Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4833
RESOLUTION NO. 4 8 3 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND KING COUNTY FOR DISTRICT COURT SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has utilized a municipal court created pursuant to Chapter 3.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) to carry out its judicial responsibilities, either as directed by state law or through City ordinance; and WHEREAS, in connection with the ongoing and changing judicial responsibilities with which the City is involved, the City Council has explored alternative approaches to address efficiencies; and WHEREAS, after a thorough review of the alternatives and options available to the City and in light of the proposal that the City of Auburn received from the King County District Court system, it is advantageous for the City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with King County for district court services. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. The Mayor and the Auburn City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an Agreement between the City of Auburn and King County for district court services in substantial conformity with the Interlocal Resolution No. 4833 July 2, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Seation.2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. Dated and Signed this day Pr-TER B. LEWIS, MAYOR ATTEST Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPR D FORM: Daniel B. Flei City ttorne Resolution No. 4833 July 2, 2012 Page 2 of 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF DISTRICT COURT SERVICES BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF AUBURN THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT("Agreement") FOR PROVISION OF DISTRICT COURT SERVICES BETWEEN KING COUNTY("County") AND THE CITY OF AUBURN ("City")is entered on this 1" day of November,2012. Collectively,the County and the City are referred to as the"Parties." "Cities"refers to all Cities that have signed an Agreement for District Court Services to begin January 1, 2007 or later. Whereas,the Parties support the District Court's mission statement that recognizes the value of working together to provide an accessible forum for the fair,efficient,and understandable resolution of civil and criminal cases and maintaining an atmosphere of respect for the dignity of individuals; and, Whereas,the County values the City as a customer and intends to provide a predictable level and quality of service; and, Whereas, it is the intent of the Parties to establish mechanisms within this Agreement to ensure court service, case processing and court operations are delivered as consistently as possible within each court and across the District Court system; and, Whereas,the Parties have established within this long term Agreement a process under which District Court services, facilities, and costs can be mutually reviewed; and, Whereas, consistent with Recommendation#8 of the 2005 District Court Operational Master Plan,the County will continue to support a unified, Countywide District Court, utilizing existing facilities,to provide for a more equitable and cost effective system of justice for the citizens of King County Pursuant to the 2005 District Court Operational Master Plan,the County will: A. Ensure Court facilities promote system efficiencies, quality services and access to justi ce, B. Consolidate District Court facilities that exist in the same city, C. Reconsider facilities if there are changes with contracting cities or changes in leases, D. Work with the Cities to develop a facility master plan as it relates to the District Court; and, Whereas,this long term agreement provides sufficient revenue to the County to allow for the continued provision of District Court services and provides the City with a service level commensurate with that revenue; NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the Parties agree as follows: 1 1.0 Term 1.1 This Agreement shall be effective as of November 1,2012 and shall remain in effect for an initial term ending on December 31, 2016. This Agreement shall automatically extend upon the same terms and conditions for a five year term thereafter (commencing January 1, 2017, and expiring on December 31, 2021),unless terminated or alternately extended as provided herein. 1.2 Termination and Notice of Termination. This Agreement is terminable by either parry without cause and in its sole discretion if such party provides written notice to the other party no later than 18 months prior to the expiration of the term then running. For the initial term,notice shall be provided no later than June 30, 2015. For the five year term,notice shall be provided no later than June 30,2020. For each of the two terms,the termination shall be effective at the end of the term then running. 1.3 Extension pending conclusion of negotiations with respect to amending Agreement. The Parties may agree in writing to extend the term of this Agreement upon the same terms and conditions if the Parties are negotiating in good faith for changes to the Agreement. The extension shall be such that termination occurs not less than 18 months after the end of good faith negotiations. The end of good faith negotiations may be declared in writing by either party Following such declaration,there shall be a 30 day period in which either party may provide written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate this Agreement at the end of the extended Agreement term. 2.0 Services; Oversight Committees 2.1 District Court Services Defined. The County and District Court shall provide District Court Services for all City cases filed by the City in King County District Court. District Court Services as used in this Agreement shall mean and include all local court services imposed by state statute,court rule, City ordinance, or other regulations as now existing or as hereafter amended, including but not limited to the services identified in Sections 2.1 through 2.2.7 Nothing in this Agreement shall permit the City to regulate the administration of the court or the selection of particular judges to hear its cases by city ordinance. 2.2 The Parties recognize that GR 29 requires that the ultimate decision making authority regarding the management and administration of the Court rests with the Presiding Judge and/or the Division Presiding Judge, and the Parties recognize that the duties imposed by GR 29 are non-delegable except as provided otherwise in GR 29 The provisions of Sections 2.1 through 2.2.7 of this Agreement are subject to GR 29 and the non-delegable duties and responsibilities of the Presiding Judge and/or the Division Presiding Judge contained therein. 2.2.1 Case Processing and Management The County and District Court shall remain responsible for the filing,processing, adjudication, and penalty 2 enforcement of all City cases filed, or to be filed, by the City in District Court, whether criminal or civil. Such services shall include but not be limited to: issuance of search and arrest wan-ants;the conduct of motions and other evidentiary hearings; pre-trial hearings; discovery matters; notifications and subpoenaing of witnesses and parties prior to a scheduled hearing;providing to the City prosecutor(and contract City prosecutor who has signed the required Department of Licensing confidentiality agreement), complete court calendars,defendants criminal histories ("DCH"),abstracts of driving records("ADW),and other documentation necessary to efficient caseload management prior to a scheduled City court calendar;the conduct of bench and jury trials;pre-sentence investigations; sentencing; post-trial motions;the duties of the courts of limited jurisdiction regarding appeals;and any and all other court functions as they relate to municipal cases filed by the City in District Court. Upon mutual agreement of the City and the District Court,the District Court may provide some or all of the documents and information required under this section to the City by alternative means, such as electronic files. 2.2.2 Changes in Court Processing. Except when determined by the Presiding Judge that a shorter notice period is necessary, the District Court shall provide the City's designated representative(s)of the Court Facility Management Review Committee ("CFMRC")with two months notice by U.S. Mail or e-mail prior to changes in Court processing procedures that directly impact City operations in order to provide the City with adequate time to assess the effect of proposed changes on City operations, unless a shorter timeframe for notice is mutually agreed upon by the Parties through the CFMRC. 2.2.3 Custom_ er Service Standards. The District Court shall provide a means for the public to contact the Court by telephone,including transferring the caller to a particular Court facility if requested,and front counter access to each Court facility during regular business hours,without lengthy wait. The District Court Management Review Committee("DCMRC")shall establish performance measures and standards for telephone and front counter access, including reporting requirements. The District Court shall make reasonable efforts to meet or exceed the standards. In the event the District Court fails to meet the standards,the District Court shall draft an action plan and submit it to the DCMRC for consideration and direction. In order to minimize workload on District Court staff,the City prosecutor and paralegal staff shall continue to have access to the District Court court files in order to most efficiently obtain copies and other necessary information. 2.2.4 Probation Services. The County shall provide probation services unless a City opts to provide its own probation services and notifies the County in writing that it does not wish the County to provide probation services at least six months prior to the effective date of this Agreement or six months 3 prior to January 1 of the year in which probation services shall be discontinued. Notwithstanding this provision,the County may terminate probation services upon not less than six months advance written notice to the City if(a)the County is unable to procure sufficient primary or excess insurance coverage or to adequately self-insure against liability arising from the provision of probation services, and (b)the County ceases to provide probation services throughout King County District Court. 2.2.5 The City may purchase additional court services(such as drug court, mental health court,or relicensing) from the County under mutually agreeable terms. 2.2.6 Regular Court Calendars. 2.2.6.1 Definition of Regular Calendar. A Regular Calendar is defined as a recurring court calendar which requires the attendance of the City prosecutor,public defender,or police officers(hereafter"Regular Calendar'). A City budget for court services assumes a finite number of Regular Calendars. The provisions of Section 2.2.6 regarding Regular Calendars do not apply to other judicial functions and hearings, including but not limited to,jail hearings at the King County Jail in Seattle or at the Regional Justice Center,hearings or trials that cannot be set on the City s Regular Calendar due to time limitations or transport issues,search warrants,infraction hearings where a city attorney is not required to be present,or mitigation hearings. 