13-063 Misdemeanor & Gross Misdemeanor District Court Amendment 1Return to: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board
Board of County Commissioners
1116 W. Broadway
Spokane, Washington 99260
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS
INCIDENT TO ADJUDICATION OF MISDEMEANOR AND
GROSS MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES IN
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
i.3 —Da2gs-
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into
by and among the Spokane County District Court, having offices for the transaction of business at 1100
West Mallon, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COURT," Spokane County, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the City of
Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred
to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the 'PARTIES."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County, Washington, has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), counties and cities may
contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 39.34.180, the City of Spokane Valley is
responsible for the costs incident to investigation, prosecution, adjudication and incarceration of
misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses that occur within its jurisdiction and that are committed by
adults; and
WHEREAS, Spokane County has established a District Court under the provisions of chapter 3.38
RCW for the judicial administration of the laws of the State of Washington and the ordinances of Spokane
County. The District Court consists of one district encompassing all of Spokane County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced recitals, Spokane County under Spokane County
Resolution No. 2006 -0190, the Spokane County District Court under signature dated March 27, 2006, and
City of Spokane Valley under signature dated March 1, 2006 (the "Parties ") executed a document entitled
"Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses
in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005 — December 31, 2005)" (the "Agreement ") pursuant to which
Under cert?u: terms and conditions the Spokane County District Court agreed to provide certaiq judicial
services identified within the Agreement in Exhibit "1" to the City of Spokane Valley; and
Page 1 of 8
% 1`3 - C)
WHEREAS, the Agreement includes Section No, 14 (Modification) wherein the Parties agreed that
the Agreement could be modified by mutual written agreement of the Parties; and
WHEREAS, the Parties, as provided for in Section No. 14 (Modification), desire to modify the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and inconsideration of the mutual promises set forth herein after, and the
above recitals which are incorporated herein by reference, the Parties do hereby mutually agree that that
document executed by Spokane County under Spokane County Resolution No. 2006 -0190, the Spokane
County District Court under signature dated March 27, 2006, and City of Spokane Valley under signature
dated March 1, 2006, entitled "Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and
Gross Misdemeanor Offenses in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005 — December 31, 2005)" (the
"Agreement ") be and is hereby modified as follows:
1. Effective with the 2010 adjust and settle, Exhibit 2 within the Agreement is modified as
follows:
The scope and purpose of this modification is to change the way the indirect costs
the COUNTY charges the CITY are calculated, which is a component cost in
determining the total actual cost for the provision of Services. Previously, the
PARTIES calculated the indirect cost rate based on "salaries only" as adopted in
the methodology set forth in the Exhibit 2 of the Agreement. But now, the
PARTIES agree that it is acceptable to calculate the indirect cost rate based on
"total expenditures ".
2. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No. 2 (Defmitions) within the Agreement is
modified in (g) and (f) only as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added, lined out highlighted language deleted.)
(g) Capital Improvement: "Capital Improvement" shall mean any
expenditure in excess of $1,999.99 $4,999.99 or such higher figure as set by the
COUNTY as the capitalization threshold during the term of the Agreement. The
COUNTY shall give the CITY advance notice of any increase in the
capitalization threshold. The PARTIES agree to meet and discuss the impacts of
any change in the capitalization threshold which will cause an increase of costs to
the CITY in excess of $50,000.00. Any such expenditure will be coded as
provided for in the BARS- manual adopted by the State of Washington under
RCW 43.88.
(f) Compensation: "Compensation" means that methodology set
forth in Exhibits 2A, 213, 2C and 2D used to establish the amount of money
which the CITY will pay the COUNTY for providing Services.
3. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No.4 (Duration/Withdrawal) within the
Agreement is modified as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added, lined out highlighted language deleted).
SECTION NO. 4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL
Page 2 of 8
This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2005, and run through December
31, 2005.
At the conclusion of the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed
from year to year thereafter effective January I` to December 31 "- All renewals
shall be subject to all terms and conditions within this Agreement set f ft>, herein.
emeept f Exhibit 7
time rail and agreed to
between the DADTT1JC the DADTTCC agree that the COUNTY will hill the GTTY
and the CITY w4l pay the COUNTY at the sarne billing fates paid in the previeus
T T «en the D A DT S ., a e..t e e , Exhibit 7 the /'TTY and GO TT�TTV
will r-eeeneile payments te date under the previous years billing retes with the ne
year. ,
billing rates. A., nde ..t F arty gen,iees will he du in the fist rit
due € lellewingfeeeneilixtion Any e eat for- a , Ce...,iees will he ,.reditee+
t11GiiiiSt ^..thh, pent due lA lem4ng t� the r-eeeneiliation. The D A XIES agree
that no interest shell he ewing by either Part, to the ether Part, for aft�
everp"&4 or underp"ent determined as a result of the reeeneiliation.
Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason
whatsoever upon a minimum of 180 days written notice as provided for in Section 7
to the other Party.
4. Effective as of 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2011, Section No. 5 (Costs of Services and
Payments), to include all exhibits referenced in Section No. 5, is deleted from the Agreement in
its entirety.
5. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, a new Section No. 5 is added to the Agreement to
provide as follows:
(Note: Exhibits 2A, 213, 2C and 2D referenced in Section No. 5 are attached hereto
as Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D respectively and not included in the body of Section
No. 5.)
SECTION NO. S: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS
5.1 Basis. Cost for Services shall be based on cost - per -case ( "CPC ").
5.2 Methodology. CPC shall be calculated utilizing the Cost Calculation Model
( "CCM ") as shown in Exhibit "2A" which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. Exhibit "2A" computes the cost - per -case for 2012. The
CCM includes three Components.
5.2.1 Component One. Component one of the CCM identified in Exhibit
"2A" is entitled "Workload Analysis ". The Workload Analysis classifies all full -
time and part time judicial officers and court staff by selected "case type" and
computes the percentage of total full time employees ( "FTE ") for each major
"case type ". The CCM will use the 2011 Workload Analysis. A copy of the
2011 Workload Analysis is shown in Exhibit "213" which is attached hereto and
Page 3 of 8
incorporated herein by reference. The 2011 Workload Analysis shall remain the
same and shall be used by the Parties to calculate CPC for calendar years 2012,
2013, and 2014. The Workload Analysis component of the CCM will be
reviewed and updated by the Parties in September 2014 for use in conjunction
with the 2015 CCM. It will be reviewed and updated in September of every third
year thereafter for use in conjunction with the CCM for the following three years.
In the event the Mental Health Court is disbanded, the Workload Analysis will be
reviewed and updated to be effective as of January 1 ST of the following year in
conjunction with the CCM. This review and update will restart the three year
Workload Analysis review and update cycle. Any anticipated change to the
number of case types will be communicated to the City with explanations for the
change and associated cost impacts. The same Workload Analysis FTE
percentage used to calculate the yearly estimate will also be used on that year's
settle and adjust. The Workload Analysis review will use the same methodology
as set forth in Exhibit "213" as well as the following:
• Classify all full -time and part-time judicial officers and court
staff by the selected case types. Compute the percentage of total FTE for
each of the selected case types. All administrative staff FTE will be
applied proportionately across all case types.
• Single Assignment - Judicial Officers and court staff with formal
case - type - specific assignment are classified and counted by case type.
• Multiple Assignments - When Judicial Officers and court staff
work across several case types on a regular basis, the COURT will
estimate (using FTE) the proportion of each staff and judicial officer's
time devoted to the different case types. This category also includes
regular court staff working in areas such as administration or court
interpretation.
5.2.2 Component Two. Component two of the CCM identified in Exhibit "2A"
is "Total Expenditures ". Total Expenditures includes expenditures by the
COURT (one year prior) and actual OMB A -87 indirect costs (two years prior).
For example, the Total Expenditures for calendar year 2012 will be the actual
COURT expenditures for calendar year 2011 plus the actual 2010 OMB A -87
indirect costs. Expenditures related to Services provided to entities which do not
direct file in the COURT will be subtracted from "Total Expenditures" identified
in Exhibit 2A. Mental Health Court expenditures for 2012 and 2013 will be
funded by the Mental Health Sales Tax and / or COUNTY general fund
identified in Exhibit 2A. Starting in 2014, the COURT will charge for costs
related to Mental Health Court cases not funded by the Mental Health Sales Tax
as calculated in Exhibit "2A ".
5.2.3 Component Three. Component three of the CCM identified in Exhibit
"2A" is "Total Filings /Cases ". Total Filings /Cases are identified in the District
Court Judicial Information System ( "JIS ") which tracks all cases filed in Spokane
County District Court by case type. The methodology uses the 2011 Total
Filings /Cases as the basis for determining the 2012 estimated CPC as identified
in the report in Exhibit 2D.
