, 2026. I am a Tee Lake property owner and recreational boater with a professional background in environmental remediation and applied earth sciences. My comments are offered as constructive amendments to strengthen the ordinance's enforceability and defensibility, not to oppose it. I commend the Board and County staff for drafting an ordinance that regulates by equipment and operating behavior rather than by propulsion type. The decision to omit the broad "jet boat" classification language discussed at the April 6 briefing was the correct one. Defining "wake boat" through the presence of ballast tanks, ballast bags, surf gates, wake plates, trim tabs, and similar wake-shaping devices, and defining "wake-enhanced operation" through their active deployment, targets the precise activity causing harm. The Section F carve-out preserving ordinary operation of wake boats with ballast emptied and devices disengaged is equally important. This is a well-crafted regulatory framework. The amendments I propose below are intended to make it work in the field. I. Tee Lake — A Case Study in Why This Ordinance Is Needed I offer Tee Lake as a concrete illustration of the conditions the ordinance addresses. I have personally witnessed significant wave action impacts (dock damage, shoreline erosion, and shoreline plant destruction) caused by wake-enhanced boats operating on Tee Lake. According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data, Tee Lake covers approximately 47.5 acres, has a shoreline of 1.95 miles, a maximum depth of 15 feet, and a mean depth of less than 10 feet. Approximately 60 waterfront residential properties line its shores, each with associated docks and shoreline structures. Applying the ordinance's Section D criteria to Tee Lake produces a categorical result on two independent grounds. First, the depth criterion: the ordinance requires 20 feet of water depth for wake-enhanced operation. Tee Lake's maximum depth is 15 feet at full pool, and lower during the summer boating season. No point on the lake meets this criterion. That fact alone is dispositive. Second, the geometry: as shown on the attached Mason County GIS map (Exhibit A), Tee Lake is T-shaped, with a roughly east-west lobe at the north connected by a narrow constriction to a long, narrow arm extending southward. The southern arm measures approximately 550-700 feet across at its widest. A 250-foot setback from each shoreline leaves a centerline corridor of 50-200 feet— an operating envelope incompatible with safe wake-enhanced activity. The northern lobe's north-south dimension of approximately 528 feet is itself less than the 500 feet consumed by setbacks from both shores. No qualifying zone exists on Tee Lake under either the proposed 250-foot or the scientifically supported 500-foot setback criterion. Tee Lake has been a Restricted Lake under existing Mason County Code since 2001. Following a petition from Tee Lake property owners requesting a total ban on internal combustion engines, the Board held a public hearing and ultimately adopted Resolution 117- 01, amending MCC § 9.04.420 to restrict watercraft to no more than 6 mph before 11:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. That restriction already prohibits wake-enhanced operation during those hours — wake-surf activity requires 8-13 mph, and no surfable wake can be produced at 6 mph. The proposed ordinance closes the remaining gap: it addresses the midday hours that the 2001 compromise left unregulated, and it does so using modern equipment-based definitions that were not available to the Board in 2001 when wake-surf vessels were not yet a recognized recreational category. Adding Tee Lake to a published list of non-qualifying lakes under the new ordinance is not a new imposition; it is the logical extension of a regulatory determination this Board made 25 years ago. II. Enforcement Is the Critical Weakness — Tee Lake Demonstrates the Problem The existing 6-mph restriction on Tee Lake has been in place for 25 years, and signage referencing Resolution 117-01 is posted at the public boat launch (Exhibit C). Violations during restricted hours nonetheless occur several times monthly during the summer boating season. This experience demonstrates that signage alone — even clear, prominently posted signage citing specific legal authority — does not produce compliance without a credible enforcement presence. The proposed wake-enhancement ordinance, which requires deputies to make substantially more complex field determinations than a simple speed-limit violation, will face the same compliance gap unless the enforcement model is restructured around the published qualifying lakes list and mandatory signage approach recommended in this letter. The ordinance as drafted relies on the Mason County Sheriff's Office to make real-time, lake- by-lake eligibility determinations in the field — consulting bathymetric data, evaluating lake geometry, and assessing whether an operator is within a qualifying zone. This is not a realistic enforcement model for a rural county sheriff's office that is already stretched thin across a large geographic area. Placing that technical burden on individual deputies on the water is a practical path to no enforcement at all, and an ordinance that is not enforced in practice is an ordinance that will be challenged and ignored. Three structural changes would convert the ordinance from an aspirational prohibition into an enforceable regulation: • Published qualifying lakes list. The County should determine in advance, using available bathymetric data and its existing GIS resources, which lakes meet the depth and area criteria for wake-enhanced operation. Lakes not on the published list — including Tee Lake — do not support wake-enhanced operation. This converts an unenforceable technical standard into a binary field determination: is this lake on the list or not? A deputy does not need to interpret bathymetric data on the water; the administrative work has been done at the desk. This approach also harmonizes the new ordinance with the existing Restricted Lakes provisions of MCC § 9.04.420, producing a single County reference for all lake-specific motorboat restrictions. • Mandatory signage. Section H's permissive language — the County "may" provide signage — should be amended to "shall provide signage at all public boat launches" identifying each lake's qualifying status and summarizing all applicable restrictions, including any existing restrictions under MCC § 9.04.420. Signage alone is insufficient, as Tee Lake's experience demonstrates, but it is a necessary predicate for enforcement: it establishes constructive notice and eliminates the operator's claim that they did not know the lake's status. • Penalty calibration for deterrence. I urge the Board to confirm that the penalty schedule under Chapter 9.04 is calibrated to deter wake-enhancement violations specifically. A wake boat producing shoreline damage on a small lake with approximately 60 waterfront properties represents a different scale of harm than most other Chapter 9.04 violations. Escalating penalties for repeat offenders are appropriate and necessary to create the deterrent effect that signage alone cannot provide. III. The 250-Foot Setback Should Be Increased to 500 Feet My most substantive technical concern is the 250-foot lateral distance criterion in Section D. This threshold tracks the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA) recommendation, which is derived from industry-commissioned analysis. The independent peer-reviewed literature, using comparable wave-measurement methods, consistently finds 250 feet insufficient: • Marr et al. (2022), University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory: Wake boat waves required more than 500 feet to attenuate to the reference conditions of a conventional motorboat operating on plane at 200 feet. Wave height attenuation required more than 500 feet; wave energy, more than 575 feet; wave power, more than 600 feet — the maximum distance studied. • Michigan DNR, Fisheries Report 37 (2023): Wake-boat wave energy in wakesurfing mode was 679% higher than wind-driven wave energy at 500 feet from shore. Attenuation to the wave height typical of a conventional motorboat at 100 feet required distances ranging from 225 feet (wakeboarding) to 950 feet (wakesurfing). • Macfarlane (2025), River Research and Applications: Documents that the WSIA- derived setback recommendation has been critiqued in at least 20 states as inadequate relative to independent scientific measurement. Adopting the industry-recommended 250-foot threshold creates a real risk that shoreline property damage will continue on qualifying lakes, and that Mason County will need to revisit this question in two to three years. I recommend Section D be amended to require a minimum 500-foot lateral setback consistent with the independent peer-reviewed evidence. If the Board prefers to begin at 250 feet, I urge inclusion of an automatic two-year review provision requiring the County to evaluate whether observed damage patterns warrant strengthening the setback. IV. Drafting Improvement — Objective Eligibility Language Section D's third eligibility criterion requires that a lake "reasonably allow" wake-enhanced operation without "repeated or continuous" excursions into non-compliant areas. These terms have no objective definition. What is "reasonable"? How many excursions are "repeated"? This subjectivity will compound the enforcement problems described in Section II — a deputy who cannot determine whether a lake qualifies will not cite an operator for violating the ordinance on it. I recommend replacing this language with an objective standard: a lake qualifies only if it contains a contiguous open-water area, measurable in acres, in which all points are simultaneously at least 500 feet from any shoreline and 20 feet or more in depth. The qualifying acreage threshold can be calibrated to the realistic operating envelope of wake-surf activity, but it must be objective and verifiable in advance. V. Summary The proposed ordinance is fundamentally sound and should be adopted. Its equipment- and behavior-based definitions correctly target the activity causing harm without penalizing conventional recreational boating. However, the ordinance will only achieve its purpose if it can be enforced in the field. Tee Lake's 25-year experience under Resolution 117-01 demonstrates that even a simple, clearly posted speed restriction produces frequent violations without a credible enforcement framework. The proposed wake-enhancement ordinance is substantially more complex, and will require substantially more from the enforcement structure, than a speed limit. The amendments I propose — a published qualifying lakes list that converts complex field determinations into a binary standard, mandatory launch signage, escalating penalties for deterrence, a 500-foot setback grounded in independent peer-reviewed science, and objective eligibility language — will make the ordinance more effective, more defensible, and more likely to produce the compliance that Mason County lake property owners need. I respectfully request that the Board adopt the ordinance with these amendments and that this comment letter, together with the attached exhibits, be made part of the official record of the May 26, 2026 hearing. Respectfully submitted, Donald A Robbins Tee Lake property owner, Mason County, Washington Attachments: Exhibit A — Mason County GIS Web Map of Tee Lake (April 29, 2026) Exhibit B — Mason County Resolution 117-01 (October 23, 2001), amending MCC § 9.04.420 Exhibit C — Photograph of existing Tee Lake Restricted signage at public boat launch, referencing Resolution 117-01 References Macfarlane, G.J. (2025). Wakesurfing, Wakeboarding, and Waterskiing: A Comparison of Wake Characteristics. River Research and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4438 Marr, J., et al. (2022). University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Wake Boat Study. University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division (2023). Wake Boat Study. Fisheries Report 37. Goudey, C. (2015). Wave Energy Data on the Characteristics of Boat Wakes. Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Tee Lake — Mason County. Lake survey and bathymetric data. Mason County WA GIS Web Map. Tee Lake. Accessed April 29, 2026. Mason County Resolution 117-01 (October 23, 2001). Amending Mason County Code Chapter 9.04.420 (Restricted Lakes). Exhibit A Mason County WA GIS Web Map T— Li e _J 0 1 4292026,8:59:17.AM 1:6,118 o o.os 0.1 02mi County Boundary 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km ❑ No Filled Tax Parcels (Zoom in to 1:30,000) Iii:ES It HEP.E.Gain II.Itle map.It ce me It POD p..G EB C0.0 GC. FAO,NPS,NP.CA.N,Geollase,IGN,latlatteI NL,Ortllalce.^.I mey,BII Jam,YET,ESIICIlia(Honig Foeg).lti)0pmISlPetMapcolmbubts,aId the GC Use I Conmllty Yasol col ly wA Gc we b Yap AppllcaB7I Yasol CoIIVdtclaMs ammoraj,ueIBII .orthie Oe44 onrebsI!B1).lot Ebb Al bsses ibm alNIce 01 It 11ps O w.masomcol IyteaLJDv.tltclaIoaLplp Exhibit B RESOLUTION NO. 117-01 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND MASON COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 9.04.420 RESTRICTED LAKES WHEREAS,Mason County Code 9.04.230 establishes a procedure for specific restrictions on bodies of water in Mason County,and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners received a petition requesting that internal combustion engines be banned on Tee Lake,and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the petition on May 17,2001,and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners publicly announced their decision on June 5,2001 at a Commission meeting to deny the petition to ban internal combustion engines on Tee Lake and established an agenda time on October 23,2001 at 6:30 p.m.to review their decision,and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners did review their decision on October 23,2001 at 6:30 p.m.; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Mason County Commissioners to restrict watercraft usage to no more than 6 mph before 11:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. on Tee Lake. PASSED this 23rd day of October,2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON t 'ecca S.Rogers,Clerk of e BoardHerbirperson AP (*EI S FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Wesley n,Commissioner Michael Clift C: Clerk of the Board 47 --/ Sheriff Bob Holter,Commissioner ftlL LO Printed From Mason County DMS Printed from Mason County DMS • tom: a i-- � '♦• y :.1 4�' '� r.. a 3. Y ..)`... �• �i Kam: -. .- .. w �,., N•K° U it •,._ •c.. � • 1 � .�•. - \:` 1 4Q $*& I E1i I ft T ' - - _____.- I Y.