2:2.6.2 Scheduling of Regular Calendar;. The City's Regular Calendars shall remain scheduled all day Monday througlm Friday in one courtroom and such other days of the week as necessary in a second courtroom (not to exceed 2.5 days-ier.week). Any Regular Calendar that is to occur on a day other than the day or days specified in this subsection shall require the mutual consent of the Parties. However,the City's prior consent shall not be required if a Regular Calendar is moved to the next judicial day following a day on which the Court was closed due to a court holiday 2.2.7 City Judicial Services. Not later than September 30th,the Cities' whose cases are primarily heard at the same District Court facility shall submit in writing to the Chief Presiding Judge a pool of District Court judges who may hear these Cities' Regular Calendars beginning the next calendar year. The pool shall consist of not less than 75%of the judges elected or appointed to the judicial district wherein the facility is located. Within 30 days of an election or notice to Cities of an appointment of a new judge within the judicial district,the Cities shall be entitled to recreate their pool of District Court judges. The recreated pool shall take effect within thirty 'Procedures of this section shall also apply if only one City is using a court facility 4 days of submission of the pool. In the case of an election,the recreated pool shall take effect the next calendar year following the election. Except when the Chief Presiding Judge deems an alternative assignment is necessary,the Chief Presiding Judge shall assign judges from these Cities' pool of judges to hear their Regular Calendars. If no pool of judges is submitted by the Cities at a particular facility,the Chief Presiding Judge may assign any judge of the District Court to hear the Regular Calendars at that facility All other judicial functions and hearings that are not set on the City's Regular Calendars can be heard by any judicial officer of the District Court against whom an affidavit of prejudice has not previously been filed that would prevent the judicial officer from hearing the matter. 2.2.8 Unless provided otherwise in a written agreement between the Parties,the County shall provide all necessary personnel,equipment and facilities to perform the foregoing described District Court Services in a timely manner as required by law and court rule. 2:3 District Court Management Review Committee(DCMRC). 2.3.1 System-wide issues related to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement will be monitored and addressed through a District Court Management Review Committee. The Committee shall consist of the District Court Chief Presiding Judge,the District Court Chief Administrative Officer,any other District Court representatives designated by the District Court Chief Presiding Judge or Chief Administrative Officer, a representative of the King County Executive, and one representative for each city On or before the effective date of this Agreement,the City shall identify in writing to the Chief Presiding Judge the name,phone number, e-mail and postal address of its representative and to whom notice as provided in this Section shall be sent. If the City wishes to change the information provided to the Chief Presiding Judge, it shall notify the Chief Presiding Judge in writing at least seven days prior to the change. The City may send its representative or the representative's designee to the DCMRC meetings. 2.3.2 The DCMRC shall meet at least quarterly unless otherwise agreed and shall make decisions and take actions upon the mutual agreement of the Cities,the County, and the Chief Presiding Judge. Mutual agreement of the Cities is defined as votes representing 65%of total Cities'case filings for the prior calendar year and 65%of all Cities. The County,the Chief Presiding Judge, or the Cities can vote at any time up to 45 days after DCMRC action unless mutual agreement has been reached sooner. The Chief Presiding Judge or his/her designee shall schedule meetings and submit proposed agendas to the representatives. Any representative may suggest additional agenda items. The Chief Presiding Judge or his/her 5 designee shall provide the Committee representatives with written notice of the actions taken by the DCMRC in a timely manner. 2.3.3 The DCMRC shall ensure that a cost and fee reconciliation is completed at least annually and that the fees retained by the County and remitted to the City are adjusted to ensure that the County fully recovers its City Case Costs and that the City retains the remaining Fees, as defined and described in Section 4,below 2.3.4 The DCMRC shall provide recommendations and/or guidelines regarding the implementation of services under this Agreement including,but not limited to, court calendar scheduling,public access(such as phone and counter services), officer overtime,officer availability(such as vacation and training schedules), new technology,facility issues,jail issues,and warrant issues. 2.4 Court Facility Management Review Committees(CFMRC). Facility level issues related to this Agreement shall be addressed by the Court Facility Management Review Committee established for each Facility,taking into consideration guidance from the DCMRC. The CFMRC for each Division/facility shall consist of the judges at that facility,the Division presiding judge,the Division director,the court manager,the applicable City prosecutor/attomey,the applicable City public defender, and such other representatives as the City or the District Court wishes to include. On or before the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall identify in writing to the Division Presiding Judge the name(s),phone number(s), e-mail and postal address(es)where notice of meetings shall be sent. If the City wishes to change the information provided to the Division Presiding Judge, it shall notify the Division Presiding Judge at least seven days prior to the change. The City may send its representative(s)or the representative's designee to the CFMRC meetings. Each CFMRC shall meet monthly unless the Court and the applicable Cities agree to cancel a particular meeting. The members shall agree on meeting dates. The CFMRC shall make decisions and take actions upon the mutual agreement of the representatives. 6 L pa;oajlu apapolaj o;AjgTau; am ut pomas (sat),i1t3 ag;xp!m,ilanpvmad000 )ljq*Iluuls )lunoD am`.uiltoe;genUessl am asolo o;(sat)43 pa;oagu agi o;aOnou ualltjnn santS ilunoD aq;`genbgssl;o C1tO aq; unpin AtltOU3 ymoO ag1 ut panjas sat(sat)43 aql g;titi Bunlnsuoo jags `3I b I £ •soured agl,iq o;paajgu st a;up jalljua uu ssolun uongutuua;3o oonou ag13o alup aq1 uio.g stpuom 81 ;seal pa oq Ilsgs alsp uogm!=al aqZ monemuual 01 pa;ulaj;uouraoAV stgl;o suotstnojd jag;o Sulpsrgou uor;ualmja;3o aogou uaurjm apTnojd ium ,aired jaglta`Z'I'£jo I'I'£uotlaasgnS japun paptnojd oonou s,f4uno3 aq; moj3 sgluom yZ u. p!m luamaaar olamdos oq;o1m ja;ua;ou op pasolo oq o;,14tltOU3 aq1 m panjas (sat)f4jD ag;3o Am pug ilunoo ag13I 'olnpogos uoqu;uauraldun pug `(algeotlddu31)lsmalut du sjaumo `luougluuiuoa letoumg puu sapiltgtsuodsaj Surisgs;soo`saOtnjas asayl;o uo.1eool aql Sut i;puapt 101 pa;tunl;ou st 1nq`sopnlout gotgm luamaajSu a;sjedas u g 1lu3 pooS ut alsnoSau hugs posop aq o;,igltOe;agi ut panjas s04t0 aq;pug dlunoo aq;`saOtnjas paOSldstp am jo3 pasodojd(s)uoprool am M soowas aptnojd,ipuajls 1ou saop IMOD lotilsiQ 31 AItI?OS3;uajagtp g of anom jo fIIIIOe3 Sunsixo uu o;oleoolm o;osoop Arm omsolo r4IIIOu3 u Aq paloedmt CIO F' AIltou3;uajag[p a o;saptnjas 1jnoD;OtAS!(j pa;Oaj a;gaolaj o;,ulllau;am ut panjas (sat)14t3 shoo ApAilmad000:pom pegs)Clunoa agl Z'I'£jo I'I'£suonoosgnS o;irr6nsmd posoio aq o;st 4tp.Ou3 u 3I £'I'£ 1moD;ouls!a am;o spaou Iuuoggjado aq;loom (IIuw=of aiqu oq;ou(£jo `•"4t1lou3 aql Summ. utsm ;o;soo arp uo paseq op Injosn s,,4lllos;ag;paaoxa(Z `.slsu Alales pue q;p3aq osod(I pinom f4i11oe3 oip almodo o;Sumutluoo ;uq;qltl?ou3 palooge aq1 in panjos(sai).C1t0 acp ql!m not;ullnsuoa jape `uot;uutuualap s,,ilunoa ag;uiog;lnsaj Iptgs uonoasgns stgl ►spun saOtnjas lmoo;OplsTa s,(sat)AItD aq;3o uOTWOOIad �tltau3 pa;Oalu aq;ut panjas (sat)i;t3 aq;01001 ou uauuM aptnojd [furls flunoo aup i1tO aujus aq;utuptn+saoinjas unoo;otj;st(j olmolaj pus auilajogS puu`puourpag `;ua}l`uatmg;o sopp mp uMyA 14I1!ou3 ymoo oq1 asolo 11!m 1t 18q;sautuua;ap)[lunoD aq;3I Z'I £ paleOOi sI AtIIOU;ag;gOtgm ut Ap aql Aq;uamowty aq1 aluatuua101 uantS uaoq seq oapou(Z)jo `pa;eoot sI Atpou3 aill gotgm m Alp oq1 ur panjas sar1l3 Ilu mot;;uamaaj&sutulgo It(I)ssapm outlajogS puu`puompa21°1uaX `uaung3o sorip auptM C1tlt0e31moo s alsjado hugs uuno�aqs I £uonoaS 3o suotstnojd aq;o;;nerusmd santltog3 Suulstxa azpn o;spualut pug lmoa loMstQ optvilmroa`pagtuin u of pautunuoo st,ilunoa aU I'I'£ saplliag3 Su11sIx�SQIz. i IT 93pllr393 0'£ District Court services to a different facility A city impacted by a facility closure may choose to relocate to an existing facility or move to a different facility If District Court does not already provide services in the location(s)proposed for the displaced services,the County and the City(ies)served in the Issaquah facility shall negotiate in good faith a separate agreement which includes,but is not limited to, identifying the location of these services, cost sharing responsibilities and financial commitment,ownership interest(if applicable), and implementation schedule. If the County and any of the City(ies) served in the Issaquah facility do not enter into the separate agreement within 24 months from the County's notice of closure provided under this Subsection,either party may provide written notice of termination notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement related to termination. The termination date shall be at least 18 months from the date of the notice of termination unless an earlier date is agreed to by the parties. 3.1.5 Notwithstanding any provisions of Section 3.1,the County may relocate District Court services provided in the Aukeen facility to the Regional Justice Center. 3.1.6 The annual facility charges for the District Court facilities that exist in the cities of Burien, Kent,Redmond, and Shoreline at the commencement of this Agreement, satisfy the financial obligations of the Cities served by these facilities for facility operations and daily maintenance,major maintenance, and other costs necessary to maintain existing faciliti es. This charge does not cover the costs associated with capital improvements as defined in Section 33 and does not entitle the City to any funds or credit toward replacement of the existing facility The annual facility charge will be included as a reimbursable City Case Cost under Exhibit A with the exception that space that is dedicated to the sole use and benefit of either a city,the County, or other tenant; shall be excluded from the total square footage and be the sole financial responsibility of the benefiting party Reimbursement for space dedicated to the sole use of the City shall be based on the financial terms in Exhibit B and included as a City Case Cost under Exhibit A. All other terms and conditions for the City dedicated space shall be covered in a separate lease agreement. Each year,the County will identify in Exhibit A the square footage of dedicated space for each facility Empty or unused space at a facility,previously used as dedicated space for the sole used and use of either the County, the City(ies), or other tenant, shall be excluded from the total square footage. The annual charges for the Burien,Kent, Redmond and Shoreline facilities are calculated in accordance with Exhibit B. 3 17 The annual facility charge for the District Court facility that exists in the city of Issaquah at the commencement of this Agreement, satisfies the financial obligations of the Cities served by