Page 4 of 8
5.2.4 Calculation of Cost - Per -Case (Case Type)
The cost - per -case for calendar year 2012 as shown in Exhibit "2A" is calculated
by multiplying the Workload Analysis percentage for each identified case type
times the 2011 "Total Expenditures" and dividing the resulting number by the
2011 Total Filings /Cases for that identified case type.
For example, with respect to the case type "Infraction" the 2012 cost per case is
$24.16. This figure is arrived at by multiplying the Workload Analysis for the
case type identified as "infractions" (21.51%) by the 2011 "Total Expenditures"
($5,337,826) and dividing the resulting number by the 2011 Filings for
Infractions (47,523). [21.51% x $5,337,826 = $1,147,979.39 - 47,502 =
$24.16].
The cost - per -case for calendar year 2013, will be calculated by multiplying the
Workload Analysis percentage for each identified case type times the 2012
"Total Expenditures" and dividing the resulting number by the 2012 total filings
for that identified case type.
The cost - per -case for subsequent calendar years will be calculated in the same
manner as set forth for 2012 and 2013 herein above. Provided, however, as stated
in paragraph 5.2.1, the Workload Analysis will be reviewed and updated, if
necessary, every third year the Agreement is in effect and applied to the CCM in
the fourth year.
5.3 Billing Procedure.
The COURT will bill the CITY for Services on a monthly basis on, or before, the
date identified in Exhibit "2C" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference. Each billing will use the cost - per -case as determined in paragraph
5.2.4 and the actual number of case types handled by the COURT for the CITY.
The CITY shall pay the COURT for each billing on or before the date identified
in Exhibit "2C ". The time frames for the COURT to bill and the CITY to pay as
identified in Exhibit "2C" shall apply to all subsequent years or portions thereof
during which the Agreement is in effect.
If for any reason the COURT is unable to bill the CITY for any monthly
payment, the bill will be included in a subsequent monthly billing. In such
instance, no penalty, as provided for in paragraph 5.4 hereinafter, will apply to
the CITY's payment of this monthly billing.
5.4 Penalty.
At the sole option of the COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late
payment in an amount equal to lost interest earnings had the payment been timely
paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool.
5.5 Adjust and Settle.
On or before February 20'b each year this Agreement is in effect, the COURT
shall advise the CITY in writing of the adjust and settle calculations. On or
Page 5 of 8
before March 5h of each year this Agreement is in effect, the CITY shall advise
the COURT in writing of any concerns with regard to the adjust and settle
calculations. Any disagreement between the CITY and COURT with regard to
the adjust and settle calculations shall be subject to the Section No. 17
(DISPUTE RESOLUTION). Pending resolution on any disagreement under
Section No. 17 (DISPUTE RESOLUTION), the objecting party agrees to pay the
other party that portion of the adjust and settle that is undisputed. The adjust and
settle calculation will be applied to the March 20`h billing as provided for in
Exhibit 2C.
The settle and adjust amount shall be determined by comparing the total amount
which the COURT billed the CITY for Services for the settle and adjust year to
what the billing would have been using the actual Total Expenditures and actual
Total Filings /Cases for the settle and adjust year.
For example, the settle and adjust for calendar year 2012 Services would
compare the 2012 COURT billing to a billing calculated by using the 2012
actual Expenditures, 2011 actual indirect costs, and the 2012 actual total
flings /cases. In the event the CITY overpaid, it will receive a credit(s) applied
to subsequent billing(s) as set forth in Exhibit "2C ". In the event the CITY
underpaid, it will be billed such underpayment in conjunction with the
subsequent billing as set forth in Exhibit "2C ".
5.6 Capital Costs.
The COUNTY CEO shall advise the CITY MANAGER as soon as possible of
any anticipated or unanticipated capital improvement costs that arise under the
contract period. The CITY shall pay capital improvement costs under the Cost
Allocation Plan as an indirect cost amortized over the useful life of the
improvement using straight -line depreciation. Any portion of a capital
improvement that was paid for or acquired through separate agreement or with
grant proceeds, voted bond proceeds, user fees, donations, or any other
acquisition method that reflects a contribution on behalf of the CITY shall not be
included in the depreciation schedule applied to the CITY. Any capital
improvement for which the COUNTY seeks reimbursement from the CITY must
be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Agreement.