^1 GOVj� ti� From: Dave&Betsy Livesay To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Advocacy for Limits on Wake Surfing on Lake Nahwatzel Date: Tuesday,April 28,2026 11:59:24 AM Attachments: Advocacy Packet Lake Nahwatzel.pdf Mason County Commissioners, My family are residents of the Lake Nahwatzel community, and we are deeply invested in the health and well-being of the Lake. Starting with my mother and father, we have owned property here since the early 40's, and my brother and I are now permanent residents. Recently the Lake community has been discussing the issue of wake-surfing and the boats used in that activity. I did a deep-dive in ChatGPT and learned a lot, and I thought the Commission would find the attached information helpful. One thing that has become an obvious concern for residents is the misunderstanding of the difference between wake boarding behind "normal" speedboats and wake surfing behind boats built for maximum wave action. Lake Nahwatzel is a very special and unique asset to Mason County, its residents, and the wild animals that share this wonderful space. We are having a wide-ranging and thoughtful conversation on this topic among the lake residents who are on the Friends of Lake Nahwatzel website. Please consider this issue wisely. Elizabeth Livesay ❑® Virus-free.www.avast.com Advocacy Packet: Wake Boat Impacts on Lake Nahwatzel Addressed to Mason County Commissioners Dear Mason County Commissioners, I am writing to respectfully raise concerns regarding the environmental impacts of wake boats on Lake Nahwatzel. Lake Nahwatzel is a relatively small (~269 acres), shallow (maximum depth ~25 feet), spring-fed lake with developed shoreline. Based on multiple university and state-level studies, lakes with these characteristics are particularly vulnerable to high-energy wave activity produced by wake boats. Research indicates that wake boat waves can travel hundreds of feet before dissipating, increasing the likelihood of shoreline erosion, dock damage, and repeated wave stress on private property. Additionally, these waves can disturb bottom sediments in shallow lakes, leading to reduced water clarity and increased nutrient release, which may contribute to harmful algal blooms. Nearshore areas are especially critical for fish habitat and aquatic vegetation. Repeated disturbance from wake activity may negatively impact these ecosystems. Given these factors, many studies recommend operating wake boats only in deeper water (20+ feet) and at distances of 500–1,000 feet from shore. Due to the size and depth of Lake Nahwatzel, these conditions may be difficult to consistently achieve. I respectfully encourage the County to consider appropriate measures such as setback requirements, depth restrictions, or lake-specific guidelines to help protect shoreline integrity, water quality, and aquatic habitat. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, [Your Name] Key Supporting Points: • Wake boats generate significantly larger waves than traditional boats. • Wave energy may not dissipate before reaching shorelines on smaller lakes. • Sediment disturbance can release nutrients and degrade water quality. • Shoreline erosion risk is increased with repeated wake exposure. • Lake Nahwatzel’s depth and size increase vulnerability. From: Dave&Betsy Livesay To: McKenzie Smith Subject: More detailed information re.Lake Nahwatzel and Wake Surf Boats Date: Tuesday,April 28,2026 12:09:01 PM Attachments: lake nahwatzel advocacy packet full.pdf Mason Co. Commissioners So sorry . . . I thought I had all the information. Here's the rest. Elizabeth Livesay ❑® Virus-free.www.avast.com Lake Nahwatzel Wake Boat Advocacy Packet Prepared for Mason County Commissioners This packet summarizes scientific findings, lake-specific vulnerabilities, and recommended setback distances relevant to wake boat impacts on Lake Nahwatzel. Lake Nahwatzel Overview Surface Area ~269 acres Max Depth ~25 feet Lake Type Spring-fed Shoreline Developed (homes & docks) Small size and shallow depth make this lake particularly sensitive to high-energy wake waves. Key Research Findings • Wake boats generate significantly larger and more energetic waves. • Waves may travel 400–900+ feet before dissipating. • Sediment disturbance can occur in depths similar to Nahwatzel’s maximum depth. • Increased turbidity and phosphorus release can contribute to algae blooms. • Shoreline erosion risk is higher on smaller lakes. Setback Distance Visualization Lake Nahwatzel (~269 acres) Boat 500 ft 1000 ft Recommended setbacks occupy a large portion of the lake, limiting areas where wake boating can occur without impact. Lake Nahwatzel Wake Boat Impact Report This report summarizes research-based concerns about wake boat impacts on Lake Nahwatzel in Mason County, Washington. The lake’s size and depth make it particularly sensitive to high-energy wave activity. Conceptual Map: Wave Reach vs Lake Size Lake Nahwatzel (~269 acres) ~500+ ft wave travel Lake Characteristics Feature Lake Nahwatzel Surface Area ~269 acres Max Depth ~25 feet Lake Type Spring-fed Shoreline Developed with homes/docks Key Talking Points: • Wake boats generate larger, higher-energy waves than traditional boats. • Research shows these waves can travel hundreds of feet before dissipating. • Lake Nahwatzel’s small size means waves often reach shorelines with full force. • Shallow depth (~25 ft max) allows wave energy to disturb bottom sediments. • Sediment disturbance can reduce water clarity and increase algae growth. • Nearshore zones critical for fish habitat are especially vulnerable. • Shoreline erosion risk is higher due to repeated wave exposure. • Many studies recommend 500–1,000 ft setbacks and deeper water than Nahwatzel consistently provides. Boat Impact Comparison Impact Area Wake Boats Traditional Boats Wave Energy High Moderate Sediment Disturbance Likely Less likely Shoreline Erosion Higher risk Lower risk Habitat Impact Greater Lower Conclusion: Lake Nahwatzel’s size and depth make it particularly vulnerable to wake boat impacts. Scientific studies suggest that in lakes of this type, wake energy may contribute to shoreline erosion, sediment disturbance, and ecological degradation. Lake Nahwatzel Wake Boat Impact Visual Summary Conceptual Map: Wave Energy Travel Distance vs Lake Size Approximate Lake Boundary ~500 ft wave reach Comparison: Wake Boat vs Traditional Boat Feature Wake Boat Traditional Ski Boat Wave Height High (3–4 ft)Low–Moderate Wave Energy Very High Lower Distance Before Dissipation 400–900+ ft Shorter Bottom Disturbance More likely Less likely Shoreline Impact Higher erosion risk Lower risk Because Lake Nahwatzel is relatively small and shallow, wake boat waves may not dissipate before reaching shorelines. This increases the likelihood of erosion, sediment disturbance, and ecological impact compared to larger, deeper lakes. Wake Boat Impacts on Lakes: Research & Lake Nahwatzel Context Below are credible, shareable research links regarding wake boat impacts on lakes, followed by context specific to Lake Nahwatzel in Mason County, Washington. 1 University of Minnesota Wake Study: https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnes ota-researchers-study-waves-created-recreational-boats 2 University of Minnesota Sediment Study: https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/how-powerboats-impact-lakes-below-surface 3 Outdoor Life Summary: https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/wake-surfing-controversy-second-study/ 4 Wisconsin Public Radio Study Coverage: https://www.wpr.org/news/wake-boats-wisconsin-controversy-lake-beulah 5 Compiled Research Overview: https://lastwildernessalliance.org/wake-surfing-env-safety-studies Lake Nahwatzel is a small (~269 acres), relatively shallow lake (maximum depth ~25 feet). Research indicates wake boat waves can disturb sediments at similar depths and require hundreds of feet to dissipate. This makes smaller lakes like Nahwatzel more vulnerable to shoreline erosion, water quality degradation, and habitat disruption. Talking Points for Officials • Wake boat waves often reach shorelines before dissipating. • Lake Nahwatzel cannot consistently meet recommended depth and distance guidelines. • Shoreline erosion and habitat disruption are likely outcomes. • Water quality degradation is a concern due to sediment disturbance. • Lake-specific guidelines should be considered. Conclusion Due to its size and depth, Lake Nahwatzel is highly vulnerable to wake boat impacts. Scientific research supports consideration of setbacks, depth restrictions, or lake-specific regulations. From: Karen Whorton To: McKenzie Smith Cc: Karen Whorton Subject: comment related to wake-enhanced boat ordinance-please confirm receipt Date: Wednesday,May 13,2026 12:32:10 PM Importance: High To the Mason County Commissioners, I am writing as a resident and lake homeowner in Mason County (Lost Lake) regarding the proposed wake boat regulations currently under consideration. From my review of the petition submitted to the Commissioners, it appears the proposed regulation would ban all boats with any wake enhancement capability from use on all lakes in Mason County. I want to be clear that I support reasonable measures to protect our lakes, shorelines, wildlife, and the quiet enjoyment of residents. Specifically, I support restrictions on boats when they are intentionally operated to create artificially enlarged wakes for wake surfing. These vessels can generate disproportionately large waves that may contribute to shoreline erosion, dock damage, safety concerns, and conflicts with other lake users. However, most of these boats can also be used without engaging their wake enlarging devices, or filling ballast tanks. Thus, to entirely ban all boats with wake enhancement capabilities would result in overregulation and a possible government taking of boats purchased in reliance on their ability to use the boats on Mason County Lakes. A more fair and reasonable approach would be to ban the use of the wake enhancements, but not ban every boat that has such wake enhancement capabilities when those boats are being used for traditional uses such as skiing,tubing, wakeboarding, or simply cruising the lakes. Additionally, the proposed regulation banning all boats with wake enhancement systems is so overbroad that it would effectively turn our lake into a blanket "no wake lake" by outlawing any watercraft that creates a normal wake. Standard recreational boats, fishing boats, ski boats, pontoons, and other traditional watercraft naturally produce some wake during ordinary operation. Responsible boating has long been part of life on our lake, and the proposed broad no-wake policy would unnecessarily punish residents who use their boats on the lake safely and responsibly. There is an important distinction between: 1. Normal recreational boating that creates ordinary wakes as a byproduct of lawful operation, and 2. Boats using specifically modified or operated with ballast systems, surf tabs, or wake-enhancing technology to create oversized wakes. I urge the Commission to focus regulations narrowly on wake-enhanced boating rather than adopt overly broad restrictions that limit any boat with a ballast sack or other wake enhancement from using their boat for normal family recreation, fishing access, waterskiing, wakeboarding without pulling kids on inner tubes, transportation across the lake, and long- standing community use. Please consider a balanced approach that: • Prohibits wake surfing and wake-enhanced operation where appropriate; • Preserves normal boating activities under existing safety rules; • Targets actual impacts rather than banning all boats being operated for ordinary lake use; and • Respects the rights of residents who responsibly enjoy the water. I hate the idea of residents policing each other and filming activities in order to submit "evidence" of infraction, it is so divisive to our little community! Thoughtful regulation can address legitimate concerns without eliminating traditional recreational boating. I respectfully ask you to avoid converting our lake into a de facto no- wake lake and instead adopt clear, targeted rules focused on persons using their boats with artificially enlarged wakes. Additionally, Monday- Friday for about 10 months of the year, this is really a non-issue; it is just the handful of sunny summer weekends that this is even a problem, so the actual year- over-year damage to the shorelines is actually pretty minimal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Karen Whorton From: Jeff Jarmon To: Pat Tarzwell;Sharon Trask; rneatherlinCa3masoncountvwa.aov; Pam Subject: Wake/surf boat restrictions Date: Wednesday, May 13,2026 7:35:42 PM Dear Commissioners, I am writing to you today to strongly support restricting the use of surf/wake boats on the lakes of Mason County. My wife and I live here on Lost Lake and have seen and experienced the environmental destruction on the lake and the reckless endangerment of the community by these large vessels. The county and residents have gone to great lengths and expense to protect the beautiful natural resource by restricting and managing regulations and building permits, it seems hypocritical and short sighted to allow these vessels to destroy the shoreline and damage property and the environment from the water. Please save our lake and prohibit these surf boats as soon as possible. I would also like to mention how disappointed I am at seeing a massive attempt by the pro boat people at distributing misinformation online and through direct mail to confuse and scare the general public into supporting their agenda, truly despicable. Please do the right thing and restrict the use of these surf boats on the lake. Sincerely, Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize. Conquer From: To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Draft Wake Boat Ordinance Date: Tuesday, May 19,2026 10:24:15 PM Mason County Board of Commissioners May 19, 2026 411 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584 Subject: Draft Wake Boat Ordinance Dear Commissioners: We have been residents of Mason Lake for nearly 35 years. We read with great interest and intense concern the Shelton-Mason County Journal article dated April 16, 2026, "Commissioners to consider wake boat ban." We have also read Art Whitson's letter to the Commissioners, dated May 11, 2026, subject: Community Conflict and Scientific Concerns Regarding Wake Boat Operations on Mason Lake and Lake Cushman. We strongly concur in Art's summary of the boat management issues on Mason Lake as we have experienced them personally. Like Randy Lewis (in the Journal article) and Art Whitson, we have suffered damaged to our property from the artificial waves created by wake boats, even when they are about 250-300 feet from our shoreline. Even at this distance, Mason Lake does not "reasonably accommodate enhanced wake activity without causing undue harm." Regrettably, very few of these boats actually operate in the middle of the lake. In our experience nearly all approach our buoy that is about 150 feet from the shore resulting in greater damage to our beach. Moreover, the large waves are a serious safety concern for our young grandchildren who can lose their balance in the unexpectedly turbulent waters. While Randy Lewis claims the exception for Mason Lake is understandable because the boats can stay away from the shore, the reality is that the Mason County Sheriff does not have the resources to continually police the lake. Moreover, when the Sheriff's boat is on the lake, it can only observe, much less enforce, a fraction of