that facility for facility 8 operations and daily maintenance,major maintenance, and lease costs. This charge does not cover the costs associated with capital improvements as defined in Section 3.3 and does not entitle the City to any funds or credit toward replacement of the existing facility This charge also does not cover costs for necessary and unanticipated major repairs that are not scheduled under the County's major maintenance program. (Examples of such repairs include, but are not limited to, repairs necessitated by flood, fire or earthquake.) The County and the Cities receiving District Court services in the Issaquah facility agree to negotiate in good faith a separate agreement for a cost sharing plan for these unanticipated major repairs. The annual facility charge will be included as a reimbursable City Case Cost under Exhibit A with the exception that space that is dedicated to the sole use and benefit of either a city,the County, or other tenant, shall be excluded from the total square footage and be the sole financial responsibility of the benefiting party Reimbursement for space dedicated to the sole use of the City shall be based on the financial terms in Exhibit C and included as a City Case Cost under Exhibit A. All other terms and conditions for the City dedicated space shall be covered in a separate lease agreement. Each year, the County will identify in Exhibit A the square footage of dedicated space for each facility Empty or unused space at a facility,previously used as dedicated space for the sole benefit and use of either the County,the City(ies),or other tenant, shall be excluded from the total square footage. The annual charge for the Issaquah is calculated in accordance with Exhibit C. 3.1.8 Cities will pay an annual facilities charge for space used for the Call Center and Payment Center. The charge shall be calculated in accordance with Exhibit B and included as a reimbursable City Case Cost under Exhibit A with the exception that space that is dedicated to the sole use and benefit of the County shall be excluded from the total square footage for this space. 3.2 Bellevue Court Facility 3.2.1 The County and the City of Bellevue agree to work cooperatively to enter into a separate agreement by December 31,2006 to determine the future location for the Bellevue Court Facility The parties agree to negotiate in good faith with regard to such agreement to determine whether it is in the mutual interest of the parties to provide for a different facility under a separate agreement and what the terms of such separate agreement will be. The agreement should include,but is not limited to the following: (i) Identifying a facility location within the city limits of Bellevue (ii) Cost sharing responsibilities and financial commitment (iii) Ownership interest (iv) Allocation of Implementation Responsibilities 9 (v) Implementation schedule (vi) Operational terms including but not limited to: o Technological compatibility with Bellevue's technological systems and components to ensure efficient and effective provision of services • Space for the Bellevue Probation Department o Depending on location of facility, space for City of Bellevue Prosecution staff • Holding cells at facility 3.2.2 The County agrees to conduct a Bellevue Court Site Analysis as part of the District Court Facilities Master Plan. The County will work cooperatively with the City of Bellevue on the Court Site Analysis which will include a market analysis in search of appropriate future locations for the court and identification of facility options and costs. The County and the City of Bellevue agree to work cooperatively to enter into a memorandum of understanding for sharing initial planning costs. On or before July 1, 2006,the County and the City of Bellevue will enter into negotiations for a separate agreement,with the intent to have the agreement approved by December 31,2006. 3.2.3 If a satisfactory agreement is not reached by June 30,2007,either the County or the city of Bellevue may terminate this Agreement no earlier than December 31, 2008. Notice of such termination must be provided no later than 18 months prior to the termination date. 3.2.4 The District Court will continue to operate at Surrey Downs under the terms of a separate lease agreement between the County and Bellevue until a different District Court facility is operational in the city of Bellevue or December 31,2008, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise mutually agreed by the County and the city of Bellevue 3.3 Capital improvement projects are those projects identified in the approved District Court Facilities Master Plan or Capital Improvement Plan. 3.3.1 Capital improvement projects for space that is dedicated to the sole use and benefit of either the City(ies) or the County shall be funded by the benefiting party In the case of a capital improvement project solely benefiting the City(ies), the County and the City(ies)will accomplish payment through a separate agreement. 3.3.2 Capital improvement projects at a facility for space benefiting all parties served in the facility shall be presented to the affected CFMRC. The Cities' contribution to the costs of the capital improvement projects shall be determined by mutual agreement of the County and the cities served in the affected facility Absent an approved capital cost sharing agreement 10 between the County and the cities served in the affected facility,the Cities are not responsible for capital project costs. 4.0 Revenue; Filing Fees Established; City Payments in Lieu of Filing Fees; Local Court Revenue Defined. 4.1 Filing Fees Established. A filing fee is set for every criminal citation or infraction filed with the District Court. Filing fees will be established each year by the DCMRC pursuant to statutory criteria and this Section. At the commencement of this Agreement,the filing fees shall be as set pursuant to the Existing Agreement. 41.1 Pursuant to RCW 3.62.070 and RCW 39.34 180,the County will retain its portion of Local Court Revenues(as defined below)and additional payments pursuant to Section 4.5, if any, as full and complete payment by the City for services received under this Agreement. 41.2 In entering into this Agreement for District Court Services,the City and County have considered, pursuant to RCW 39.34.180,the anticipated costs of services, anticipated and potential revenues to fund the services, including fines and fees, filing fee recoupment,criminal justice funding and state sales tax funding. 4.2 Compensation for Court Costs. The Parties agree that the County is entitled to sufficient revenue to compensate the County for all City Case Costs incurred during the term of this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, "City Case Costs"means the sum of the costs for the City as determined by the County pursuant to Exhibit A. City Case Costs are calculated based on the Cities caseload(clerical weighted caseload approach),judicial need, and facility costs for the facility used by the City 43 To ensure that the revenue provided to the County is equal to the City Case Costs incurred in each year of the term of this Agreement, the County shall perform an annual reconciliation of the actual City Case Costs in comparison to the Local Court Revenue, as defined in Section 4.9,retained by the County" during that year in accordance with Exhibit A. The County will credit the Cities in the reconciliation for the Cities' share of offsetting revenue received by the County for District Court from the state,the federal government and other sources. Reconciliations shall be performed as set forth below- 4.3 1 Beginning in 2007 and each year thereafter,the County shall perform a reconciliation of its actual reported City Case Costs and the Local Court Revenue retained in the previous year. This reconciliation shall be completed no later than July 31 of each year. The County costs of performing the reconciliations shall be a reimbursable City Case Cost and included as a City Case Cost under Exhibit A. 11 4.3.2 No later than August 1 of the year in which the reconciliation is completed,the County shall send the City a written statement as to the findings of the reconciliation. 4.4 Subject to the adjustments set forth below,the County shall retain a percentage of Local Court Revenue (as defined below) as payment for City court services. The percentage of Local Court Revenue retained by the County shall be the percentage necessary to pay the City Case Costs. This percentage shall be based on the prior year's reconciliation pursuant to Section 4.3.1. The City shall receive any remaining Local Court Revenue. In order to more closely match Local Court Revenue retained by the County with City Case Costs(and thus lessen the amount of any additional payment or refunds pursuant to section 4.5),the DCMRC shall adjust the Cities'percentages retained by the County after July 31 of each year, for the following twelve months, based on the reconciliations of the prior year. The Chief Presiding Judge shall ensure that the County Executive receives notice of the adjustments made by the DCMRC. 4.5 In the event the reconciliation completed pursuant to Section 4.3 shows that the Local Court Revenue retained by the County in the prior year was less than the City Case Costs for that year,the City shall pay the difference to the County within 75 days of receipt of a written invoice from the County In the event the reconciliation completed pursuant to Section 4.3 shows that the Local Court Revenue retained by the County in the prior year was more than the City Case Costs for that year,the County shall pay the difference to the City within 75 days of the County's completion of the reconciliation or, at the City's option provided in writing to the County, credit the City with such amount for the following year or extended term of this Agreement, if any 4.6 The County retention of Local Court Revenue and the process for reconciliation and additional payments/reimbursements is in lieu of direct City payment for filing fees and it is agreed by the City and County to be payment for District Court Services provided by the County to the City under this Agreement, including but not limited to per-case filing fees. 4.7 Assuming the County has been compensated as required by this Section, all Local Court Revenue received after the expiration or termination of this Agreement but for cases filed during the term of this Agreement shall be distributed between the County and the City according to the same percentages that Local Court Revenue were distributed at the time the Agreement expired or terminated unless an extension or an amendment of this Agreement is entered into. 4.8 One-Time Costs for Technology Improvement Projects. 