5.7 Conflict between language in Section No. 5 and Exhibits identified in
Section No. 5.
In the event of a conflict between the language within Section No. 5 and the
Exhibits identified in Section No. 5, the language or Exhibit which more
specifically details the CCM and CPC methodology shall dictate.
6. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No. 8 (Reporting) within the Agreement is
modified as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added, lined out highlighted language deleted).
Page 6 of 8
SECTION NO. 8: REPORTING
Reports — The COURT shall provide the CITY with reports documenting actual
usage and revenue under this Agreement. The Parties agree that the terminology
"reports documenting actual usage" means documents entitled (1) "Cases Filed -
Contracting Jurisdictions Report-SPV CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ", (2) "Cases
Filed- Contracting Jurisdictions Report- SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT", (3) "BILLING INVOICE ", and (4) "DISTRICT COURT FELING /
REVENUE REPORT" the Dis t -Geut Revenue/Filin u° eA . hieh ider�; ey
CITY filings 1)), ease type -and "Tetal � 1�-ni- zcaisdietions" filings by ease #fpe -. An
1kUpdated reports shall be provided quafter13F monthly unless otherwise mutually
agreed by the Parties. Such reports shall be in a format as mutually agreed to
between the Parties. The content and/or format for such reports may be changed
from time -to -time by written agreement between CITY and COURT staff.
Records Review — The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviews of the
records generated by the COURT in performance of this Agreement. The CITY
will provide the COURT with reasonable advance notice of the records reviews.
The Parties agree that they will make best efforts to achieve a resolution of any
potential records confidentiality issues, including entering into confidentiality
agreements or other similar mechanisms that will allow disclosure of the necessary
information to accurately conduct a records review. If the CITY will is allowed
to view only those records directly relating to Services provided within CITY's
corporate boundaries, then gpon request of the CITY, the COURT will provide the
necessary_ source documents. must keep ° log of °i&°1 `'eewne ^t° used to eharge
7. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No. 17 (Dispute Resolution) within the
Agreement is modified as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added, lined out highlighted language deleted).
SECTION NO. 17: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the COUNTY and CITY including but not limited to cost of
Services which cannot be resolved between the COUNTY and CITY shall be
subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute
shall first be reduced to writing. If the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager
cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of
chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding.
The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act
as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third
arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES
and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW.
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES.
The PARTIES acknowledge that the provisions of this section are not applicable to
the COURT. GR 29 precludes the COURT from delegating any of its administrative
Page 7 of 8
duties addressed in that rule to the legislative or executive branches of government.
The COURT agrees, however, in the event of a dispute with the CITY to meet and
in good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. This paragraph would not preclude the
PARTIES from using this Section to resolve disputes over the calculation of costs of
Services provided under this Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER AGREED, by the Parties hereto, that but for the modifications to the Agreement
as provided for herein to include their effective time /date, all other terms and conditions within the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without any change or modification whatsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year
opposite their respective signatures.