the activity that is ongoing. Residents are asked to document violations, but our experience that it is very difficult to record the vessel registration number of a moving boat from the shore. In short, given the limited law enforcement resources, there is no feasible method to enforce the County's wake boat ordinance on Mason Lake. The Sheriff's staff tells us that a significant percentage of the recreational traffic during the summer is not from Mason County. The County Park and the Lake are already over capability during the busiest days. Mason Lake has become a regional attraction, and will be every more so if it is a primary location for wake boats. The uncertain future of the Green Diamond property only adds to the very unpredictable future for Mason Lake with wake boats. We agree with Art Whitson that this issue requires more detailed assessment and deliberation from all stakeholders to understand fully its second and third order effects before any decision concerning wake boats on Mason Lake. We appreciate your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Mike and Lori Kendall From: Mike Stoney To: Ravyn Lund; McKenzie Smith Subject: RE: Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance Date: Monday,April 27,2026 7:21:40 AM Attachments: image001.pno imaae002.ona image003.pno imaae004.ona Lost Lake Resident-Opposed to Proposed Wake Enhanced Ordinance.pdf Good Morning McKenzie I have been a land owner at Lost Lake for over 15 years now and also am a full time resident. When my family decided to purchase lake front property one of the main items that was important to us was finding a lake that supported the full range of boating activities. We did our research and went to many lakes to see the activity that was allowed and how busy they were. After this research we landed at Lost Lake and it has fit our needs perfectly. We have since built a new home, purchased a boat and boat lift. This proposed restriction will make many of my investments worthless along with decrease the overall value of our home. It seems on our lake there a the few that complain the loudest while the majority enjoy the boating activities and have no complaints. I find all of the boaters to be very respective of the shores and stay in the middle of the lake when doing these type of activities. It is not an overly busy lake as we don't get much weekend traffic and we don't even notice the wakes. I have attached a letter that I would appreciate if you would share with the commissioners. If you or they have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me. Have a great week! Thanks Mike Stoney, CPA ` From: Ravyn Lund <RLund( masoncountywa.gov> Date:April 24, 2026 at 4:27:24 PM PDT To: Cc: McKenzie Smith <MSmith(a)masoncountywa.gov> Subject: Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance Hi Josh, Below is the link to the briefing packet from April 6, 2026. You will find the proposed wake boat ordinance on page 73. https://dms.masoncountywa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=648029&dbid=0&repo=mason Below is the link to the regular packet for next Tuesday, April 28, 2026. On the agenda is `approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 9:15 a.m. to consider and take comment on adopting a wake-enhanced motorboat operation ordinance'. You can find supporting documents on page 32. https://dms.masoncountywa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=648893&dbid=0&repo=mason You are welcome to attend next Tuesday's regular meeting, where there will be opportunity to address the Commissioners. Please note that during public comment, each person is allotted three minutes, with a total public comment period of 15 minutes. The meeting is held in the Commission Chambers, located at 411 N 5th Street, Shelton, WA 98584. You may also attend the meeting at the zoom link listed below. https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89876211818?pwd=kkR8x0nEN2iHHCmDsU5xJCnln2yzQ7.1 Meeting ID: 898 7621 1818 Passcode: 258740 If you prefer, you can submit a letter to the Clerk of the Board, McKenzie, at msmithOmasoncountywa.gov, or by mail to the address listed above. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. I hope you have a great weekend! Best, ADM! 15TAATIVE ASSISTANT MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE (360)427-9670 x419 rlund(dmasoncountywa gov 411 N.5'"Street.Shelton,WA 98584 wwwlnasoncountywa_gov ••Oloa J• not.: AfJ[on Co.aty co-Rn.1 with In• IYOfic *.Gordo At? Chaotor 42 $0 *CW As JYGA. JnJ ••mII! so.? to Jn /0/ I/0 IIJ COYafJ .'ay 00 JYOIJCf to poD?.? tJl[C10[Y • Mike& Connie Stoney April 27, 2026 Mason County Board of Commissioners 411 N 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584 Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed Wake Boat/Wake-Enhanced Operation Ordinance (Chapter 9.04)—Do Not Restrict Lost Lake Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a homeowner and stakeholder at Lost Lake to strongly oppose the proposed ordinance that would restrict or ban wake-enhanced boating and wake surfing on Lost Lake. This broad restriction would cause significant financial harm to property owners,undermine the expectations we relied upon when purchasing our homes, and unnecessarily limit a long- established recreational use on our lake. This proposal will cause a direct loss in property values.When my family and I(along with many other owners)purchased our properties on Lost Lake, we specifically researched and selected this lake because it allowed a full range of water sports, including wake surfing and wake boating. We paid a premium for homes on a lake that supported these family-oriented activities. A sudden ban would devalue our investments by removing a key amenity that attracted us and supports resale value. Lakeside properties with active, diverse recreational use command higher prices; restricting them will lead to measurable declines in assessed and market values for the entire Lost Lake community. Homeowners have made substantial investments based on these activities. Many owners, including myself, have invested tens of thousands of dollars in docks, seawalls, boat lifts, and shoreline improvements specifically designed and permitted to support wake boating, water skiing, and related sports. These investments were made in good faith under the assumption that county rules would continue to allow responsible use of the water. Changing the rules now would render those investments partially worthless and unfairly penalize responsible owners who followed all existing regulations. Lost Lake is suitable, and buyers have choices. At 123 acres with significant depth, Lost Lake can safely accommodate wake-enhanced activities with reasonable, targeted rules (such as distance-from-shore and depth requirements)rather than an outright ban. If some residents or visitors prefer lakes without these activities, Mason County has numerous other lakes to choose from. Those seeking quieter, non-motorized, or low-wake experiences already have many options. There is no need to impose a one-size-fits-all ban on lakes like Lost Lake that have successfully supported these uses for decades. Balanced alternatives exist. Instead of banning wake boats on most lakes while exempting only the two largest, the County should adopt practical, enforceable standards such as: • Time-of-day or weekend restrictions if needed. • Operator education and ballast management requirements. These solutions protect shorelines without destroying the recreational character and property values that define Lost Lake. I respectfully urge you to reject the current broad proposal, gather lake-specific data for Lost Lake, and pursue measured regulations that respect the investments and expectations of existing property owners. Please set the public hearing and allow full community input before any vote. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike& Connie Stoney From: Tomas Kunak To: McKenzie Smith Subject: Wake Boat Ban Opposition Date: Wednesday,May 20,2026 1:01:02 PM Dear Mason Community commissioners I am writing to share my opposition to the proposed wake boat ban at Lost Lake in Shelton. I am an exchange student from Slovakia, spending my time here. Last year I spent summer at Lost Lake and it holds a special place in my heart. One of my best memories is learning how to wakeboard and wake surf there, it was truly unforgettable. I hope the Commissioners will take the community's love for this lake and its recreational activities into consideration before making a final decision. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Tomas Kunak From:kenclan To:McKenzie Smith Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 5:08:31 PM Sent from my Galaxy To:Mason County Commissioners: I am a Mason Lake resident & property owner since 1946. During that time, many changes have occurred, the current SAFETY being top priority. I started working with Deputy DUGAN when several dangerous situations on the lake arose & he Wrote one of the first ordinances. Since then, I continued to work with Mason County Sheriff’s, & together we created Vessel Cards/Magnets pictured to enforce SAFETY. As a result of my safety concern the Sheriff’s department Now has a Marine Officer specifically working with water safety. Sargent Severance/Chief Ryan/ Mason County Sheriff’s are key people I’ve worked with. We have a huge influx of outside people who have no knowledge or respect for existing ordinances. In addition, sheriff enforcement is difficult with manpower shortages. I’m in agreement with COMMISSIONER ART WHITSON. This situation needs to have All parties involved to discuss Win/win solution SAFETY FOR ALL! Thank you for your attention to this serious issue. Cherylynn Murdy From:Whorton, Noel To:McKenzie Smith Cc:karen whorton; Whorton, Noel Subject:Mason County Wake Boat Ordinance Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 3:56:42 PM Dear County Commissioners, I have grown up at Lost Lake in Mason County, and I am a third generation resident. I learned to swim, kneeboard, water ski and wakeboard there. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to teach countless kids (and adults) to water ski and wakeboard who otherwise might not have had that opportunity. I am a big proponent of our environment and maintaining the health of our lake. Every year, I spend hours and hours diving and picking up trash (mostly beer/pop cans and bottles) from the bottom of the lake. Additionally, I dive and hand pull the native pond weed that threatens to choke our waters (per the county the recommended, most environmentally friendly approach to weed cotrol). I want nothing more than my kids and their kids to have the opportunity to enjoy the things that I have been able to enjoy my entire life there. I am concerned about the damage that ‘wake surf boats’ can have on a lake and shoreline. However, I am also concerned about how this ordinance may be interpreted and implemented. One could argue a ski boat or a boat taking inner tubers out is ‘wake enhancing’. I would hate to see all the lakes in Mason County become essentially no-wake lakes. Barring the addition of a resident full time sheriff boat (which I doubt we have funding for) it puts neighbors in the position of having to police each other. I have witnessed our neighbors videotaping each other for evidence, and it can really be divisive to a community. One of the things I love most about Lost Lake is the community and friends that I have there. This would not only have a big impact on these lakes, but also put a large burden on Mason Lake and Lake Cushman by funneling a lot of boat traffic to these two lakes. This could also have a negative impact on property values, which the taxes received are vital to the county and schools. Thank you for keeping our lakes enjoyable for generation to come. The Whortons From:David Meinert To:McKenzie Smith; andyn@masoncountywa.gov; Pat Tarzwell; Sharon Trask Subject:Wake Boat Ordinance - The Science Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 4:45:28 PM Attachments:preview.png preview.png largepreview.png preview.png preview.png preview.png preview.png preview.png Commissioners - Below are 12 scientific studies on the effects of wake boats on lakes. The science is not one single study, it is a stack of wave-energy, sediment, habitat, shoreline, and policy reviews all pointing in the same direction: wake surfing is a high-impact use that small lakes often cannot absorb. We thank you for your work on this issue. As summer is now upon us, let’s please not have another year of unsafe conditions for kids, more environmental and property damage on our small lakes. Please pass your ordinance tomorrow. Key studies and findings 1. Michigan DNR Fisheries Report 37, 2023 Study: A Literature Review of Wake Boat Effects on Aquatic Habitat by Francis, Nohner, Bauman, and Gunderman. Fisheries-Report-37-Wake-Boat- Study-Official-Version-Released-on- 7.28.2023 PDF Document · 765 KB Main findings: Wake boats operated to create large waves can erode shorelines, resuspend sediments, and threaten inland lake habitat. The review found wake boats can create waves with 1.7 to 17 times the energy of comparable powerboats, and propeller turbulence can resuspend sediment in water up to 33 feet deep. It also found wake waves may need 400 to 1,023 feet to dissipate to levels comparable to other boats. Why it matters: This is one of the strongest government literature reviews for arguing that 100-foot or 200-foot buffers are not enough on small lakes. 2. University of Minnesota / St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, 2022 Study: Boat-generated wake wave study on Lake Independence, Minnesota. University of Minnesota researchers study waves created by recreational boats twin-cities.umn.edu Main findings: Wake surf boats produced waves that were higher and required greater distances to dissipate than wakes from typical recreational boats. The study found wake surf waves needed substantially more distance from shore to reduce wave height, energy, and power. Why it matters: It supports the argument that wake boats are not merely “normal boats.” Their wakes behave differently and remain powerful farther from the boat. 3. Connecticut DEEP Draft Wake Boat & Wakesurf Study, 2026 Study: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection draft statewide study. portal.ct.gov Main findings: The report found wake boats can erode shorelines, damage docks and seawalls, stir up sediment, cloud water, release nutrients that contribute to algae blooms, disrupt fish habitat, and create safety hazards for kayaks, canoes, sailboats, and swimmers. It cites findings that wake boats can create waves 2 to 3 times higher, with 3 to 9 times more energy, and 6 to 12 times more power than non-wake boats at planing speeds. Why it matters: This is recent, government-level confirmation that the issues are environmental, property-related, and safety-related. 