4.8.1 One-Time Costs for Technology Improvement Projects are defined as the costs associated with the development and implementation of technology improvement projects. The District Court shall involve the Cities in its technology planning as described in Exhibit D The Cities shall contribute each year to a reserve(sinking fund)to cover one-time costs for 12 technology improvement projects in excess of$100,000 which are included in the technology plan. This contribution covers the Cities' obligation under this Agreement for supporting one-time costs for technology iinprovement.projects over$100,000. Exhibit D sets forth the amount of the Cities' annual contribution to the reserve for one-time costs for technology improvement projects. Technology improvement projects which in total are less than$100,000 in any year will be included as a reimbursable City Case Cost under Exhibit A. 4.8.2 In addition to other payments required by this Agreement,the Cities shall complete payment of their proportionate share of the total one-time cost to implement the District Court's ECR program as provided in Section 4.8 of the Existing Agreement(effective 111105)). The Cities' share of the one- time cost to implement ECR shall be no more than $56,745 per year for 2007,2008, and 2009 The Cities' share of the one-time cost to implement ECR will be included as a reimbursable City Case Cost under Exhibit A. 4.9 Local Court Revenue Defined. Local Court Revenue includes all fines,filing fees, forfeited bail,penalties,court cost recoupment and parking ticket payments derived from city-filed cases after payment of any and all assessments required by state law thereon. Local Court Revenue includes all revenue defined above received by the court as of opening of business January 1,2007 Local Court Revenue excludes: 1 Payments to a traffic school operated by a City 2. Restitution or reimbursement to a City or crime victim,or other restitution as may be awarded by a judge. 3. Assessments authorized by statute, such as Domestic Violence and Crime Victims,used to fund local programs. 4 Probation revenues. 5 Reimbursement for home detention and home monitoring,public defender,jail costs,on City filed cases. 6. Revenues from City cases filed prior to January 1, 2000. 4.9 1 The City will not start a traffic violations bureau during the term of this Agreement. 4.10 All revenue excluded from"Local Court Revenue"shall be retained by the party to whom they are awarded by the court or who operates or contracts for the program involved, as appropriate. 4.11 Monthly Reporting and Payment to City The County will provide to the City monthly remittance reports and payment to the City from the County for the City's share of Local Court Revenue no later than three business days after the end of the normal business month. On a monthly basis,the County will provide to the City reports listing City cases filed and revenue received for all City cases on which the Local Court Revenue is calculated in a format consistent with the requirements described in Exhibit 13 A. Unless modified by mutual agreement, Exhibit A shall set out the process and content for financial reporting to the City from the County 4.12 Payment of State Assessments. The County will pay on behalf of the City all amounts due and owing the State relating to City cases filed at the District Court out of the gross court revenues received by the District Court on City-filed cases. The County assumes responsibility for making such payments to the State as agent for the City in a timely and accurate basis. As full compensation for providing this service to the City the County shall be entitled to retain any interest earned on these funds prior to payment to the State. 5.0 Dispute Resolution. Any issue may be referred to dispute resolution if it cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Depending on the nature of the issue,there are two different dispute resolution processes,described as follows: 5.0.1 Facility Dispute. Disputes arising out of facility operation and management practices which are not resolved by the CFMRC may be referred by either Party in writing to all representatives of the DCMRC as designated in Section 2.3 1 If the DCMRC is unable to reach mutual agreement within 60 days of referral,then the dispute may be referred by either Party to non-binding mediation. Any and all Cities who refer a dispute regarding the same event to non-binding mediation,will be considered one party and shall participate as one party for the purposes of mediation. The mediator will be selected in the following manner: The City(ies)participating in the mediation shall propose a mediator and the County shall propose a mediator; in the event the mediators are not the same person,the two mediators shall select a third mediator who shall mediate the dispute. Alternately,the City(ies)participating in the mediation and the County may agree to select a mediator through the mediation service mutually acceptable to both parties. The parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by the mediator or mediation service. By mutual agreement,the DCMRC can establish an alternative City(ies)'s share of the mediation costs. 5.0.2 System Disputes. Disputes arising out of District Court system operations or management, or involving the interpretation of this Agreement in a way that could impact the entire system and other Cities with comparable Agreements,may be referred in writing by either Party to all representatives of the DCMRC as designated in Section 2.3.1 If the DCMRC is unable to reach mutual agreement to resolve the dispute agreement within 60 days of referral,then the dispute may be referred by either Party to non-binding mediation,conducted in the manner described in Section 5.0.1 Any and all Cities who refer a dispute regarding the same event to non-binding mediation, will be considered one party and shall participate as one party for the purposes of mediation. The parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by the mediator or 14 the mediation service. By mutual agreement,the DCMRC can establish an alternative City(ies)'s share of the mediation costs. 6.0 Resolution of Disputes Resulting From Specified Events. 6.1 If a dispute arises between the Parties that resulted directly from: (i)changes in state statute or regulation,court rule,City or County ordinance,or exercise of court management authority vested by GR 29 in the Chief Presiding Judge,requiring the County to provide new court services reasonably deemed to substantially impact the cost of providing Court Services, or material reductions or deletions of the Court Services included in this Agreement that occurred for a period of at least six months; or (ii)any decree of a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judgment not appealed from substantially altering the economic terms of this Agreement; or (iii)changes in state statute or regulation,court rule, or City or County ordinance, which substantially alter the revenues retained or received by either the County or the City related to City case filings; Then either Party must first refer its concerns with the changed circumstances under this Section to dispute resolution under Section.5.0.2 and complete the dispute resolution process outlined in that Section. If the dispute is not resolved within 120 days of first referral under Section 5.0.2 or completion of the dispute resolution process outlined in Section 5.0.2,whichever comes first,then either party may serve a notice of intent to terminate this Agreement. Such notice shall be provided in writing to all representatives of the DCMRC as designated in Section 2.3.1 Within 30 days of the date the notice of intent to terminate is served,the chief executive officer(s)of the City(ies),the Chief Presiding Judge, and the County Executive shall meet together at least once in person for the purpose of resolving the dispute. If the dispute is still not resolved, either Party may temunate this Agreement by serving the other Party with a notice of termination pursuant to Section 11.0. The notice of termination may not be served less than 30 days from the date the notice of intent to terminate(pursuant to this Section)was served. The notice of termination shall state the date on which the Agreement shall terminate. The termination date shall be at least 18 months from the date of the notice of termination unless an earlier date is agreed to by the Parties. 7.0 Re-opener. The County and the Cities may agree to enter into re-negotiation of the terms of this Agreement at any time and for any purpose by mutual agreement in writing. The Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during such negotiations. 8.0 Waiver of Binding Arbitration. The Parties waive and release any right to invoke binding arbitration under RCW 3.62.070,RCW 39.34.180 or other applicable law as related to this Agreement, any extension or amendment of this Agreement, or any discussions or negotiations relating thereto. 15 9.0 Indemnification. 9.1 City Ordinances,Rules and Regulations. In executing this Agreement,the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of City ordinances,rules or regulations,policies or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any City ordinance, rule or regulation is at issue,the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City,the County,or both,the City shall satisfy the same,including all chargeable costs and attorney fees. 9.2 Indemnification. 9.2.1 Each Parry to this Agreement shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the other Party, its officers, officials, employees, and agents, while acting within the scope of their employment w such, from any and all costs, claims,judgment, and/or awards of damages, arising out of,or in any way resulting from,the Party's negligent acts or omissions. No Party will be required to indemnify,defend,or save harmless the other Parry if the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages is caused by the sole negligence of the other Party Where such claims, suits,or actions result from concurrent negligence of two or more Parties,the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of each Party's own negligence. Each of the Parties agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claim,demand,and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents. For this purpose,each of the Parties, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives,with respect to each of the other Parties only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW In the event that any of the Parties or combination of the Parties incurs any judgment,award, and/or cost arising therefrom, including attorney fees,to enforce the provisions of this Section, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the responsible Party or combination of the Parties to the extent of that Party'shhose Parties' culpability This indemnification shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 9.22 With respect to any technology provided by the County for use by the City pursuant to this Agreement,the County shall defend the City and the City's officers and directors, agents,and employees, against any claim or legal action brought by a third party arising out of a claim of infringement of U.S.patent,copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, or misappropriation of trade secrets, in connection with the use of the technology by the City so long as the City gives prompt notice of the 16 claim or legal action and the City gives the County information, reasonable assistance, and sole authority to defend or settle any such claim or legal action. The County shall have no liability to defend the City to the extent the alleged claim or legal action is based on: (i) a modification of the technology by the City or others authorized by the City but not by the County; or(ii)use of the technology other than as approved by the County 9.3 Actions Contesting Agreement. Each Party shall appear and defend any action or legal proceeding brought to determine or contest: (i)the validity of this Agreement; or (ii)the legal authority of the City and/or the County to undertake the activities contemplated by this Agreement. If both Parties to this Agreement are not named as parties to the action,the Party named shall give the other Party prompt notice of the action and provide the other an opportunity to intervene. Each Party shall bear any costs and expenses taxed by the court against it; any costs and expenses assessed by a court against both Parties jointly shall be shared equally 10.0 Independent Contractor. Each party to this Agreement is an independent contractor with respect to the subject matter herein.Nothing in this Agreement shall make any employee of the City a County employee for any purpose, including,but not limited to, for withholding of taxes, payment of benefits, worker's compensation pursuant to Title 51 RCW, or any other rights or privileges accorded City employees by virtue of their employment. At all times pertinent hereto,employees of the County are acting as County employees and employees of the City are acting as City employees. 