4. Mercier-Blais and Prairie, 2014, Quebec Study: Assessment of waves created by wake boats on Lakes Memphremagog and Lovering. Impact-of-Waves-Created-by-Wake- Boats-Canada PDF Document · 4.2 MB Main findings: The study examined wake boat wave impacts on lakeshore erosion and sediment resuspension. Later summaries report that sediment resuspension was significantly above background levels up to 492 feet from wake boats in wakesurf mode and 656 feet in wakeboarding mode. Why it matters: This directly supports larger setback requirements and shows sediment impacts can extend far beyond ordinary no-wake buffers. 5. Goudey & Girod, 2015 Study: Characterization of Wake-Sport Wakes and Their Potential Impact on Shorelines, prepared for the Watersports Industry Association. wsia.net Main findings: Even this industry-supported study acknowledges that wake impacts depend on boat size, speed, depth, and distance from shore, and that wake-sport boats generate shoreline-impact concerns. Why it matters: Opponents may cite this study to argue wake boats are safe at certain distances, but it still supports the principle that distance, depth, and lake geometry matter. On small lakes, those conditions often cannot be met. 6. Ruprecht et al., 2015 Study: Wakesurfing: Some Wakes Are More Equal Than Others, Australasian Coasts & Ports Conference. (PDF) Wakesurfing: Some Wakes are More Equal than Others researchgate.net Main findings: The study found wake boats in wakesurfing mode generated the largest waves compared with other operating modes. Later summaries note that wakesurfing produced wave energy roughly four times higher than wakeboarding mode in some comparisons. Why it matters: It reinforces the core distinction: wakesurfing is a different category of impact than ordinary water skiing or cruising. 7. Wisconsin Green Fire Review, 2024 Study: The Effects of Wake Boats on Lake Ecosystem Health by Ortiz. WakeBoatsLakeEcosystemHealth_ WGF-May2024_Final PDF Document · 876 KB Main findings: This review concluded that wake boats raise concerns related to aquatic invasive species, shoreline erosion, aquatic plants, sediment resuspension, birds, and fish. It states that wake boats create elevated risks of spreading invasive species and accelerating shoreline erosion. Why it matters: This is a clean, readable scientific review for public testimony because it organizes impacts by lake-health category. 8. Brown, 2021 Study: Adverse Impacts Attributed to the Operation of Wake-Enhanced Boats on Inland Lake Ecosystems. adverse-impacts-attributed-to-the- operation-of-wake-enhanced-boats- on-inland-lake-ecosystems PDF Document · 702 KB Main findings: Brown reviewed wake-enhanced boat impacts, including sediment resuspension, shoreline erosion, aquatic plant disturbance, and habitat impacts. The report cites prior research showing wake boat turbulence can disturb bottom sediment at varying depths depending on speed and mode. Why it matters: Useful as a broad literature review tying together wave energy, prop wash, and ecosystem impacts. 9. Daeger et al., 2022 / 2023 Study: Impacts on Nutrient and Sediment Resuspension by Various Watercraft. Impacts-on-Nutrient-and-Sediment- Resuspension-by-Various- Watercraft-Proceedings-of-the- Indiana-Academy-of-Science-2023 PDF Document · 1.7 MB Main findings: Nutrient resuspension was observed after wake boat operation in 5 feet of water. The study found water depth and operating mode were critical factors. Why it matters: This supports restrictions on shallow lakes and shallow areas, especially where sediment disturbance can release phosphorus and feed algae or weeds. 10. Bilkovic et al., 2019 Study: Defining Boat Wake Impacts on Shoreline Stability Toward Management and Policy Solutions. 1-s2.0-S0964569118309633-main PDF Document · 2.4 MB Main findings: This review found boat wake energy may be linked to elevated turbidity and shoreline erosion, especially in narrow or sheltered waterways where natural wave energy would otherwise be limited. Why it matters: It supports the argument that small, narrow, protected lakes are especially vulnerable. 11. Chesapeake Bay STAC Review, 2017 Study: Review of Boat Wake Wave Impacts on Shoreline Erosion and Potential Solutions for the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake-Bay-STAC-Boat-Wake- study PDF Document · 2.5 MB Main findings: This review examined known effects of boat-generated waves on shoreline stability, sediment inputs, vegetative habitat, and shoreline policy options. Why it matters: Although focused on Chesapeake Bay rather than inland lakes, it supports the broader scientific principle that repeated vessel wakes can cause shoreline erosion and sediment problems. 12. University of Waterloo / Houser, 2025 Study/news summary: University of Waterloo Water Institute discussion of boat wakes and freshwater impacts. Boat wakes aren’t just a nuisance, they harm freshwater shorelines and wildlife | Water Institute | University of Waterloo uwaterloo.ca Main findings: The Water Institute summarized increasing evidence that boat wakes erode shorelines, disrupt aquatic ecosystems, degrade water quality, and create safety hazards. Why it matters: Good plain-language support from an academic water-science institution. Bottom-line summary for testimony The research consistently supports these conclusions: 1. Wake boats create larger, more powerful waves than ordinary boats. 2. Those waves travel farther before losing energy. 3. Small lakes often lack enough depth and distance from shore for safe wake surfing. 4. Wake boats can resuspend sediment and nutrients, contributing to algae, weeds, turbidity, and habitat decline. 5. Repeated artificial wakes increase risk to shorelines, bulkheads, docks, boats, and nearshore habitat. 6. The burden falls mostly on non-wake-boat property owners who pay for damage and lose safe lake use. David Meinert From:dladybug@centurytel.net To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Public Comment to Mason County Commissioners for 5/26 mtg Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:33:34 PM Dear Honorary Commissioners, My name is Debra Hill and I have been a Mason County resident since 1983, living with my husband, John Hill and raising our children on Lost Lake. I have seen many changes through the years at the lake and not all of them are positive. My husband and I purchased a 1977 Bayliner Mosquito of which we used mostly for relaxing cruises of the lake and enjoying the scenery. Since my husband's illness and death in 2020, those cruises have become less frequent, but I do try to maintain my little boat for the opportunity of enjoying the lake. However, on Sunday, September 3, 2024 my boat was swamped and sunk when 2 wake boats went by my dock in tandem. The operators of the boats did not stop to help, they did not confess to their negligence, they just continued on raising havoc to the rest of the lake, such as other people trying to enjoy the lake but fighting the large wakes or waves and the shoreline being damaged by the strong, large waves or wakes. I called the Mason County Sheriff's office and was pleased with their response. I filed a report with them, , case #24-15538. I was able to hire a person to come haul my boat out of the water and repair the engine in order to get it running again. However, is my boat safe in the water at Lost Lake? And are my grandchildren safe, playing in the water at Lost Lake? Will my bulkhead eventually crumble into the water? I understand that there is an agenda item on your meeting on 5/26 to discuss the possibility of a wake boat ordinance. I would greatly appreciate your vote to place some restrictions on this type of boat on our small lake in order to decrease the chances of more incidents like mine and create a safer lake, as well as the diminish the destruction of our waterfront and shoreline. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Debra Hill From:Deidra Miller To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Skurfing on Lake Phillips Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 7:09:44 AM Mr. Smith, I am out of the country or I would otherwise be attending the hearing. I have owned on Phillips Lake for over 42 years. I am adamantly against skurfing on our small lake because of the extensive damage it has done to the lake shoreline. More than 30% of our lake frontage has been damaged by the enormous waves those boats put out when skurfing. The skurfing has undermined the frontage one lot and undermined my bulkhead on the other lot. The enormous wake they create often makes it dangerous to enter the water or to be on the water. Thank you for your consideration, Deidra From:Doug Lindahl To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Wake Enhancing Boat Restrictions Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:13:53 AM We are writing in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance on wake enhanced motorboats. When we purchased our property on Spencer Lake, our decision was based on the ability to partake in water sports activities including waterskiing wakeboarding. These activities are enjoyed by our neighbors and visitors to the lake and are a staple to summer recreation at the lake. Placing extra restrictions on these activities would limit the use and enjoyment of these public lakes. To severely limit this activity would impact not only people on our lake but force more people onto already overcrowded Mason Lake. We are concerned that the imposition of this ordinance would affect property values on our lake with many home owners, like us, having purchased our property specifically because these activities were allowed. We are concerned by what appears to be an overreach by the county government to legislate and limit beyond state regulations. We are concerned that this may be an attempt by some groups to place their personal preferences surrounding recreation above others. Sincerely, Doug and Carol Lindahl Sent from my iPad From:jeff donahue To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Ban on wake surf boats on Phillips Lake Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 1:46:16 PM I support the ban on wake surf boats especially on Phillips Lake. -- Jeffrey John Donahue, PLS and CFedS From:Josh Steele To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Wake study Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:53:51 AM Attachments:WSIA_draft_report_Rev_II.pdf Hi McKenzie, It is a little short notice but wanted to share the attached wake study so it is on record. I believe Lost Lake does have the ability for all water sports if shore line rules are followed and respected. Thank you, Josh> https://us-east-2.protection.sophos.com? d=wsia.net&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3NpYS5uZXQvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzLzIwMjAvMDMvV1NJQV9kcmFmdF9yZXBvcnRfUmV2X0lJLnBkZg==&p=m&i=NjIxODA0NThlNjkzY2YwZjg0YTNiYzc0&t=cUdDMTR1WmJRY0lYR2pGenBtaHExZ1ZOdU1WSTBHVFQ5YkQxUE40NnRHbz0=&h=b5d0f4afe9db4ecfbb05dbe13ed192d0&s=AVNPUEhUT0NFTkNSWVBUSVbF7l5-k9KsrNXTa1Z__khjjtBjIGBwl1hjSV98z9TUBA> > > > Sent from my iPhone 0 Characterization of Wake-Sport Wakes and their Potential Impact on Shorelines WATER SPORTS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION November 2015 1 Characterization of Wake-Sport Wakes and their Potential Impact on Shorelines by Clifford A. Goudey and Lewis G. Girod C.A. Goudey & Associates 21 Marlboro Street Newburyport, MA 01950 24 November 2015 Prepared for the Water Sports Industry Association P.O. Box 568512, Orlando, FL 32856-8512 2 Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................ i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ii Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Background on wakes ....................................................................................................... 1 Study objectives ................................................................................................................ 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 9 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 21 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 25 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 26 References ....................................................................................................................... 27 i Foreword With a goal to scientifically measure the wakes produced by wave-sport towboats, the first-ever Towed Water Sports Wave Energy Study was conducted in the Spring of 2015 in Orlando, Florida. The research was commissioned by the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA) and conducted by engineering consultants from C.A. Goudey & Associates of Newburyport, Massachusetts. The study was lead by founder and principal Clifford A. Goudey who holds master's degrees from MIT in naval architecture and marine engineering and in mechanical engineering and is an expert in waves, vessel performance, and the conduct of instrumented field tests. Assisting was Lewis D. Girod, a software and sensing engineer who holds a master's degree from MIT in electrical engineering and computer science and a PhD in computer science from UCLA. The tests were conducted from March 20 to 27, 2015 on the Conway Chain of Lakes at two sites chosen to represent shallow-water and deep-water conditions. Precise measurements of wave height by an array of sensors have provided the first rigorous measure of wakes produced by this type of boat. The results and the authors’ conclusions are offered here in hopes that they begin to clarify issues related to the role of towed water sport wakes in the larger context of other human and natural activities that occur on bodies of water. John Archer, WSIA President Larry Meddock, WSIA Executive Director ii Executive Summary The effect of boat wakes on a shoreline varies depending on boat size, speed, water depth, and distance from shore. With the growing popularity of wake sports there has been a rise in concern over the potential effect of the associated wakes on shorelines. A study has been completed and reported here aimed at building an understanding of wake-sport wakes and how they fit into the spectrum of boat wakes in general as well as how those wakes compare to wind-driven waves. A shallow and a deep-water test venue were used within the Conway Lake chain in Orlando, Florida. Both locations had sandy beaches and were surveyed for their depth profile to determine locations for wave-height probes within an array running perpendicular to the shore. At the four stations closest to shore, capacitance-wire wave probes were used. Due to the close passage of the boat to the outer probe, a submerged pressure probe was used. Each sensor was connected by underwater cable to a PC-based data acquisition system where the data was displayed and logged for post processing. The vessel used for the tests was a Nautique G-23 wake-sport boat with an overall length of 23’, a maximum beam of 102”, and a light displacement of 5,900 lbs. This is considered typical of the fleet of wake-sport boats available from various manufacturers. The boat has factory- installed ballast tanks that were filled to capacity with 2,850 pounds of water for the wakeboarding tests. For the wakesurfing runs, an additional 1,400 pounds of water was added, yielding a total displacement of 10,150 pounds. Test runs were conducted at cruising speeds (20, 25, 30 mph), wakeboarding speeds (21.2, 22.2, 23.2 mph), and wakesurfing speeds (10, 11, 11.5, 12 mph). These runs were done at three distances from the outer wave probe (10’, 110’, 210’) with the closest track resulting in a wave measurement being taken very close to the boat. A total of 94 tests runs were made at the shallow and deep sites. Logged data from each run were then processed to yield plots of wave profiles vs. time and to determine wave heights and wave counts at each sensor station. Wave profiles from all five probes were plotted for each run to enable quality control as shown below. Note that the wave heights are given in terms of the total height of the wave from its trough to its crest. It is worth noting that very close to the boat the trough is deeper than the height of the crest. Specifically, at sensor #1 a trough 11.8” deep precedes a 10” crest for a total wave height of 21.8”. Wakeboarding at 22.2 mph and 10’ standoff in shallow water iii Wakes dissipate in three ways. First, and as can be seen in the above figure, the small number of waves seen at sensor #1 grows to more numerous waves as the wake progresses away from the boat’s track. The three initial waves become 14 distinct but much smaller waves by the time the wake has reached sensor #5, which is 270 feet away. A second cause of wake dissipation is the friction of the wave’s motion on the lake bottom and is much more significant in shallow water. A third cause of wake dissipation is through breaking. This form of energy loss happens quickly behind a wake-sport boat that is generating a large wave. Comparisons among runs are shown in the figure below and are based on the speed of each operational mode that produced the highest waves. For those “optimal” speeds the maximum wave height at each station is shown. The higher waves associated with wakeboarding and wakesurfing dissipate more rapidly than those generated under the cruising condition, more typical of a conventional craft on a full plane. We can also see in this figure that the maximum wave heights associated with wakeboarding and wakesurfing dropped precipitously in the first 100 to 150’ of their travel from the boat’s track. By contrast, the waves heights associated with cruising speeds dissipate more slowly and lack the initial drop seen with the other two modes of operation. This difference is because these smaller waves tend not to break and therefore propagate with less energy loss. These results demonstrate the importance of standoff distance from the shoreline and from the data wave height can be predicted for various standoff distances. As shown in the table below, with the exception of wake surfing in deep water, the wakesport waves from a track 200’ from shore fall below heights that could be viewed as exceptional. iv Wake surfing in deep water is the exception and it takes 300 feet for the wave height to drop by half of its original 26” height. In understanding the significance of boat-wake effects on shorelines, it is necessary to compare them to naturally occurring processes. Wind waves are particularly important due to their persistent nature. Waves resulting from wind over a stretch of water are well studies and predictable based on wind speed and fetch. Predictions were made of the significant wave height and dominant wave period of typical combinations of wind speed and fetch distance. These values were turned into energy levels to allow comparison with boat-wake energy levels derived from our tests. Through this comparison we were able to determine how often a boat wake would need to occur in order to equal the energy associated with wind waves. Our analysis shows that a cruising boat would need to pass 110 feet from a shoreline every 101 seconds in order to equal the energy coming from waves associated with 10 mph winds and one mile of fetch. A wakesurfing boat would only need to pass every 270 seconds to equal the same wind-wave effects. At higher wind speeds and longer fetch distances, wind waves become more energetic. For example, a 20 mph wind blowing over 4 miles of fetch yields wave conditions equivalent to a cruising boat passing 110 feet offshore every 9 seconds. Those same wind waves are equivalent to a wakesurfing passing every 23 seconds 110 feet from a shoreline. These sorts of repetition rates are not representative of the sport. A 10 mph wind blowing over a mile of open water is a common occurrence and our results suggest boat wakes are not likely to be the most significant source of energy along the shores of all but the smallest bodies of water. The persistence of wind waves can belie their importance. While a boat wake coming ashore can seem like a significant event, in the larger scheme of things it can be of little consequence if that shore also experiences wind-driven waves. In all but the most protected of shorelines, it would be difficult for boating to match the role of wind waves and natural currents on shaping shorelines. 1 Introduction The effect of boat wakes on shorelines varies greatly depending on boat size, its speed, and where and how it is operated. Factors such as speed, length, and displacement determine the characteristics of a wake as it propagates outward from the boat’s track line. Meanwhile, factors such as distance to shore and water depth determines how that wake changes as it moves. Finally, the nature of the shoreline and the other environmental stressors it experiences determines the significance of the wake’s arrival. With the increase in popularity of wakeboarding and wakesurfing, there has been a rise in concern over the potential effect of the associated wakes. In some cases, targeted regulations have been suggested as a way to keep those activities away from certain areas or to exclude them from entire bodies of water. Unfortunately, such advocacy is seldom based on a complete knowledge of the situation, reflecting instead a knee-jerk reaction to either an isolated incident or the irresponsible behavior of one or a few operators. The fact remains, when engaging in wake sports these boats are intentionally operated to produce a large wake that is an important component of wakeboarding and essential to the sport of wakesurfing. Understandably, as the sport grows, conflicts among the users of a body of water can grow. The purpose of this report is to add to the understanding of wake-sport wakes and how they fit into the spectrum of boat wakes in general as well as how they compare to naturally occurring waves and other coastline disturbances. Background on wakes Wave and wakes are well-studied phenomena, as they relate directly to the survivability of coastal structures and the processes affecting coastal environments (USACE 2002). Specific research on the effect of boat wakes has occurred for many years (Dorava 1997, Asplund 2000, NRC 2007). While boat wakes are but one source of impact on our coastal environments (Klein 2007), in some situations they become a significant concern (Macfarlane 2008, Watterson 2012). The methods for studying wakes generally involve the measurement associated wave heights as a wake approaches a shore (Fonseca 2012, Macfarlane 2012). Results from such investigations can be used to compare the characteristics of wakes generated by various size vessels operating in various modes (Gourlay 2010). The methods can also be used to compare the role of boat wakes on shoreline with that of wind waves (Zabawa 1980). It has been found by some that boat wakes complaints are often used to mask other community concerns such as the noise generated by high-speed craft and the loss of amenity (Macfarlane 2008). It has also been found that wave height alone can be poor indicator of erosion potential and energy is considered a better indicator of potential shoreline impact (Ibid). Absent in the literature are data specific to the wake effects of wake-sport boats and the purpose of this study is to fill that gap and use rigorous field-collected data to assess potential wave impacts of wake-boat operation at various speeds, operating conditions, and distances from shore. These findings can then be compared with naturally occurring wind waves associated with different wind speeds and fetch distances. 2 Study objectives The objectives of this study were to: 1. Develop methods and instrumentation to accurately measure waves generated by the passage of a wake boat. 2. Measure the wakes produced by a wake-sport boat at cruising, wakeboarding, and wavesurfing speeds and loading conditions at deep and shallow test sites. 3. Determine the wave energy from these wakes and how it varies with mode of operation and distance from the boat track. 4. Compare the experimental findings with the wave energy associated with wind waves. 5. Use the finding to assist WSIA is developing guidelines for wake boat operation to minimize any negative impacts of wake sports. Methodology Two test venues were identified in the Conway Lake chain in Orlando, Florida, as indicated in Figure 1. One typified a shallow-water site where the depths were gradual and reached 10 feet at 500 feet from shore while our deep-water site saw a sudden slope increase at approximately 60 feet from shore, reaching 22 feet at 150 feet from shore. At the deep-water site, all boat runs were in depths greater than 22 feet. Figure 1. Big Lake Conway and South Lake Conway, Orlando, FL with test sites indicated. Deep-water site Shallow-water site 3 Both locations offered plenty of room for our experimental runs and had sandy beaches. The test sites were surveyed for their depth profile and sensor mounts were built to provide an array of wave measurement stations installed perpendicular to the shore. These survey results and sensor locations are shown in Figure 2 and are overlaid on aerials views in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 2. Depths, sensor locations, and boat tracks for the two test venues. Wave-height sensors at each measurement station were mounted on rigid steel supports that were driven into the lakebed. At the four stations closest to shore, a capacitance-wire wave gauge was used with a 24” measurement range. These devices measure the water level along a pair of capacitance wires and are extremely accurate and responsive. Figure 5 shows a photo of one of the measurement stations and Table 1 gives the specifications. 4 Figure 3. The shallow-water test venue with depths, sensor, and boat tracks indicated. 5 Figure 4. The deep-water test venue with depths, sensor, and boat tracks indicated. 6 Figure 5. Station #2 with an Akamina AWP-24-2 capacitance wave probe. Table 1. Akamina AWP-24-2 specifications. Due to the outer station’s proximity to the inner track line, the capacitance wire sensor was avoided due to its delicate nature. Instead a pressure sensor was used that was positioned on a steel tripod that was fully submerged with the sensor diaphragm positioned 30” below the surface. The Levelgage sensor is pictured in Figure 6 and its specifications are presented in Table 2. 7 Figure 6. A Keller America submersible Levelgage. Table 2. Levelgage 81355OF/5ftWC/mA specifications. Because pressure-sensing wave measurements are attenuated based on their depth, identical Levelgage sensors were also mounted at stations #2 and #3 and at the same depth. Comparison of pressure and capacitance-wire readings at these two stations allowed the precise correction of the pressure sensor readings at the outer station allowing for consistent measurements from all five stations. The resulting installation is pictured in Figure 7. Figure 7. The sensor array at the shallow-water test site. 8 Each sensor was connected by underwater cable to a PC-based data acquisition system using a National Instruments 9207 16-channel voltage/current module sampling each sensor at 30 samples per second. The sensor wave height data was converted to engineering units (inches) and displayed on a LabView user interface as shown in Figure 8. The data was also logged for post processing. Figure 8. The PC-based data acquisition system. The system was configured to begin logging data upon a manual trigger activated when the test boat passed a line perpendicular to the shore and along the line of sensor stations. Data was then recorded for 90 seconds, allowing enough time for the wake-associated waves to pass the near- shore sensor. The test vessel is pictured in Figure 9, a Nautique G-23 wake-sport boat with the following specifications: Length overall: 23’ / 7.01 m Max beam: 102” / 2.59 m Light displacement: 5,900 lbs / 2,676 kg Figure 9. The Nautique G23 test boat in wakesurf condition. 9 This boat was selected as being typical of the growing fleet of wake-sport boats available from various manufacturers. The boat was operated in three different conditions: cruising, wakeboarding, and wakesurfing. For the cruising condition the boat was operated “light,” meaning only one person aboard but with a full fuel tank (65 gal.). For the wakeboarding condition the standard factory-installed ballast tanks were filled to capacity, adding 2,850 pounds. For the wakesurfing runs, the weight was supplemented with four “fat sacks” positioned aft and in the bow, adding another 1,400 pounds for a total displacement of 10,150 pounds. To determine the role of distance in wake dissipation, three test tracks were established at a distance 10’, 110’, and 210’ from the outer probe. The track lines were marked by taut-moored inflatable buoy pairs that were positioned at an angle such that the resulting waves would approach parallel to the shore and perpendicular to the array of sensors. Table 3 shows the test matrix of 42 test conditions that were used for both the shallow-water and the deep-water test sites. Due to repetitions of some runs, a total of 94 runs were conducted. Table 3. The test matrix for both the shallow and deep-water test sites. Results The logged data from each run in the form of .csv files were processed using MatLab scripts for plotting and further analysis. The data was first re-calibrated based on careful sensor-calibration data collected at the end of the tests. Then, pressure data from the first three stations were corrected to make the values comparable to capacitive data collected at the redundant stations This correction step is necessary because the wave heights measurements using a pressure probe are attenuated when the probe is placed below the surface. The attenuation factor is a frequency dependent value that we determined empirically based on a comparison of the data from co- located pressure and capacitive sensors at stations 2 and 3. This type of frequency-dependent function, known as a "transfer function", can be used to determine the actual wave surface height given the pressure sensor response as an input. This correlation was used to correct the station #1 pressure sensor readings, making its processed values comparable to those from the other four stations. This data was then plotted in graphical form to verify the integrity of the collected data and examined to qualitatively understand how the wake characteristics change as they progress towards shore. An example of one of the 10 cruising runs is presented in Figure 10 where the horizontal axis is time in seconds and the vertical axis is the elevation of the water surface. In this graphic the signals from subsequent sensor stations are displaced upward to show the change in waveform, the number of waves, and their generally diminishing height. Figure 10. Shallow-water Run #6 - Cruising, 25 mph, 10’ standoff. Because this run was at a distance standoff of only 10 feet, the wake arrives at sensor #1 almost immediately and measuring from the lowest trough to the highest peak we can see a maximum wave height of 14 inches. As the wake progresses along the array the maximum wave height diminishes and the group disperses into more waves. By the time the wake reaches sensor #5 the maximum height is 3 inches but 13 or more distinct waves are detected. At this shallow-water site, the distance between outer station #1 and inner station #5 is 275 feet. Because of the difference between the group velocity and the phase velocity of such wave formations, the actual number of waves at a given time, such as would be seen or photographed, is only half as many as are measured by a fixed wave probe. This is because within a group of waves, the waves are constantly forming at the rear of the group and disappearing at the front. That said, the graphical portrayal of these wakes, and the number of waves recorded at each station correctly represents the number of waves that would reach a shoreline at that particular location. An illuminating animation of this phenomenon can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28water_waves%29. To serve as a comparison, an example of one of the wakeboarding runs is presented in Figure 11. Again, the wake is seen immediately at sensor #1 and due largely to the increased displacement in the wakeboarding condition, the initial wave height is 21.8 inches and by the time it has reached sensor #5 the height is 6.4 inches. Again, while the height has decreased, the number of waves has grown from approximately 3 to 14. 