11.0 Notice. Unless otherwise provided herein,any notice or other communication given hereunder shall be deemed sufficient, if in writing and delivered personally to the addressee,or sent by certified or registered mail,return receipt requested, addressed as follows,or to such other address as may be designated by the addressee by written notice to the other party- To the County- King County Executive;701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3210, Seattle, Washington 98104 To the City- Director of Human Resources and Risk Management, 25 West Main St,Auburn, WA 98001 In addition to the requirements for notice described above, a copy of any notice or other communication may be provided to the Chief Presiding Judge of the District Court. 17 12.0 Partial Invalidity Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law Any provision of this Agreement which shall prove to be invalid,unenforceable,void,or illegal shall in no way affect,impair, or invalidate any other provisions hereof, and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.Notwithstanding the foregoing,this Agreement shall be subject to re-negotiation as provided in Section 7.0. 13.0 Assignability. The rights, duties and obligations of a party to this Agreement may not be assigned to any third party without the prior written consent of the other Parties, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 14.0 Captions. The section and paragraph captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 15.0 Force Majeure. The term"force majeure"shall include,without limitation by the following enumeration, acts of Nature, acts of civil or military authorities, fire,terrorism, accidents, shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, lockouts, strikes,and any other labor, civil or public disturbance,inability to procure required constriction supplies and materials,delays in environmental review,permitting,or other environmental requirement or work, delays as a result of legal or administrative challenges brought by parties other than signatories to this agreement,delays in acquisition of necessary property or interests in property, including the exercise of eminent domain, or any other delay resulting from any cause beyond a party's reasonable control, causing the inability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. If the County is rendered unable, wholly or in part,by a force majeure,to perform or comply with any obligation or condition of this Agreement then,upon giving notice and reasonably full particulars to the City, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the extent reasonably necessary to allow for performance and compliance and restore normal operations. For purposes of this Agreement, "force majeure"shall not include reductions or modifications in District Court Services caused by or attributable to reductions or modifications to the budget of the King County District Court as adopted or amended by the Metropolitan King County Council. 16.0 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, inclusive of the Exhibits hereto,contains the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all 18 prior oral or written understandings, agreements,promises or other undertakings between the Parties. 17.0 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws and court rules of the State of Washington in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. In the event any party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to ensure any right or obligation under this Agreement,the Parties hereto agree that such action or proceedings shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in King County, Washington. 18.0 No Third Party Rights. Except as expressly provided herein,nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to permit anyone other than the Parties hereto and their successors and assigns to rely upon the covenants and agreements herein contained nor to give any such third party a cause of action(as a third-party beneficiary or otherwise) on account of any nonperformance hereunder. 19.0 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts,and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original instrument. All such counterparts together will constitute one and the same Agreement. 20.0 Amendment or Waiver. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by written instrument approved by resolution or ordinance duly adopted by the City and the County;provided that changes herein which are technical in nature and consistent with the intent of the Agreement may be approved on behalf of the City by its chief executive officer and on behalf of the County by the County Executive.No course of dealing between the parties or any delay in exercising any rights hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any rights of any Party IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated. King County City of A 7�� King County Executive Ti e: Mayor Date: 2. Date: 9146,1 ' 2� 19 Approved as to Form: Appro to g County uty osecuting Attorney rney 20 EXMBR AAND ALL ATTACHMENTS ESTIMATED EXAMPLE SUMMARY TO ATTACHMENTS A THROUGH J T}` Amacthnent Item CNy Case Costs2011 Chy Case Coa1s2010 Beaux PJ" rtf110DWDA 2011 Di$Tq Court Proyrlm ButlgM 72011 men A saw"am Bona515 less Prabaw 4,639,951 3,365,789 Btllevle 55%,85% 50%M%vN Nm acley mstsMan-CX aye W 720110,8,100%! B wits less Txommon 545373 510,289 Bvlen O% C Lu,ont EapansO OrMrOad 31.422 24WI Ca"avn 10016101% Ddsniq Cam Faa00es Odd atrt ar14 D Rent 271,291 M.IgIS t00W0% E Sdcudty Coats Pdr Fatty $25,128 475.187 buvaa IC096( :4 FaO6licsSona4Y lasasBan Division Kesrmore 1COWD% Facorbes-Call Ceoted aymen! F CeMttF Proces"wit 21,486 16,441 Rewdrld 80%I20% G Recurs ion Cosh 401 500 Sammams, 1001MO% OtwTme El H,Cant Rer4ads H Tedvtology Costs Wsed on Useful Lde ShoreSne t00W O% One-Tme CamrorTe ogy I ImyaiMneM RUbOs n.477 6+614 5 Oman tODWO% TOTALCRYCASECOSTSIN2011 6,115,Sm 4742.596 Woodi,v,6e TOTAL CRY REVENUE IN 2011 5 7,356,587 S 6.600,070 Pmemage of Total City Case Costs as Total Chy Revenue 2011 63.36%. 71.%% City Dedicated Closes J TOTr od Gyspxe TOTAL CRY COSTS wr DEDICATED 6,115,516 4,742.596 MetMdologylD06nhbnsMO[cs: 1.Distliat Cam Pmgra .Budget A budget mat Is seated by Ore Court to porton out salaries arld bdne by sped8coovt programs 2.Based oe ma District Coat Pmgmm Budget(Alta of ,A).40nlmtl o represent a percentage of Duna Court Pmgmm Budget Costs�2583% 4.11e OhmcWatProgram Euilet vAispempm �nnnually asottl Inaper Pr) Budget311earoaa iss 4.Tim'CitYCicrrefarrtroe MExhibit, is Outtdly t e cl ty,District Court siof AdocI eritsA dro C«laatt uses(zee A30tlY,e,t A). 5.Tte'Ciy Ceao CesWor oc Year,uMalat¢a by me Lamy,iseOrmltothe sumof, odd ,8colea J. 6.TMaccme6 mr,refem10 mlude0 tn�sio su maybe moSrt�edcmeadwdt Me miles refererKtd MR4n Ole de«nM+O iMhpe any tulle 5u«.ss««nwaflM MCM adopted OY 810 CCUmy. DlRerenceof T4b1 City County Total City City Rmenue City COStand City Remillweeto RelmOUraement Chy City Po,bn Of Case Costs City DMIoa1N Cos" Total CRY C y Revenue POIdl Revrnue Pall County 2010 to CRy 2010 Beams Arts 5. .. . - _— 0 _ - _ 0 0 043 SO.a3 ArAum --- 5 1 533:52 153.3,752 Beleyae 6 1 37.7e8` ._ - 1,737.748 - 3.535494--` " 2345.416 (507.667) 5507,667 &lien S 386.113 386,113 352.143 2648Tr 1212% 51212IJ Cameo, 5 41,475 41,475 34,4% 34,4% 8,979 $693 Covington 5 257,053 257.053 154065 156.065 1 @,968 5102,988 Duval 5 6$.062 - 65.062 80,814 60,814 4248 54246 Kercn«O a 2a9,S0a - 249,504 219,078 219.078 30.425 530428 Rednend 5 885908 888,908 2,194.511 1,791243 490x3351 5904335 Sam al, S 16x,741 186,741 113,057 113,057 51,684 $51,684 Sn es S 739,548 739,968 598,S3 595873- 141095 $141,095 Sky60mish S - 0 0 YJooRxmTe 5 53212 J 53,212 73,757 .73.757 in ) 520544 Tomb. 56,115536 _-319 55115,536 37,336,567 35,555675 3871.491 5"53656 S1g32.54T Es tad Example of Cerltract Ree4r1CW5ort 3311 eith AolU nserted.tls(Tab Summary) 1 711221112l?6AM ATTACHMENT"A" -TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT Ktng County District Court 2011 District Court Program Budget Salaries and Benefits less Probation OPJ/ Central Prob Prob Salary/Benefit Judges' Clerks* LT' CM' Admin Aides' Mgmt PO Is Support Total Expenditure %to subtotal County-State Criminal 9.13 17.51 0.41 2.32 6.66 054 3656 3,668,183 20.42% County-State Infractions 1.73 24.30 0.57 3.21 8.10 0.76 3866 2,952,665 16.43% County-State Civil 3.82 33.38 0.78 4.42 21.29 104 64 73 5 046 098 28.09°/6 City Contracts 6.10 32.03 0.75 4.24 11.07 100 5519 4 639 954 25.83% _Re Licensing Court 0.26 3.42 0.08 0.45 1.14 0.11 545 418,115 2.33% DV Court 1.16 1.84 0.04 0.24 072 0.06 4.07 425,431 2.37% Jail/Felony/Expedited 202 2.72 0.06 0.36 0.85 0.08 610 669,760 3.73°/6 Inquests 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.02 006 0.01 046 53.688 0.30°/6 Parts 0.91 0.02 0.12 0.22 0.03 130 92,505 0.51% Subtotal without Probation 24.40 116.29 2.71 15.38 50.i 1 3.62 212.52 $ 17,966,399 100.00% District Court Program Budget,Salaries and Benefits attributed to Contract Cities. $ 4,639,%4 Multiplier(Percent of Salaries and Benefits for Contract Cities 1 2683% County Probation 7.46 0.17 0.99 3.68 0.23 1.24 6.81 3.87 2445 2,019,317 City Probation 4.07 0.09 0.54 1.91 0.13 058 3.19 1.81 12-32 1,007.123 DV Court Probation 0.68 0.02 0.09 0.40 0.02 0.18 1.00 0.57 296 251,730 Subtotal Probation Costs 12.21 0.29 1.62 5.99 0.38 2.00 1100 6.25 39.73 $ 3,278,170 Probation as Percentage of Total Staff 15.75% Total District Court Costs 24.40 128.50 3.00 1700 56.10 4.00 2.00 11.00 6.25 252-25 $ 21,244 570 110 'Judges included in Central Admin 1100 'Call Center Clerks counted in Central Admin 9.00 'Payment Center Clerks counted in Central Admin 8.00 'CPU Clerks counted in Central Admin 4.00 'CM included in Central Admin for Call Center. Payment Center&CPU 6.25 *Court Clerks counted in Prob Support Attachment A I 2 pE f 6 y F L nn�fi7 � ^ate '�..F�^�S6°..e s •r "�d 3 �If9°�:'Sd "� Y7:� �F Fl:id 4k� �a _ All HI � ��� \ ee� , )h/ ! j | ^ E \ § !!|| { § §§§ !° !"! ! !g; !\\E b Q s! ! !»