11 Figure 11. Shallow-water Run #15 - Wakeboarding, 22.2 mph, 10’ standoff. Progressing to larger wakes, a wakesurfing example is presented in Figure 12. Figure 12. Shallow-water Run #24 - Wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, 10’ standoff. 12 Here, due to a further displacement increase and a lower operating speed, the maximum wave height at sensor #1 measures 27.8 inches. At shoreward sensor #5 the height is 7.5 inches and twelve waves were detected. The results from the runs made at a more distant standoff from the outer probe showed similar results. Figure 13 portrays the cruising speed results for 25 mph run at a distance of 110 feet from the outer probe. There is approximately an eight-second delay before the longer-period components of the wake reached station #1. Compared to the run shown in Figure 10, there are now nine significant waves followed by six distinct albeit smaller waves. The maximum measured wave height at station #1 is 8.1 inches. Twenty seconds later this wake reaches inner station #5 where the maximum height is only 2.8” and the wave count is approximately 20. Figure 13. Shallow-water Run #7 - Cruising, 25 mph, 110’ standoff. For the comparable run at 210 feet of standoff the cruising results were consistent with this trend of more waves of decreasing size. As shown in Figure 14, at 25 mph and a distance of 210 feet from the outer probe, there was a 13-second delay before the wake reaches station #1 with a maximum height of 6.4 inches. At station #5 the maximum height is only 1.7”. 13 Figure 14. Shallow-water Run #8 - Cruising, 25 mph, 210’ standoff. Results such as these can be compared graphically by plotting the maximum wave height vs. the distance along the probe array for each standoff distance. This is done in Figures 15 - 17 where maximum heights are shown for each mode of operation in shallow water. The 110’ and 210’ runs have been offset horizontally to properly represent the distance from the boat’s track line. Figure 15. Maximum wave heights cruising at 25 mph at various standoffs. 14 Figure 16. Maximum wave heights wakeboarding at 22.2 mph at various standoffs. Figure 17. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing to port at 11 mph at various standoffs. The reduction in maximum wave height with distance from the boat’s track line is consistent, with the most rapid reduction happening within the first 100 feet and then another slight drop as the waves encounter the shallow water associated with station #5. Similar trends are seen at the deep-water site as shown in Figures 18 - 20. Keeping in mind that the distance axis is shorter for due to the spacing of the deep-water stations, we see similar initial wave heights but less wave-height reduction over distance from less bottom friction. 15 Figure 18. Maximum wave heights cruising at 25 mph in deep water at various standoffs. Figure 19. Maximum wave heights wakeboarding at 25 mph in deep water at various standoffs. 16 Figure 20. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing at 11 mph in deep water at various standoffs. As seen in Figure 19, the wave-height reduction over the first 100’ is greater for the wakeboarding condition than for the cruising condition, dropping from 21.8 inches close to the boat to 12 inches in height at station #2, 112 feet away from the track line. Even more dramatic is the initial drop in wave height for the wakesurfing condition where it drops from 27.8 inches beside the boat to 16.3 inches at station #2. The most significant difference between shallow and deep water is at the wakesurfing condition where, as shown in Figure 21, the shallow-water wake starts out 6% higher but diminishes roughly 40% more than the deep-water wake at 200 feet from the track line. Figure 21. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, in shallow and deep waters. 17 As is apparent in Figures 10 thru 14, while the heights of the waves associated with a passing boat wake do diminish over time and distance, the number of waves increases. The question remains: What is the impact of that wake on the shoreline? Other research on these matters indicates that a wave’s energy is a more important indicator as opposed to its height (Glamore 2008). In addition, the cumulative energy of all the waves associated with a wake is the best measure (Macfarlane 2008). The power of a wave is proportional to its period and to the square of its height according to the formula: P = ρg2 Hm0 2Te /64π where P is the wave power or the wave energy flux, ρ is the density of water, g is the acceleration of gravity, Hm0 is the significant wave height, and Te is the wave energy period. Power in Watts per meter times the duration of the wake yields the wake’s energy in units of Joules per meter of wave-crest length. The calculation would be simple if a wake was composed of identical waves of uniform height and period. Instead, we must calculate the energy for each individual wave and those energies can then be summed. For example, in Figure 22 the power of the waves of a wakesurfing wake is plotted corresponding to each of the shallow-water-array stations. Figure 22. Shallow-water Run #24 - Wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, 10’ standoff. The energy of the wake at each station is the sum of the power of each individual wave times its duration, essentially the area under each of the plotted lines, and the calculated values for run#24 are as follows. 18 Table 4. Wake energy Shallow-water wakesurfing to port 11 mph, 10’ distance. Like the height of wake waves, wave energy diminishes over time and distance due largely to breaking and from bottom friction in shallow water. In Figure 23 the total wake energy is plotted vs. distance from the boat track in both shallow and deep water. Compared to the maximum wave heights plotted in Figure 21, the drop in energy is even more precipitous. Figure 23. Total wake energy wakesurfing to port in shallow and deep waters. Of particular interest is the fact that the energy level in shallow water is 35% higher than what is found in the deep-water wake. The likely reason for this that in order for the boat to maintain 11 mph in shallow water, a higher engine RPM was required and therefore more energy was put into the wake. However, because of the combined losses associated with breaking and bottom friction, the shallow-water energy levels drop to a third of the original value by 200 feet from the track line. By comparison, the deep-water energy levels drop by half at 112 feet from the track line, but because of the absence of bottom friction, they are greater than the shallow-water energy levels beyond 250 feet from the track line. For smaller waves that do not break and that travel over deep water, there is often very little energy loss until the wave reached the shore. As an example of this phenomenon, the deep-water 19 cruising results are portrayed in Figure 24. Here, there is seen no drop in wake energy with distance indeed, because of our methods of calculating the power are proportional to wave height squared, the slight height increase that is to be expected over shoaling water results in an increase in indicated energy. Whether this increase can be linked to an equivalent shoreline impact is unclear, but it is a reminder that the effect is probably to over estimate the near shore energies portrayed earlier and is evident in up-ticks seen in Figures 18 through 21. It must also be pointed out that in shallow water, wakes produced at cruising speeds do behave more predictably and diminish steadily in energy with time and distance. Of significance is the fact that total wake energies in excess of 300 Joules/meter occur at cruising speeds in deep water regardless of the distance from the track line. While the wakesurfing wake starts out at very high energy, it drops significantly over time and distance. In shallow water wakesurfing wakes diminish to a greater degree in height and in energy and do so earlier. Figure 24. Total wake energy cruising at 25 mph in deep waters. While energy is a more rigorous measure of the potential of a wave to affect shorelines, it is a difficult notion to understand compared to, say, the height of a wave. Most people are good at approximating wave heights when observed directly, especially when viewed together with objects of known dimension. For this reason, a further examination of the findings portrayed in Figures 15 through 21 is called for. The wave height measurements at each operating condition (cruising, wakeboarding, and wakesurfing), at each offset distance (10’, 110’, and 210’), and in both deep and shallow water can be presented in a single plot. In these the following two figures these combined results are 20 portrayed, first in Figures 25 and 26 as wave height vs. the distance from the shore and second in Figure 27 as wave height vs. the distance from the boats track line. Figure 25 includes the data points while in Figures 26 and 27 only the trend lines are shown. Figure 25. Wave height vs. distance from shore in shallow and deep water. Figure 26. Wave height vs. distance from shore, trend lines only. 21 In these figures we see more clearly the role of distance in wave height dissipation and how the larger waves of wake sports tend to dissipate more rapidly than the smaller waves at cruising speeds. While the wave heights start out very different due to the boat’s speed and ballasting, the difference at the shoreline is less, especially in shallow water where more damping occurs. A different perspective can be seen when the same results are plotted vs. distance from the boat’s track line as has been done in Figure 27. Figure 27. Wave height vs. distance from boat track trend lines. Here we can see the importance of water depth in wave height dissipation. In shallow water wave height drops faster and continue to drop over distance. Discussion The significance of total wake energy on shoreline impacts will vary depending on the type of shore. Sand beaches, and gravel or rocky shorelines are obviously less sensitive to wave effects compared to unstable banks or sensitive vegetation. Absent boating, the nature of a shoreline is dictated by geology and its exposure to various coastal processes, wind-driven waves being a major factor. In order to understand the significance of total wake energy on a shoreline, it is useful to quantify the energy associated with wind waves. Fortunately wind waves are a well-studied topic and reliable predictions of wave conditions can be made with the knowledge of wind velocities and the distance over which they are able to blow, a measure known as “fetch.” Depending on the conditions at a specific body of water, the likely wave characteristics can be predicted as shown in Figure 28. Six example conditions are shown in in Table 5 below where significant wave height (Hmo) and dominant wave period (Te) are given for various wind speed and fetch parameters. 22 Figure 28. A nomograph for wind-driven waves (VDOT Drainage Manual). Table 5. Wave conditions vs. wind and fetch. From these wave environment specifications, pseudo waves can be generated using simulation tools such as WAFO (Brodtkorb 2000). WAFO-generated time series corresponding to the six sea states specified in Table 5 are shown in Figure 29. 23 Figure 29. WAFO sea spectra time series for six wave specifications. Using the same methods we used to analyze our wake-generated time series, we can determine the energy levels associated with each of these wave conditions. Table 6 shows the energy along one meter of wave front over a one minute of time associated with each of the above wave conditions. These values now provide a means of comparing naturally occurring wind waves with wake energies. Table 6. Energy of the Table 5 sea states in Joules/minute/meter. Table 7 is a listing of total wake energy for various operating conditions and standoff distances for both deep and shallow water. In the table the recurrence equivalent of these wakes is presented compared to two wind-wave conditions. Here, “recurrence equivalent” is defined as the wake repeat interval in seconds needed to equal the amount of energy associated with the specified wind speed and fetch distance. 24 Table 7. Total wake energy and wind-wave recurrence equivalent. Except for narrow bodies of water, a 10 mph wind blowing over a mile of open water is a common occurrence and it results in energy levels of 208 joules/min impacting the shore. This energy level can be compared to those associated with boat wakes to understand the relative importance of each on potential shoreline erosion. The point being that while a boat wake coming ashore on calm day can seem like a significant event, in the larger scheme of things it can be of little consequence if that shore also experiences wind-driven waves. From Table 7 it can be seen that a boat 110 feet from shore in deep water would need to cruise by every 101 seconds to generate the incident energy level of naturally occurring wind waves from a 10 mph breeze over a 1 mile fetch. By comparison, that same boat operating in a wakesurfing mode would need to pass by every 270 seconds to generate the same energy as those modest, naturally occurring wind waves. Table 7 also shows that with more energetic wind condition such as 20 mph blowing over 4 miles of fetch, the equivalent recurrence interval for a boat wake is much shorter. For example the cruising boat 110 feet from shore in deep water would need to cruise by every 9 seconds to equal these larger wind waves. In the wakesurfing mode the equivalent interval would be longer at 23 seconds. In other words the wakesurfer would need to pass nearly three times per minute to introduce the same amount of energy to the shoreline as those wind waves. Boat wakes coming ashore are discrete events and while they do convey energy and can have impacts on some shorelines, they typically are a minor perturbation compared to the persistent arrival of wind waves. In all but the most protected of shorelines, it would be difficult for boating to match the role of wind waves and natural currents on shaping shorelines. 