• J I° art . �4 §#_ ! § gQJ§! /§R©Hall' \ggNI111 MIT M u� ) ATTACHMENT"C" -TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT Current Expense Overhead District Court CX Overhead by Category Less Probation 15.75% 2010 CX Overhead amounts incurred by the CX fund on District Court behalf of District Percentage District Court Under Sheriff Court less Probation Costs Contracts Sheriff contract Allocation %Allocation City Case Costs General Government $ 333,266 84.25% $ 280,776 $ - Personnel Services $ 143,638 84.25% S 121,015 $ 121,015 III. Current Expense Overhead 25.83% S 31,252.96 Bus Pass Subsidy $ 110,041 84.25% $ 92,709 S - Ombudsman $ 1,138 84.25% S 959 $ - Fixed Assets Mgmt $ 779 84.25% $ 656 $ 656 III. Current Expense Overhead 25.83% S 169.50 Countp Mde Mail Service $ 10,204 84.25% $ 8,597 $ - State Auditor $ 9,726 84.25% $ 8,194 $ - Budget Service/Strategic Planning $ 102,895 84.25% $ 86,689 S - Building Occupancy $ 255,544 100% $ 255,544 S 255,544 IV Facilities Operating&Rent Attachment D Records Management $ 20,781 84.25% $ 17,508 $ - PAO $ 76,615 84.25% $ 64,548 $ - Overhead to District Court $ 1,064,627 $ 377,215 S 31 422 Methodology/Definitions/Notes: 1 City Case Cost is the amount incurred by the Current Expense fund on behalf of District Court for personnel services and fixed asset management multiplied by the Multiplier from Attachment A Attachment C 4 ATTACHMENT"D"-TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT District Court Facilities-Operating and Rent Year 2011 Average of Clerical Need Percent and the Dedicated Total facility Judicial Need So Footage CountvrOther Dedicated Total square operating and Percent by City Case Facility thi facility Space City Space Shared Space foot charge rent costs Facility: Costs Bellevue - - _ 71% - Buhm 11.683 757 10,826 $ 23.T, 257,363 10% 26,904 Issaquah 15,017 2,961 12.056 $ 30 13 363.247 8% 27,568 Redmond 11,656 1,020 10.636 $ 2377 252,846 29% 72,375 Shoreline 11,523 653 10.8.70 S 258,409 49% 126.135 100% Renton 9.492 981 8.511 S 2377 202.329 9% 18.308 Total 59,271 6,372 52,899 1,334,196 271,291 Calculation of Muhipi by Facili : Clerical Need percentage Judicial Need Percentage A B C=B/A D E F=EID G=(C-li Avenge of Clerical Need Percent of Percent of Percent and the Total Clerical Total Clerical Need Total Judicial Total Contract Judicial Need Judicial Need Need per Contract City for Contract Need per City Judicial for Contract Percent by Facility Clerical Need Cities Facility Need Cities Facility Bellevue 14.00 10.87 78% 2.60 1.65 63% 71% Buden 20.00 2.30 1256 4.00 0.38 9% 10% Issaquah 10.00 0.83 B% 200 0.14 7% 8% Redmond 2175 6.24 29% 3.40 0.97 29% 29% Shoreline 12.00 5.22 43% 2.40 1.30 5 %% 49% _______/Wburngdy Hai 10.00 9.15 91% 1:50 1` 100% 96% Renton 15.00 150 10% 3.00 024 BY. 9% 6lethodology113ehnitions/Notes: 1 The rate for each year is calculated in the attachmert(tab)-Facility Rates." Changing the year at the top of this sheet will update the facility rate. 2.Refer to Exhibits Band C for the overall methodology Refer to the tab Faclity,Rates for the calculation of the Total Square Foot Charge.The multiplier by faciliy is the average of the percent of clerical need for contract cities in the facility and the percent of judicial need for contract cities in the facility. The GN Case Cost is the product of the muHiprw by facility and;he total facility operating and rent mats by fad lity 3.Figures for dedicated and shared spaces are based on rentable space consistent with SOMA standards. 4.Areas highlighted In yellow will change once the actual rate is delemtined in 2008,according to Exhibits 8 and C. 5. Dedicated city space is detailed in Attachment J and linked to this sheet. 6.The Redmond and Shoreline facilities each have a courtroom that was empty and unused prior to and on the commencement date of the Agreement The usable space for these Coudrggm5 is included in the-Dedicated County/Other Spacer column so that it can be deducted from shared space. At the point either of these courtrooms are activated the associated space will be included in the shared space. All space that becomes empty or unused after the commencement date of the Agreement will be included in the shared space unless provided otherwise in Sections 3.1.6 or 3.1 7 Attachment 0 5 ATTACHMENT"E"-TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBrF Re srC Septemacr 2010 Security Costs per Facility Avm.m of v6ay TohM Saerilf PCtemtaae Sri pp, dm ,( ON G 1e $85kffi oereedaoc CC 3 vcr Fa Jty F.xiiiry Del FaaaiN E culw mlk 193908 11% 136,782 Bear 193,908 10% 20,211 isssmn 193808 8% 14.716 _ ._ Kennard 193.908__ D% 55.505 —_- SXe'eline Rontm 191908 9% 17,546 525.128 T0C1 Security Cons pm Facl0ty Cost pa FTE 9 d FTEs S-w y srroonor ircM1ACS OT s 64,512 1.00 D.P,,YN "t�-h OT s 121.180 1.33 Serge m ir.ItAe1 OT s 8056 0.05 5 193.9011 C cWobm of MWtiplw by Fa ity: Ci Nl Juddal twee A 8 C=WA 0 E F=FA G= C-F Pe .td Pecentd Trial Claicel 70121 Qma Need Te JuSCial Tool Ju A N Avenge d ai N Na NeM Im Car1V4Ct my for Contract NCCE PR Ca0trar4 Gty for COntratt P.,an4 tae Ju C' Facility Clerical Neo6 Cities Facalty JWicial 14e G84s No Percent by Facility 8e6evue 14.00 10.87 18% 260 1.65 63% 11% Been 20.00 230 12% 4.00 0.38 9% 10% k"gLab 10.00 083 8% 2.00 0.14 1% 8% Rad.old 21.15 624 29% 340 0.91 29% M% Sk ft 1200 522 43% 2� 1.30 54% 49% .--— Re 15.00 1.50 iml 3.00 024 8% 9% --- YcMe OgylDCliuBOnsMOMS: 1 Tb0 muaveer M faalay is Ne aere9e d efe FacaV d aaiczl n00C fd mrmaet c'tes i1 an fddiy anti 8ta l+ei0o4 d j4�coma[{dies n"tx5ly.TAO Cty Casa Cm,h Be woo+ of 8e avant nail zalay ad bent"rot Sealy and smmir,8eadi tarw a-e Be mldtpfer by faciry. z Tbo$Nbllrz OFCe w8 cmm sz peFa4ies wM love praiee0 seariy at Bic O"suia Govt MvVa0ian MrtP byte Masbh beg:y�ly h Saglstmr 2010 Tie mma cariv0rsm ae be pmvM n 8s anciaaleo Ont ivessiq tfe rvnbar dMarvxNS aertra:etl a DisV[S Cart rata0iousasvu PlovAe ekl for varatun sick leave.rognM 8arng,aM to miAfnCe wertire,axclapwNCasbr4 raM dc95i pmNM1i(18e IWSe.TM pet4m al8e sage3it llCkrJC4 nCCSa seafiy COAS wY EC Ca9tmnN ty11m 1adl Mnper of matXUN aw 1aeelNS tie postm sgervices FTE mm ilrJae sabry beM4s,ad osvnire. AtLaOanae E 6 ATTACHMENT"F"-TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT Facilities-Call Center/Payment Center/Civil Processing Unit Year 2011 So Footage Total per foot City Case Facility by facility Shared Space Cost Multiplier Costs Call Center 1 2.4591 2,459 1 S 23.77 25.83% 15,097 Civil Processing Unit CPU) 973 S 23.77 0.00% Payment Center 1,041 1,041 $ 23.77 25.83% 6,391 Total Costs 21 488 Methodol ogyfDefinitionslNotes 1. The"total per foot cost"rate for each year is calculated in the attachment"Facility Rates"pursuant to Exhibit B Changing the year at the top of this sheet will update the facility rate 2. CPU completes no city work only county work therefore,multiplier zero. 3. The Payment Center&CPU share a lunchroom and manager offices.These spaces have been split between these units. Attachment F 7 ATTACHMENT "G" - TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT Reconciliation Costs Total Costs for Reconciliation $401 Calculation of Reconciliation Costs Budget Manager/City PSB Budget Staff person name KCDC Director Contracts Analyst Total Hours spent on Reconciliation 0.50 8 1 95 Cost per hour(include Salary and Benefits) S 58.66 S 40.16 S 5032 Total Costs for reconciliation $29 $321 $50 $401 Specific Task done and hours spent on Reconciliation listed below Reconciliation Documents Preparation 600 Review/Analysis Reconciliation Documents 200 Sum of All Hours 800 Method ology/Defin itions/Notes: The amount the County incurs to complete the annual reconciliation as referenced in Section 4.3 Attachment G 8 ATTACHMENT "H" - TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT One-Time Electronic Court Records Technology Costs based on Useful Life Calculation of Electronic Court Records Total Electronic Court Records Costs` 5 1,380,922 Divided by Useful Life 5 years 2005-2009 Total Costs per year $ 276,184 Multiplier 25.83% Final City One-Time Technology Costs - Background Information on Actual Costs for Electronic Court Records By Account Code Detail Software& Licenses 292,483 Contract Services 825,577 Capital 262,862 Total Costs 1,380,922 Methodology/Deli n itions/Notes: 1 Per section 4.8.2 of the contract, 'The Cities' share of the payment to implement ECR shall be no more than $56,745 for each year of this contract or any successor contract, up to a maximum of five years." The five years will be completed in 2009. Attachment H 9 ATTACHMENT"I" -TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT One-Time Costs for Technology Improvement Projects City Contribution Reserve Threshold City Multiplier City Share Beginning Balance Expenditures Interest Earnings Ending Balance Reserve Cap' 2007 100,000 1814% 18,143 0 0 0 18,143 900.000 2008 100,000 18.72% 18,718 18,143 0 121 18,264 918.000 2009 100,000 2102% 21,019 36,982 0 306 37,288 936,360 2010 300,000 20.54% 61,614 58,307 0 335 58,642 955,087 2011 300,000 25.83% 77,477 120,256 0 485 120,740 974,189 2012 300,000 198,218 2013 300,000 2014 300,000 2015 300,000 2016 300,000 2017 300,000 2018 300,000 2019 300,000 2020 300,000 20211 300,000 Methodology/Definitions/Notes 1 This Attachment is developed pursuant to Exhibit D The City Multiplier is calculated in Attachment A. The City Case Cost is the product of the multiplier and the threshold unless adjusted or waived in any year where the reserve is projected to exceed the equivalent of the Cites'share of$900,000 increased by 2%per year beginning in 2008. Attachment I 10 ATTACHMENT "J" -TO THE FINANCIAL EXHIBIT Dedicated City space City cost for j Dedicated City Total square foot dedicated city Space charge space Description Beaux Arts Bellevue Burien Carnation Covington Duvall Kenmore Redmond Sammamish Shoreline Skykomish Woodinville Total Methodology/Deli n itionslNotes 1 Figures for dedicated and shared spaces are based on rentable space consistent with BOMA standards. Attachment J Summary of All City Case Costs This aftachr ent(and!NwFacility City Case Costs and Facility City Case Costs)divide the overall Cily Case Costs as determined in 60h bt A td indhbual cities based on the same merhod amenty used to allocate costs Those costs which are mainly salaries eM benefits and are n facdty based,Attar me,ts A.B.C.F.G.H and I are albraled Oared on each cities percentage Of all Mies nerical weights. Those costs which are fatility based,Attadrnents D aM E are albpted based on lye average of city case Rings percentage and My judicial weighs percentage per fael'ry. The tables Delay describe haw tits method allocates these costs across each city Summary of city Case Carta Total Costs per Slmmary Exhibit A YeMOd for Ali u Non-Facility COSta Faclfity Coses %Clerical N Judlelal Attachment Item C7 Case Costs 2011 Clerical Weigh" Weights 2011 Oisbin Coot Pngram Budget A Satanes and Bene6LS Im Probation 4,639,954 S 4.639,954 Nor. acility mstsM CX overhead B costs less probation 548,373 5 548,373 C Current Erpeme Overhead 31,422 S 31.422 District Court Facilities-Operating and 0 Rent 271,291 S 271,291 E Seeaty Costs per Feel ty 525,126 S 525,128 Facilities-Call Cereer/Paymere F CenMNCivil Processing Unit 21,488 $ 21,488 G Reconciliation Costs 401 401 Oro-Time Elettrraric Coat Records H Technology Costs based on Useful Life - s One Time Costs for Technology I imIameement P 'ens 77,477 s 77 q7 TOTAL CITY CASE COSTS IN 2011: 6,115,5% $ 5.319,117 $ 798,419 TOTAL CITY REVENUE IN 2011 S 7,336,587 City Dedicated Costs J Dedicated Cty space - - TOTAL CITY COSTS w/DEDICATED 6,115.5m Toal City Case city Non-Facility,Costs Facility Costs Dedicated COSts• Costs Total City Revenue Difference Bea=nets S - 5 0 -- 0 S - 3 (0) __-_ S 1.533.752 S - S (1.533.752) Bellevue $ 11. .967 $ 136.782 - S 1737748 S 3,535,494 S 1,797,746 Buren 3 338,938 S 47,174 - $ 386,113 S 352.413 S (33,670) Carnation $ 37181 S 4,294 - S 41.475 S 34.496 $ (6,979) Covington S 221 199 5 35,854 3 257,053 S 154,065 S (102,988) Duvall S 58.454 S 6,608 - $ 65,062 $ 60.814 S (4,248) Kenmore 5 193.99 S 56,405 - S 249.504 5 219.078 S (30426) Redmond $ 777.470 $ 109,438 - $ 886,906 S 2.194,511 3 1,307,603 Sammemish S 122,456 S 42,285 S 164,741 S 113,057 $ (51,684) Shoreline S 575.587 S 164,381 $ 779,968 $ 598,873 $ (141,095) Skykanish S - S - S - S $ Woodinville $ 45,672 $ 7,541 - $ 53212. S 73,757 S 20,544 Total S 5,319,117 S 796,419 S 5 6,116,536 $ 7,336,587 $ 1,221,052 Nolen. See Attach nom J All City Case Costs 1: Nor-Facility City Case Costs Stmtmary TdNCaarper Surmwy Fi to 25.34% mvdtwfor ASOCaWn 295.589 3010% 51.W0.967 7.98,1 N1 FacggyC sts Fankty t:F S 338,938 30.089 0.70% %cIM<al 37,181 179,006 4.16% S Ntt JUalUal Atta.l m4 94111 CxycaseCo54 ml CkrKal yh w welgM 3.63% 2011 Orstttl Prpgram awget 193,099 629,171 14.62% A SSanes arlC Bb1e:651e55 F1a0a!ron 4639.954 5 4639354 S 127456 Nbm.Fad6y a,ca,N %0VCrt A 10.82% 5 55.567 8 msts less pr00atan 548.373 5 548,373 36.960 C Co. m 6s 0reUteaC 31,422 $ 31422 220 S Oisela Cant Facitw Operargane S 3 S 0 Rmt 271,291 5 271291 E Se Icy Costs per FadW Min 5 525,128 894 Facates-Cast Ce uwFayncrc 17 $ 5 3,222 F CanleaCW Paces g Umt 21,488 S 21,488 S G R.60860n Costs 401 401 236 S Oman I1YbaricC ReoalEs S - 5 851 S 58454 H Teovt4bgy Costs p on US L9a 168,443 $ 19,907 5 OroTlnle Costs r.Ted ,bgy 5 780 S I ba�ell>Q9 pIcieva, 77m s Iran Re0.mord 5 TOTAL CrtY CASECOSTS 903011: I Is 531911 : 5 796.419 4,593 TOTAL CITY REVENUE IN wit Is 7336,537 S 59 City OMir m Costs J De8ia4o0 CSy spate - TOTALCTfYCOSTSMOEOICATIM 8.115,538 obi 25.34% 51.348,094 295.589 3010% 51.W0.967 7.98,1 274,287 6.3714 S 338,938 30.089 0.70% 6 37,181 179,006 4.16% S 221199 47,300 110% S 58,454 156,266 3.63% S 193,099 629,171 14.62% S 777.470 99.096 230% S 127456 465,796 10.82% 5 55.567 0 000% 5 Calllatcr 36.960 0.88% 5 45572 N"Fwlty Coy Case Cosh 13 $ 1 175.985 $ 138,982 5 7.98,1 5 5,446 S 102 S - S 19.836 S 1,348094 Beieme 5 1,396,550 5 165,051 S 9.458 $ 6,468 S 121 5 - 5 23.319 $ 1,600,987 Buren $ 295,631 $ 34,943 $ 7002 5 1.339 S 26 S - 5 4,937 5 338,978 Calllatcr s 32434 S 3,833 S 220 S 150 S 3 S 5 542 $ 37181 coela9lan 5 192.055 S 22,804 $ 1307 s 894 S 17 $ 5 3,222 S 221 799 WvaA s 50,990 S 6,028 S 345 $ 236 S 4 S - 5 851 S 58454 KerFnme s 168,443 $ 19,907 5 1.141 5 780 S 15 S - S 2,913 $ 193.099 Re0.mord 5 628,200 S $0.1$1 5 4,593 5 3.141 S 59 $ S 11.324 $ 777,470 Samva9n 5 106,820 S 12.825 $ 723 S 495 $ 9 S 5 1,784 S 127456 StwKne 5 502.094 S 59,34D 5 3,400 5 2.325 $ 43 S - S 8,384 S 575.587 Slryaemish s S S S - S S S S ylu08rNib 5 39,840 S 4.702 S 270 S 185 $ 3 S S 665 S 4 m N"Fwlty Coy Case Cosh 13 ! le�eR�R9wRR§ | }! \9� ^a ` 4g ! | X-dx8 8 t ! ..... .. t � �|l . � gee/8#»989 ! || � w»ar. /�a���a . | § � - 2 El/l ! � ! ■ �, �. ., _ _ � � , , \ ' ! County/Other Dedicated Space Dedicated Sp Footage by County/Other Facility facility Space Description Bellevue - - Burien 11.583 757 County prosecutor occupies two rooms in NW comer of facility. 1070 sf is vacant, previously occupied by County prosecutor 1891 sf for DC Issaquah 15,017 2,961 probation. County prosecutor occupies three rooms off the lobby hallway County public defender, County Prosecutor(state cases),and Marshall occupy Redmond 11.656 1,020 three rooms to the right of the main entrance Shoreline 11.523 653 DC probation occupies several offices off the main lobby halfway 653 Renton 9.492 981 DC probation occupies several offices off the main lobby Total 59,271 6,372 Note: 1 As requested,the County can provide drawings of these facilities to illustrate how spaces are allocated Dedicated County Space 15 King County District Court City Revenue Shared Court Costs Shared Court Costs Year 2010 Yi0 Revenues Year 2011 YTD Revenues Revenue 100% Remitted 100%Revenue Actual Retained Revenue Revenue Actual Retained Revenue under Old Collected Split Co/City by County Remitted to City Collected Split Colcity by County Remitted to City Contract Beaux Arts 40 100%!0% 40 0 0 100%10% 01 0 0 80%20%until 70%6/30%until 82010 then 72011 then Bellevue 3,935.847 70%/30% 2,974,058 961,789 3,535,494 55%/45% 2.245416 129.078 2,513 40%6/60%until 500/150%until 82010 then 72011 then Burien 382,949 500/6/50% 170.125 212,824 352,443 100%10% 264,877 87.566 357 Carnation 31,307100%/00/ 31,307 0 34,496100%/0% 34,496 0 0 Covington 123,297100%d 0% 123,297 0 154,065100%/0% 154.065 0 30 Duvall 74,565100%6/0% 1 74.51151 0 60.814100%610% 60.814 0 504 Kenmore 237,0761000/d 0% 237.0761 0 219,078100%10% 219.078 0 252 Redmond 992,375100%/0% 992,375 0 2,194,511 80%6120% Li91,243 403,268 2,729 Sammamish 113.718 100%/O% 113,718 0 113,057 1000/10% 113.057 D 0 Shoreline 626.022100%10% 626.022 0 598,873100%10% 598.8731 967 Skykomish 0100%/0% 01 0 0100%10% 0 0 0 Woodinville 82,8541000/6/0% 82,854 0 73757100%10% 73.75% 0 359 6.600,070 5,425,457 1.174,613 7,336.587 5.555.675 619,913 7,711 Total City Revenue 6,600,070 - - 7,336,687 "Dollar amount is different from page 1 We have deleted cities which no longer contract with us. Note 1 Contractino Cities changed in 2005&2007 2.Cities that no longer contract with KCDC am not reflected above Revenue 16 2011-KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FILINGS BY CASETYPE PC Jail In'raction Infraction Criminal Criminal Protection Small Expedited Felony Total Jan- Traffc Non-Traffic DUI Traffic Non-Traffic AH/Orders Civil Claims Hearings Hearings Parking Dec JURISDICTION State/County 88,936 6,082 4,804 4,570 2,546 2,029 27,067 5,233 1,220 10,747 2.179 155.413 Vashon Island 98 12 8 2 9 13 142 Total State/County 89,034 6,094 4,812 4,572 2,555 2,029 27,067 5,233 1,220 10,747 2,192 155,555 Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aubum 5.458 74 210 1,577 1,692 36 5,986 15,033 Bellevue 17,804 94 268 1,046 1,108 23.513 43,833 Burien 1,137 8 78 323 649 3.259 5,454 Camation 170 0 12 44 37 1 264 Covington 1,180 9 24 305 226 258 2,002 Duvall 280 0 29 58 51 35 453 Kenmore 1,753 114 61 190 161 212 2,491 Redmond 7,122 101 161 587 574 16.209 24,754 Sammamish 1,000 21 71 97 92 77 1,358 Shoreline 5,402 109 119 526 628 671 7,455 Skykomish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodinville 246 6 19 28 89 93 481 Total Contract Cities 41,552 536 1,052 4,781 5,307 36 0 0 0 0 50,314 103,578 Total KCDC 13006 6,630 5,864 9,353 7,862 2,065 27,067 5,233 1,220 10,747 52,506 259,133 Flings by Case type 17 / ( § /\/ § /\ /� � ' • , , .. .I... ..... ! § , , ..1 . . ... .,,, ,. | || , ( | ■ § �li , . . , ■ ; l . . ! ° , , \ . � � 228lQQ9� � !, , r � ` ° ! : • . . , ; , . ° !, . . § . ((� | , ! { | � - - || ! g �\h�!!�| §#� § I \ I (fill | ƒ . r ' | § M ^ � ) /p| # mom \ wq,G U /{ fill {� | | , � . 2011-IONG CWN p5T16CT COURT�N10Cg ]445 X26 CentnEe4 Cl 625 Carp pak UM Clerks eRn nrfwMlel CaVra6ae4 vnU Total We %02 Cemp9arrn Ceno-afe4 Pre9rams Cykaf5dl Cxrkalsdl Clarlo Cbnu CCUefySate G OUWN7CanDel.M,TgCx d Ni dpp'a 30.30 1161% 639 23.97 (T n a xllVnebnc (ImSCSNaw ,N.tD1 32.97 20.26% 691 26 cju -'-x CiW,Name C Smal i Ct c ^al^w+xs 1276 25.98% 9.90 3338 Cqr Cann Be4ua.w am am% 0.03 am IW. 1379 346% z90 1067 Bnen 2.91 1.79% 0.61 230 WrvSen am Q20% 0.07 025 cp.in9xn 1.90 117% 0.4) 1.50 0.vall 050 0.31% 0.11 0.40 Itme+pm 1.66 1.02% 0.35 1.31 RMnm4 6.68 4.1194 1.41 5.26 a1Wn 11.59 712% 2N 9.15 _-S.mmavnc6 1.05 a65% 022 0.83 51meNme 4.91 10414 to, 391 sgka 0.00 n00% am 0.00 Wop6m+6e am 024% 0.96 0.31 6vlOtM1'lS Gan 0.31 266% 0.91 3.42 DVCwr1(Sda) 233 1.43% 0.49 1.84 JaaM1'eba9l5ape6x4 245 1.50% 0.51 1.93 V. epee I.W a61% 021 an 0ea5f 6grxsu 0.23 0.14% o.03 0.16 p.s ft 1.16 0.71% 024 0.91 Ted inn 1000% 2425 lum T45i F5E6x CNeka155M 16175 SPECIAI7FTrs Carry Cara: 625 prograwcan P.=M krb 1,16 MIS CaS,.Ma p 956 ha 2&06 R..mv CDelol it&R 8 '-. CiRITFU[J Z E 09 ir6-._ _. Can program cNxks Mi pwm CY 9J0 OpJ Call Cary '1 YJ OpJ cpu 600 26.00 aanca Hsa6ep ;c FACILITY RATES Burien, Kent, Redmond, Shoreline,and Support Services Facility Rates Intlation Escalation I otal FaciliI3 FMD RATE Capped Rate multiplier Contract Rate' Rent Rate Charge 2007 12.65 12.65 12.65 1180 2% 24.45 2008 1292 1303 1 030 1292 1204 2% 24.96 2009 1248 13.42 1 061 12.48 12.28 2% 24.76 2010 1035 13.83 1 093 10.35 12.52 2% 22.87 2011 11 00 14.24 1 126 11.00 1277 2% 2377 2012 14.66 1 159 - 1303 2% 13.03 2013 15.10 1194 - 13.29 2% 13.29 2014 1556 1 230 - 13.55 2% 1355 2015 1603 1 267 - 13.83 2% 1383 2016 16.51 1305 - 1410 2% 1410 Footnote Per Exhibit B,the rate each year following 2007 is the lesser amount between the actual rate provided by King County's Facilities Management Division and the capped rate determined by multiplying the 2007 rate by the inflation multiplier. Issaquah Facility Rate Initiation otal Facility FMD RATE Capped Rate multiplier Contract Rate' Lease Charge 2007 12.65 12.65 1265 1700 2965 2008 12.92 1303 1 030 1292 17.51 30.43 2009 12.48 1342 1 061 12.48 1804 30.52 2010 1035 1383 1.093 1035 18.58 2893 2011 11 00 1424 1 126 11 00 1913 30.13 2012 1466 1 159 - 1971 1971 2013 1510 1 194 - 2030 2030 2014 15.56 1 230 - 2091 2091 2015 1603 1 267 - 21 54 21 54 2016 1651 1 305 - 2218 2218 Footnote Per Exhibit C,the rate each year following 2007 is the lesser amount between the actual rate provided by King County's Facilities Management Division and the capped rate determined by multiplying the 2007 rate by the inflation multiplier Facility Rates 21 EXHIBIT B ANNUAL FACILITY CHARGES FOR DISTRICT COURT FACILITIES IN THE CITIES OF BURIEN,KENT,REDMOND,AND SHORELINE This Exhibit is attached to the Interlocal Agreement for the Provision of District Court Services between the County and the City. The terms and conditions described to this Exhibit are a further description of the obligations of the parties regarding the calculation of annual facility charges for existing District Court facilities in the cities of Burien, Kent, Redmond,and Shoreline at commencement of this Agreement. I. Beginning in 2007and continuing through 2016,the annual facility charge is the net rentable square footage in each facility pursuant to Section 3 2 multiplied by the rate per square foot. The rate per square foot is the sum of the rate for Operations and Maintenance(Paragraph #2) and the Rental rate(Paragraph#3) 2 King County's Facilities Management Division determines the cost per square foot for Operations and Maintenance for facilities owned and maintained by the County The Facilities Management Division will provide the rate for Operations and Maintenance for the next calendar year for each applicable District Court facility by September of each year For the purposes of this Agreement,the rate provided will exclude any adjustment for restoring the division's fund balance reserve. For 2007,the rate is$12.65 or the actual rate provided by the Facilities Management Division,whichever is less The rate each year thereafter is the lesser amount between the actual rate provided by the Facilities Management Division and the capped rate determined by multiplying the 2007 rate by the multiplier for the corresponding year shown in the following table 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Multiplier 1.030 1061 1093 1126 1159 1194 1.230 1.267 1305 3 The Rent beginning in 2007 shall be $11.80 per square foot. This rate will be increased by 2%per year for nine years thereafter. 4 Beginning in July 2014 and ending no later than March 31,2015,the Cities and the County shall determine a methodology for an annual facility charge for existing facilities referenced in this exhibit for 2017 and subsequent years. This methodology shall take into account a reasonable fair market value for existing court facilities EXHIBIT C ANNUAL FACILITY CHARGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURT FACILITY IN THE CITY OF ISSAQUAH This Exhibit is attached to the Interlocal Agreement for the Provision of District Court Services between the County and the City The terms and conditions described in this Exhibit are a further description of the obligations of the parties regarding the calculation of the annual facility charge for the existing District Court facility in the city of Issaquah at commencement of this Agreement. 1. Beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2016,the annual facility charge for the existing Issaquah facility is the net square footage pursuant to Section 3.2 multiplied by the rate per square foot. The rate per square foot is the sum of the rate for Operations and Maintenance (Paragraph#2) and the Lease rate (Paragraph#3). 2 King County's Facilities Management Division determines the cost per square foot for Operations and Maintenance for facilities owned and maintained by the County The Facilities Management Division will provide the rate for Operations and Maintenance for the next calendar year for each applicable District Court facility by September of each year. For the purposes of this Agreement, the rate provided will exclude any adjustment for rebuilding the division's fund balance reserve. For 2007, the rate is$12.65 or the actual rate provided by the Facilities Management Division, whichever is less The rate each year thereafter is the lesser amount between the actual rate provided by the Facilities Management Division and the capped rate determined by multiplying the 2007 rate by the multiplier for the corresponding year shown in the following table. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Multiplier 1030 1061 1093 1126 1159 1.194 1.230 1267 1305 3. The Lease rate is based on the County's annual amortized lease cost for the Issaquah facility reduced for the amortized amount of the residual value of the facility and land. Attachment 1 to this Exhibit shows the methodology for this calculation including the final negotiated lease rate(Option C) The final negotiated lease rate, which is shown below, is calculated based on a 3%annual escalation factor and includes major maintenance. 2007 20088 2009 2010 2011 $1700 $1751 $1804 $1858 $1913 2012 2913 2014 2015 2016 $1971 $20.30 $20.91 $21 54 $2218 4. Beginning in July 2014 and ending no later than March 31, 2015, the Cities and the County shall determine a methodology for an annual facility charge for existing facilities referenced in this exhibit for 2017 and subsequent years. For 2017, 2018, and 2019, this methodology shall be consistent with the lease methodology in Attachment I to this Exhibit. For 2020 and thereafter,this methodology shall take into account a reasonable fair market value for existing court facilities. ATTACHMENT I TO EXHIBIT C District Court Issaquah FacifitF. Lease,lfodel Real Discount rate= 5 U"o]his rnmryres m SY0 in nmWord auohaia jnr ti( Hral Fnn/e/ease cs frurcMsr hui4/tugs Land Valuc S908,000 Bvildmg Value 54.992.000 Depreciable Life of Building 50 Bmldmg'.c Square Feet 16,642 Base Year 2000 Number of Years For Analysis 20 Escalating payment beginning m year 2007 Pavvidd escalator rate 3.0% Land Value apprec 4.000/6 Building Value appm 3.000/6 Residual Value On a Markel Value Bases 20 Sam OPTION B- OPTION C Amual OPTION A- No midaal Total OptionBplm Accumulated Net Building Stmdmd Residual No residual A Frolating Redwfi.a majn Year Building Depreciation value land Total Payment Sod Ran, Cd1A Resised Payment note payment from Std mainteance 1 2000 $5,141760 $102,835 $5,038.925 $944,320 $5,983,245 S626196 159,022 9.56 $467 174 $28.07 $28.07 2 2001 55.296,013 $211,841 55,084172 $982.093 56,066,265 5479,490 159.022 9.56 $320468 S19.26 $19.26 3 2002 55,454,893 $327194 $5 127600 $1,021,377 $6,148,976 5481700 159,022 956 $322,678 51939 $1939 4 2003 $5,618,540 5449,483 S5169.057 $1,062,232 $6,231188 5483315 159.022 9.56 5324,293 $19.49 $19,49 5 2004 55,787,096 $578,710 $5,208387 $1104,721 $6,313,107 5479,428 159,022 9.56 5320,406 S19.25 $19.25 6 2005 SS.W,709 5715,285 S5.245,424 $1148.910 $6,394,334 5480,113 159.022 9.56 S321.091 519.29 51929 7 2006 56.739.530 $959,534 55,279,996 51194866 56.474,862 5780.153 $28.85 159.022 956 5321131 519.30 $19.30 8 2007 $6,323,716 $1.011795 $3311,922 $1142661 $6.554,582 5479,653 $28.82 159,022 9.56 $320,631 S19.27 $1656 (S1' $17.00 9 2008 56513,428 SI M417 $5341,011 31,292367 $6,633.378 5483,603 $29.06 159.022 9.56 $324,581 S19.50 517.27 (511 701 $17.51 10 2009 $6.708,531 S1.341,766 $5,367,064 51,344,062 $6.711,126 5481,640 $28.94 159,022 9.56 5322,618 $1939 WAS (S11.26) $18.04 11 2010 S6,910.095 $1,520.221 S5,389874 $1,397,824 56,787,699 5483,958 $29.08 159.022 256 $324.936 $19.53 $18.34 ($10.74) $18.58 12 2011 STI 17,398 51,708,176 S5,409123 51,453,737 56,862,960 $450,158 $28.85 159,022 936 $321,136 $19.30 $18.67 (510 Ie) $19.13 13 2012 S7,330,920 S1.906,039 $5,424,581 $1,511,887 56,936.768 5480,588 $28.88 159,022 9.56 S321,566 $19.32 $19.25 ($462) $19.71 14 2013 57,550,848 52,114137 55,436,610 51,572.362 57,008.973 $479,988 $28.84 159,022 936 5320,966 $19.29 $19.79 (89.05) 520.30 IS 2014 $7.777.373 52,333,212 55,444,161 $1.635157 57,079,418 5483.328 529.04 159.022 956 5324,306 519.49 S20.60 ($g 44) $20.91 16 2015 S8,010,695 $2,563422 $5,447.7/3 $1700.667 57147939 5480,508 $28.87 159.022 9.56 5321,486 $1932 $21.03 ($7,54) 521.54 17 2016 $8151,015 52.805.345 $5,445,670 51,768,694 57,214364 5481,758 $28.95 159.022 9.56 5322736 $1939 S2175 ($7_10) $22.18 Is 2017 $5,498,546 S3,059,477 $5,439,069 $1,839,441 57,278,511 5451,810 528.95 159.022 956 5322788 $19.40 $22.40 (56.55) $22.85 19 2018 $9,753,502 $3326,331 55,427,171 51,913,019 57,340,190 5450,645 $28.88 159.022 956 5321.623 S1933 $22.99 (Sa,891 $23.53 20 2019 S9016107 Si 406441 SS409 M4 $1959,540 S7,199204 $483,460 529.85 159,022 9.56 8324,435 $19.50 $23.89 (51 16) $24.24 Residual Values Building Land Total NPV 54,806,081 51.544026 $3,262,055 1960 196.0 End of20 PV 51128,859 $415,166 $1,344,026 1519 151.9 EXHIBIT D ONE-TIME COSTS FOR TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS This exhibit is attached to the Interlocal Agreement for the Provision of District Court Services between the County and the City. The terms and conditions described in this Exhibit are a further description of the obligations of the parties regarding the one-time costs for technology improvement projects. I. The District Court shall present its five-year technology plan and annual update to the DCMRC beginning in 2007 The technology plan shall be consistent with the Technology Plan Template published by the King County Office of Information and Resource Management. The technology plan shall describe the projected business needs of the District Court, assess the ability of current technology systems to meet these needs, and outline overall technology strategies and potential projects to support the projected business needs of the District Court. The District Court shall present the business case for each proposed technology improvement project. The business case shall identify (1) capital, operations and maintenance costs for each technology improvement project, (2)the benefits to the court system and users,and(3) potential impacts to cities associated with implementing each technology improvement project. The Cities shall have an opportunity to provide input on the five-year technology plan and business cases for proposed technology improvement projects One-time costs for technology improvement projects shall be identified separately from operating and capital costs as part of reconciliation. 2 For 2007,2008, and 2009 only, the amount of Cities' annual contribution to the reserve(sinking fund) for funding their share of the one-time costs for technology improvement projects shall be equivalent to the Cities' share of$100,000. Beginning in 2010,the amount of their annual contribution shall be equivalent to the Cities' share of$300,000 The Cities' share is defined as the multiplier calculated in Attachment A of Exhibit A(percentage of salaries and benefits for contract cities). 3 The Cities' contribution would be adjusted or waived in any year where the reserve is projected to exceed the equivalent of the Cities' share of$900,000 increased by 2% per year beginning in 2008. Annually,the net interest earnings attributable to the balance of funds in the Cities' reserve shall accrue to their reserve 4 Funds from the reserve shall not be used until a business case for the technology improvement project has been presented to the DCMRC and the technology improvement project has been implemented The amount of funds used for any one project shall be based on the Cities' share If the funds in the reserve are not sufficient to cover the Cities' share of an implemented technology improvement project,the contributions of Cities to the reserve fund in subsequent years may be used to cover this shortfall 5. If this Agreement is terminated, the City shall receive its portion of the reserve remaining on January I'following the date of termination. King County 401 Fifth Avenue,Suite 800 Seattle,WA 98104 206-296-9600 Fax 206-296-0194 www.kingcounty.gov February 21, 2017 Nancy Backus, Mayor 25 West Main Street Auburn,WA 98001 Dear Mayor Backus: We are pleased with the long and successful partnership King County District Court and Auburn have enjoyed regarding the provision of court services over the years and look forward to serving your city for the next five years. This letter is being provided to affirm agreement between the parties to the Interlocal Agreement for District Court Services (ILA)regarding the methodology for the Annual Facility Charges for District Court Facilities for the years of 2017-2021. Exhibit B and Exhibit C to the ILA direct the cities and the County to determine the methodology for 2017 and subsequent years. The cities and King County discussed this at the quarterly DCMRC meeting on June 9, 2016 and agreed to continue the inflation rate of 3 percent per year for the capped operations and maintenance charge and 2 percent increase per year for the Rent charge. The 2017-2021 Operations and Maintenance and Rent rates will be.calculated:each year as shown below and in the attached exhibits: FACILITY RATES ' Burien, Issaquah,.Kent, Redmond,Shoreline,and Support Services:Facility Rates Inflation`. Escalation Total Facility FMD RATE Capped Rate multiplier Contract Rate*: Rent` Rate Charge 2017 17.00 1.344 - 14.38 2% 14.38 2018 17.51 . 1.384 - 14.57 2% 14.67 2019 18.04 1.426 ': - • 14.97,. 2% 14.97 2020 18.58 1.469 15.26 2% 1526 2021 19:.14 . 4.513 _ - 15.57 2% 15:57 Footnote Per Exhibit B, the rate each year following 2007 is the lesser amount between the actual rate prodded by King County's Facilities Management Division and the capped rate determined by multiplying the 2007 rate by the inflation multiplier for the corresponding year shown in the table above. Additionally, because the Issaquah District Court building is no longer a leased facility, beginning in 2017 the facility rate for the Issaquah building will be calculated utilizing the KCDC ILA Exhibit B methodology February 21, 2017 Page 2 same methodology as other court buildings, as shown above and in the attached exhibits. The County will also recognize equalization of the Rent and Lease rate for the cities using the Issaquah facility with an annual adjustment for any years each city utilized the facility during the 2012-2016 period. The adjustment will be provided through the annual reconciliation, starting in 2017. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact Diane Carlson, Director of Regional Initiatives, King County Executive's Office at(206)263-9631 or diane.carlsonkingcountv.gov. Please return this letter with your signature confirming agreement with the terms above by email to Diane Carlson at the address noted above. Sincerely, Dow Constantine King County Executive Attachments: Exhibits B and C City of "iik1Uu"Y1 )\6.40041141.6 ►+r,Title: •,1 Q Date: S 1 ' t