25 Conclusions Based on both maximum wave height and total wake energy measurements it is clear that the same boat under different operating conditions can produce very different wakes. As with all boats, factors such as speed and total displacement have large and explainable influences on the initial size and the propagation characteristics of its wake. Our findings show that as a wake progress away from the boat’s track line it undergoes important transformations both in height and the number of associated waves. The increase in the number of waves in a wake is a result of the initial large wave decomposing into a series of waves of different frequency. The longer-period wave components travel faster while the shorter-period waves travel slower. This results in a wake composed of an increasing number of waves and, from a simple conservation of energy perspective, these multiple waves must be smaller in height than the original wake as it leaves the boat. In our tests, waves were shown to lose height and energy rapidly if they are large such as those formed during wakesurfing. This is due to a sudden energy loss, as it first breaks close behind the boat. In deep water subsequent reductions in wave height are due to continued decomposing into more waves. Once the wake reached shallow water, energy becomes dissipated due to bottom friction. As depths become shallower closer to shore, wave velocities decrease and, as a result, waves become steeper and slightly higher and can break even prior to reaching the shoreline. Through this combination of factors (the initial wake breaking behind the boat, bottom friction, and shoal-water breaking) the energy of a wake is dissipated over time and distance. In shallow water, dissipation due to bottom friction becomes a more significant factor. Shallow water has other effects in that it adds to the resistance of the boat requiring additional propulsive power to achieve a specified speed compared to deep water. As a result, for the same speeds, the shallow-water runs generated higher initial wakes but they dissipated more rapidly. At the shoreline, the energy remaining was significantly less in shallow water compared to those from the same operating conditions in deep water where waves progress with fewer losses. Total wake energy from cruising conditions in shallow water at 110’ of offset had only dissipated 2% compared to runs 10’ from the array. By contrast, the total wake energy from wakesurfing dropped by 65% with the same standoff distance. An additional 100’ standoff yielded a further 20% reduction. Deep-water operations yielded less dramatic results with the total wake energy of wakesurfing dropping by 49% for the first 100 feet of standoff and a 12% reduction for the next 100 feet. Distance from shore has an important effect on the amount of wake energy that reaches the shoreline. The significance of waves coming ashore depends on the nature of the shoreline. Those shorelines that routinely experience wind-driven waves are clearly more tolerant of wakes from all types of boating activity. By comparing boat-wave energy with the energy of wind waves associated with various combinations of wind speed and fetch distance, equivalent recurrence intervals can be determined, i.e. the frequency of wake events that would equal a specified wind condition. Because wind waves are persistent, in many settings they represent a more significant source of shoreline impact than boat wakes. 26 Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA). The findings and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of WSIA. Nautique Boats provided the G-23 test boat and a driver for all the testing. The shallow-water test venue in South Lake Conway was provided by Robert Harrel. The deep-water test venue in Big Lake Conway was provided by David DeArmas. The authors wish to thank Larry Meddock, the Executive Director of WSIA and Kevin Michael, Assistant Director of WSIA, whose logistic support and field-test assistance was essential to the success of this study. 27 References U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual 1110-2- 1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (in 6 volumes). http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/cem Dorava, J.M. & G.W. Moore. 1997. Effects of Boatwakes on Streambank Erosion Kenai River, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 97-4105. http://ak.water.usgs.gov/Publications/Abstracts/1997.Abstracts/boatwake_abs.htm Asplund, T.R. 2000. The Effects of Motorized Watercraft on Aquatic Ecosystems, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Publication SS-948-00. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ShorelandZoning/documents/201301041052.pdf NRC. 2007. Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11764/mitigating-shore-erosion-along-sheltered-coasts Klein, R. 2007. The Effects Of Marinas & Boating Activity Upon Tidal Waterways, http://www.ceds.org/pdfdocs/Marinas.pdf Macfarlane, G.J., G. Cox, J. Bradbury, 2008. Bank erosion from small craft wave wake in sheltered waterways, International Journal of Small Craft Technology, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 150, Part B2, pp. 33-48. http://www.swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au/docs/technical-reports/stage-1-report-investigation-into- the-effect-of-wash-of-boats-and-wind-waves-on-the-swan-river.pdf Watterson, E. 2012. Impact of Wake on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study, SMEC Australia project #3001906 for Tweed Shire Council. http://www.riverfoundation.org.au/admin/multipart_forms/mpf__resource_44_1___Ref- 21_Tweed_Wake_Investigation.pdf Fonseca, M.S. & Malhotra, A. 2012. Boat wakes and their influence on erosion in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS # 143. 24p. http://aquaticcommons.org/14939/ Macfarlane, G.J. 2012. Marine Vessel Wave Wake: Focus on Vessel Operations within Sheltered Waterways. 2012. PhD thesis, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania. http://eprints.utas.edu.au/14774/ WC Glamore, W.C. 2008. A Decision Support Tool for Assessing the Impact of Boat Wake Waves on Inland Waterways, Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering. www.pianc.org/downloads/dwa/Wglamore_DPWApaper.pdf Gourlay, T. 2010. Full-scale Boat Wake and Wind Wave Trials on the Swan River. Final Report prepared for Swan River Trust. http://www.swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au/docs/technical- reports/stage-2-report-full-scale-boat-wake-and-wind-wave-trials.pdf Zabawa, C. & C. Ostrom. 1980. Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne Arundel County, MD, Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration, MD Dept. of Natural Resources, Annapolis. http://boatwakes.homestead.com/files/zabawa7-8.pdf 28 VDOT. 2002. Drainage Manual, Chap. 13 Shore Protection, App. 13B-1,Virginia Dept. of Trans. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/DrainageManual/drain-manual-chapter- 13.pdf Brodtkorb, P.A., et al. 2000. "WAFO - a Matlab toolbox for analysis of random waves and loads", Proc. 10th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf., Seattle, USA, Vol. III, pp. 343-350. http://www.maths.lth.se/matstat/wafo. From:Kathleen Donahue To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Wakeboard Ban on Phillips Lake Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:26:58 PM To M. Smith My name is Kathleen Donahue. I am a Phillips Lake Property owner. I compose this email to address my vote to ban wakeboards on Phillips Lake. Please make it happen. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone From:Keely Meyers To:McKenzie Smith Subject:: Written Comment for the 5/26/26 Public Hearing – Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:56:39 AM Dear Mason County Commissioners, I am a Phillips Lake property owner and a wake boat user, and I’m asking the board to vote no on the proposed ordinance. Shoreline erosion is a real issue - but wake boats are not the only cause, and this ordinance treats them as if they are. Unmaintained bulkheads, aging retaining walls that reflect wave energy back into the water, cleared vegetation, poorly maintained docks, and seasonal water level changes all contribute to the health of our lakes. This is a complex, multi-factor problem. If this board is serious about protecting these lakes, all of these contributing factors deserve the same scrutiny - not just the most visible one. An ordinance that ignores these realities while banning one type of recreational boat is not a comprehensive solution - it’s an incomplete one that shifts blame without addressing all of the issues or contributing factors. What is being proposed here identifies a convenient target, draws a line, and calls it done - while some underlying causes of shoreline degradation remain completely unaddressed. Lakefront property owners have made significant investments with the reasonable expectation that they can enjoy their property freely and lawfully. We deserve a process that takes that seriously, not a blanket restriction that treats one group of residents as the sole source of a problem that belongs to all of us. I ask the board to pursue a solution that takes the full picture into account - one that protects our lakes without stripping the rights of any one group of residents. What brought us to Phillips Lake in Mason County was an opportunity to own lakefront property to recreate safely on, as well as a sense of community. A ban like this doesn’t protect that - it fractures it, setting neighbors against neighbors and turning a shared resource into a source of conflict. Respectfully, Keely Meyers Sent from my iPad From:gsteinman@wavecable.com To:McKenzie Smith Cc:Merrisue/Gary Steinman Subject:Wakeboard Boats Date:Sunday, May 24, 2026 12:31:58 PM Thank you for all of your comments and view points. I will share my thoughts and experiences with waves, lake levels, watercraft and shoreline development. Some of this is anecdotal. Bought my waterfront property on Mason Lake in 1977 in Little Hoquiam Cove. Property is low bank facing SSW. I have mostly a gravel shore with some curved block protection for my native Cedar trees (necessitated by human caused blockage of the 5 finger outlet 20 years ago). I have natural vegetation. I have a 20 ‘ wakeboard boat that can convert to water ski, wakeboard or wake surf via computer controls. My boat is tied up parallel to my dock using bumper guards. It is safe and waves do not endanger it. My children use the wakeboard out in the center of the lake and are very mindful of lake rules and interactions with the lake shore and other water activity. Most wake surfers prefer to have the deep surfing wave on the left side so the bigger wave is going towards the large portion of the lake as lake rules dictate driving counterclockwise. The very small minority surf on the right “Goofy” side where the deeper wave moves towards the immediate shore. These are the wave dynamics of wake surfing. Most deeper waves go to the deeper section of the lake where they are intersected by other waves and boats reducing their power. I also grew up on the East side of Lake Washington and my parents lived there for 60 years so I was witness to the expanded use of larger boats, increased wave action, loss of natural shores as every piece of waterfront was built upon and concrete bulkheads were placed. My parents had concrete bulkheads across their 110’. Eventually there was damage to their bulkhead due to the increased usage and different largervessels. My parents’ decision to erect concrete bulkheads actually added to the problem and to worse erosion undermining the concrete. Couldn’t blame the damage strictly on the larger boats. The design of a solid barrier and the resulting underwater turbulence contributed to the bulkhead’s breakdown. If it had been left natural slope, they would not have added to the wave problems. There are more variables causing “damage” to our lakeshores than wakeboats. I saw this when Spring had arrived and I saw erosion at the junction of my dock and the shoreline. When all the boats left the lake last Fall, this personal area was fine. During the Fall and Winter when NO boats were on the lake, damage was done due to natural wave action from storms, wind, high water. This was on a natural shoreline. No wake boats caused this. Wind wave action caused it coupled with higher lake levels. Mason Lake has most of the waterfront lots developed now and so many have concrete bulkheads rather than natural shoreline so that wave energy could gradually dissipate on the sloping shore. When waves hit a hard barrier with no gradual release like on natural sloping shores the power in the waves are stopped and forced downward and backward causing more agitation on the lake bottom and erosion. My sources are Wikipedia and their sources as I am not a a physics major. Just an observer. These waves are rebuffed at the cement barrier and their energy is redirected backwards and downwards. I know the reason for bulkheads is to counteract the natural wave action and resulting erosion on natural shores which has always been a problem ever since people bought lakefront. Don’t blame just wake boats. Blame also should be placed on all the solid bulkheads for adding to the continuing wave activity. Blame the increase in usage. Blame boat drivers who don’t follow lake rules.Blame regular boat and party barge drivers who cruise just off docks with their resultant waves coming immediately full force at lakeshores. There’s plenty of blame to assign. Blame variables like weather, lake levels, or whether shoreline is natural or solid barrier. There are lots of activities on the lake that I don’t care for but I know that different people enjoy different activities. I can’t stand the rooster tail boats that collect in front of my house and blast their noise but I know some people think they are beautiful and love the rooster tails. So be it. Some people like to anchor just off my dock and then stand and urinate off their boat. Nature calls. What do you do? They pollute my view. Call the Sheriff? The deputies are overworked and don’t enforce noise ordinances anyway. Remove all hard barriers on the shore? Not feasible. Just had to get this off my chest that wake boats are not the main reason for damage to shorelines and properties. We all need to live together and remember to look at ones-self and try to not impinge on or legislate your neighbors who are trying to enjoy the lake also. Always be careful what you wish for. Sorry this is so long. Merrisue Steinman Been here since 1977 Sent from my iPad From:Merritt Steele To:McKenzie Smith Subject:boating on Lost Lake Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 10:03:49 PM Good day commissioners, My name is Merritt Steele, I am 15 year old, and I would like to share with you my opinion regarding the banning of wake boats in Mason county. First off, I would like to thank you not only for your time, but the work you do for the community, Without you the county would not function properly, I really do appreciate the work you do and so do the rest of Mason county. I have been visiting lost lake since before I can remember, some of my best memories growing up were partaking in watersports behind my friend's boat with my family, that was 8 years ago. My family recently bought property on the lake and have started construction on our house, and last year we bought a wake boat so we too partake in watersports. And now there is talk about banning them. I understand that some people are mad at wake boats, but banning them altogether is a bad idea, instead of banning them, we should enforce the law and record and report the registration number of boats that are not following the law. I also believe that a great solution is only letting wake boats on the water from 12pm-7:30pm, that way fishermen and skiers can have their uninterrupted time on the lake. One final thing I would like to adress is the damage to property caused by wake boats, such as bulkhead damage, dock damage and damage done to other watercraft. If things are built and maintained properly as they should be, no damage will be done, but if you have a 50 year old dock that is not maintained, of course it's going to get damaged, it is your responsibility as an owner to take proper care of your property. Thank you for your time, I hope you have a great rest of your day. Sincerely, Merritt Steele From:Mychael Raya To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Public comment on proposed wake boat ordinance Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 6:23:34 PM Please present this to the Commissioners with respect to the proposed wake boat ordinance on for discussion on 5/26. My family owns property on Spencer Lake in Mason County. We are opposed to the proposed wake boat ordinance. From what I can gather, the Commission has not been provided with any scientific studies, evidence, or any other proof that wake boats are causing damage to property at any location or locations within Mason County. It appears that the Commission is relying solely on "complaints" from property owners, very few of which have been published anywhere in order to evaluate the validity of the claim. The Agenda Request Form within the Briefing Packet simply states that the Board "has received complaints regarding wake- enhanced motorboat operation causing property damage to shoreline property." At this time there is nothing in the record to support the claim that this damage is being caused by wake boats. Rather, the Commission would be relying on the word of a few unsubstantiated complaints when considering implementation of a drastic ordinance that impacts many. If the Commission is going to implement rules impacting wake boats, it should be rooted in fact and science rather than mere speculation that harm is being caused. Finally, if any of the Commissioners has any interest in property that would be impacted by this ordinance (e.g. ownership, partial ownership, or family member ownership of a parcel on impacted lakes) this should be disclosed publicly and said member(s) should consider recusing themselves from this matter due to this conflict of interest. Thank you, Mychael Raya From:Paul Donahue To:McKenzie Smith Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Ban on wake/surf at Phillips Lake Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:21:42 PM I support banning wake/surf on Phillips Lake. I can't allow my grandkids to wade in shallow water because of the enormous wakes. Our little lake is just too small. Sent from my iPhone For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later. Get Adobe Reader Now! From:Rodger Scott To:McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; Pat Tarzwell; Sharon Trask Subject:Strong Support for the Proposed Wake Boat Ban on Mason County Lakes Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 8:25:22 PM Dear Mason County Commissioners, My name is Rodger Scott and I have owned a home on lake Wooten, in Mason County, Washington for over 40 years. I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed ordinance banning wake-enhanced boats (wake boats) on smaller lakes in our county, allowing them only on larger lakes like Lake Cushman and Mason Lake that can better accommodate their impacts. As a lakeside property owner, I have personally experienced the destructive effects of these boats. The large, powerful waves generated by wake boats have repeatedly damaged our dock, bulkhead, and shoreline frontage. What used to be a peaceful, stable waterfront has become a constant source of erosion, structural stress on our docks and bulkheads and costly repairs due to the amplified wakes these vessels produce. On smaller lakes like ours, there simply isn’t enough space or depth for the wakes to dissipate safely before they reach the shore. This issue goes beyond individual properties. Wake boats create waves significantly larger than traditional boats—often 3-12 times greater—leading to shoreline erosion, damage to docks and bulkheads, disruption of aquatic habitats, and safety risks for swimmers, kayakers, paddleboarders, and other boaters. Our lake used to be a place where children, grandchildren, and now our great grandchildren could safely learn to swim and play. I fear this will no longer be the case. Our property was always admired by fellow residents and visitors on the lake for the beautiful lily pads. We had the only patch on the lake. Over the last 4 plus years they have been getting less and less and I believe they are being destroyed by the strong waves. I appreciate that the proposed ordinance recognizes these differences by restricting wake-enhanced operations to lakes with sufficient size and depth. This balanced approach protects smaller lakes while allowing the activity where it can be conducted responsibly. I urge you to approve this ban at the public hearing. It is essential for preserving the integrity of our shorelines, protecting property values, and maintaining the enjoyment of our lakes for all residents now and in the future. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important local issue. Rodger Scott Sent from my iPhone From:Ron Rosi To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Wakeboard Ban Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 10:04:19 PM Hello McKenzie: We are currently out of the country and just heard that the Mason County Commissioners are considering a wakeboard ban on small lakes in Mason County. We are residents at Phillips Lake, and we strongly support this ban. Over the past 10 years wakeboarding and now wake surfing has created problems with our shoreline. We have 100 feet of shoreline and half of the property has a rock bulkhead, and the other half is natural. The natural part is undermined about 3 feet and has caused concerns about the stability of natural growth, especially trees. The backfill of the bulkhead is leaching out and causing concerns for the stability of our bulkhead. Both of these conditions are a direct cause of wakeboarding and wake surfing. We strongly support a ban on this activity for Phillips Lake. Sincerely, Ron & Connie Rosi 560 E Phillips Lake Loop Road Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From:Stella Scott To:McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; ptarzwell@masoncounntywa.gov; Sharon Trask Subject:Strong Support for the Proposed Wake Boat Ban on Mason County Lakes Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 8:42:27 PM Dear Mason County Commissioners, My name is Stella Scott and I have owned a home on lake Wooten, in Mason County, Washington for over 40 years. I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed ordinance banning wake- enhanced boats (wake boats) on smaller lakes like ours in Mason County. I have witnessed the large, destructive waves cause damage to our bulkhead, dock, beach front and the lily pads that we have always admired being nearby our shoreline. Our lake used to be a place where our children, grandchildren, and now our great grandchildren could safely swim and play. The waves come crashing in with so much force and so often now, that it has caused many of our younger family members to be fearful and not enjoy being in the lake that we have always loved to share with so many of our family and friends over the years. Our lake is not big enough or deep enough to accommodate that type of boat recreation. I urge you to approve this ban at the public hearing. I appreciate my concerns being heard and knowing that you support preserving the integrity of our shorelines, protecting our property values, and maintaining the enjoyment of our lakes for all residents now and in the future. Thank you for your listening ear and attention to my concerns. Stella Scott Sent from my iPhone From:trevor manley To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Wake Surfing - Phillips Lake Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 1:18:43 PM To: Mason County Commissioners I have a family cabin at 400 E Phillips Lake Loop road and I’m writing in support of the proposed wake surfing boat ban. Our lake is entirely too small for those type of boats. There are many problems that they cause, including damage to docks, shoreline, water quality and overall health of the lake, but the one that I hope you consider is the danger to small children who are swimming or playing in the water. Small children get picked up by the large crashing waves and slammed on the ground or worse against a bulkhead or dock. My kids have been slammed into the ground and pinned against the bulkhead on multiple occasions. This was pretty traumatic for them and it kept them from enjoying the water. The lake is no longer a safe place for kids to learn to swim and splash around. I fear someone’s child will be seriously injured or drowned if we do nothing to stop this. I’ve been made aware of a petition being passed around the lake to keep wake surfing on our lake and I want to let you know that they represent the loud minority who have an investment they wish to protect, and do not represent those of us who have been on this lake for generations. Please for so many reasons but primarily for the health and safety of our children ban these nuisance boats from our lake. Thank you, Trevor Manley Sent from my iPhone From:McKenzie Smith To:Pat Tarzwell; Randy Neatherlin; Sharon Trask Cc:Travis Adams; McKenzie Smith Subject:FW: Fwd: Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 8:03:00 AM Attachments:cc1b6b66-a76a-4f38-b300-97a4501542e4.mp4 image001.png Good morning, Please find a public comment submitted for the May 26, 2026 public hearing. *Please do not reply all to this email. Sincerely, Cami Olson Public Records Coordinator Mason County Support Services (360) 427-9670 ext. 529 | colson@masoncountywa.gov http://www.masoncountywa.gov **Please note: Mason County complies with the Public Records Act Chapter 42.56 RCW. As such, any e- mail sent to and/or from the County may be subject to public disclosure. From: greg maneman < Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:55 PM To: McKenzie Smith <MSmith@masoncountywa.gov>; Pat Tarzwell <PTarzwell@masoncountywa.gov>; Sharon Trask <STrask@masoncountywa.gov>; Randy Neatherlin <RandyN@masoncountywa.gov> Subject: Fwd: Dear Commissioners, I was asked by my 75 year old neighbor to share this video taken of her property on Lost Lake. This was from just 1 Wake Boat that created this wave. As you can see the wall of water slamming against her bulk head wall, and the trashing of her dock. Her wall collapsed 3 years ago due to the waves from people surfing behind a wake boat full of water and people She has had to spend money to get her dock fixed. She can not go and sit on her dock when these wake boats are on the water.She has signed a petition in support of the proposed Ordinance. Greg Maneman ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: greg maneman < Date: Mon, May 25, 2026, 12:18 PM Subject:"Wake Boat Ordinance" To: < From:Lucinda Wiita To:McKenzie Smith Subject:Wakeboard vote Date:Thursday, June 4, 2026 10:58:57 AM Hello We live on Spencer Lake in Shelton. We understand their is a hearing and vote concerning wakeboard boats on lakes. We struggle with wakeboards on our lake. They damage our dock ( had to have repair team out) and damage the shoreline with the enormous waves they put out. Our lake is small. When just one wakeboard is out, it ruins it for other boaters and fisherman. Not to mention the loud music they put out. We would be so delighted to know they have been excluded from small lakes such as ours. Ruins property, the lake shore and the overall lake experience. Thank you for considering our perspective, Dave and Lucinda Wiita Thoughts on the Proposed Wave Surfing Ordinance After submitting written thoughts regarding the ordinance and attending the first public hearing I felt compelled to offer some follow-up: Congratulations First let me commend you for your running of the public hearing. Your willingness to hear all sides of the issue, alternating opposing testimony, and protecting your staff was wonderful. Individual vs. Societal Rights Tough issue, and you are right to recognize you are trying to balance individual rights with society’s rights. Never easy. I would encourage you to go back and consider how the County came to terms with that balance when it created non-motor lakes. Enforcement With respect to the enforcement issue, it is important to remember we have lots of laws that are hard to enforce but we don’t avoid making them. The laws illustrate issues that society is concerned about and hope that members of the public will follow with or without intense enforcement. An example might be alcohol limits for driving. Hard to enforce in every case but a believe that society is safer with the laws in place. Compromise Always one to search for a compromise such as time-of-day use, or time of year use but those don’t seem to address the environmental and property damage issues. They might help with the public safety issue. Other water bodies for surfing Finally, Mason County has lots of public access to Puget Sound and that body of water would seem to allow wave surfing without the issues found on freshwater lakes. So, it is important to remember that the ordinance would not eliminate the sport but direct it to a more appropriate water body. Thanks again for listening please don’t hesitate to reach out if you would like to discuss further. Edwin Valbert 253-474-6575