DATED:
ATTEST:
Cl�p"fthe Board
Daniela Erickson
DATED:
6r04 co1ss9
O r 21E CO* r�rG�
y �
SEAL . •'
BOARD O UNTY COMMISSIONERS
O E S GTON
LLY 6'_Qlep, Chair
AL FRENCH, Vice -Chair
P A4&
/.3 — crags TODD MIELKE, Commissioner
SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
"PIN MAAA1901' F_ maaaa
Aws
DATED: L� f �%'� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
ATTE)s 4 ��
Mike Jackson ity Manager
hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Tlll__�
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
0 C —1 144
Office , the City ttomey
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT 2A
COST CALCULATION MODEL (CCM)
2012 ESTIMATED COST -PER -CASE
3/15/13
COMPONENT #'1 COMPONENT #2 COMPONENT #3
L WORKLOAD ANALYSIS TOTAL EXPENDITURES FILINGS /CASES
Total Expenses x % FTE Filings
Personnel Expenditures
Less
2012 MHC
$5,337,826 Funding
SINGLE
ASSIGN FTE
MENT MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENT PERSONNEL /TOTAL EXPENDITURES ALL JURISDICTIONS
JUDICIAL FTE TOTAL COST BY TOTAL 2011 COST
CASE TYPE STAFF STAFF OFFICER TOTAL % CASE TYPE FILINGS /CASES PER CASE
Shared Responsibilty
INFRACTIONS 0 12.11 0.94 13.05 21751% $1,147,979.39 47,523 $24.16
DUI 0 7.55 1.67 9.23 ;5.20% $811,353.41 1,605 $505.52
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC 0 7.55 1.04 8.59 14.15% $755,542.21 5,674 $133.16
MISDEMEANOR DV 0 3.79 0.70 4.49 7.39% $394,586.77 906 $435.53
CRIMINAL NON - TRAFFIC 0 4.83 0.84 5.68/ 9.35% $499,115.53 2,305 $216.54
MENTAL HEALTH COURT 4.5 1.48 0.50 6.48 10.67% $569,641.66 4c4. r 96 386 $219.81
County Responsibility
CIVIL 0 4.28 0.73 5.01 8.26% $440,666.19 8,177 $53.89
SMALL CLAIMS 0 3.31 0.50 3.81 6.28% $335,140.80 1,197 $279.98
AH /DV (Civil cases /not Criminal) 1 2.90 0.47 4.36 7.19% $383,799.73 871 $440.64
ITotals 5.50 47.80 7.40 60.70 100.00% $5,337,825.68
Court Cost Analysis
District Court 2011 Expenses $4,502,563
Actual Indirect Costs for 2010 $872,039
SubTotal $5,374,602
Actual 2011 Cheney Cost $36,776)
$5,337,826
EXHIBIT 2B
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - SUMMARY
SUMMARY 2011 Info as of 1/1/12 6/25/2012
OF EACH DAY
FTE
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd-CNI
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
I MHC
47.80
0.98
0.94
ADMINISTRATION
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
MHC
0%1
11%
0%1
39%
50%
ADMINISTRATION
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
110%
0.47
0.50
100%
CLERK'S OFFICE
34%
15%
17%
6%
9%
8%
6%
5%
0%
1.73
2.25 1
100%
JUDICIALASSTS
5%
24%
16%
11%
14%
10%
7%
6%
7%
I
(
100%
JUDGES
13%
23%
14%
9%
11%
10%
7%
6%
7%
1.98 I
I I 60.70
100%
0.00
63%
73%
58%
38%
45%
39%
31%
28%
25%
Total W/O MCH
13.05
400%
AVG PERCENTAGE
15.77%
18.27%
14.60%
9.49%
11.26%
9.74%
7.67%
7.06% 6.13%
I
100.00%
47.80
0.98
0.94
ADMINISTRATION
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
MHC
0%1
11%
0%1
39%
50%
0%
0%
0%
100%
# OF EMPLOYEES
I FTF I Infractinns 1 f)lli IMigrl -(TI Misri -f)V IMicd -CNI Civil ISm Clmsl AH /ITV I MHC
STAFF
12.11
7.55
7.55
3.79
4.83
4.28
3.31
2.90
1.48
47.80
0.98
0.94
ADMINISTRATION
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
2.84
2.57
8.80
CLERK'S OFFICE
10.75
4.76
536
1.98
2.84
1 2.57
1.80
1.45
1
0.47
0.50
31.50
JUDICIAL ASSTS
0.38
1.82
1.22
1 0.83
1.02
1 0.73
0.53
0.47
1 0.50
1.73
2.25 1
7.50
STAFF
12.11
7.55
7.55
3.79
4.83
4.28
3.31
2.90
1.48
47.80
0.98
0.94
1.67
1.04
0.70 1
0.84
0.73
0.50 1
0.47 1
0.50 1
1 E=
JUDICIAL OFFICER
2.84
2.57
1.80
1.45
Judical Assist
0.38
1.82
1.22
0.83
1.02
0.73
0.53
0.47
0.50
Judges
0.94
1.67
1.04
0.70
0.84
0.73
MHC 1
0.00
0.52
0.00
1.73
2.25 1
0.00 1
0.00
0.00
4.50
AH /DV (Civil cases /not Criminal)
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
1.00 1.00
TOTAL I
13.05
9.23
8.59 I
4.49 I
5.68 I
5.01 I
3.81 I
3.36 I
1.98 I
I I 60.70
MCH Total
0.00
0.52
0.00
1.73
2.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.98
6.48
Total W/O MCH
13.05
8.71
8.59
2.75
3.43
5.01
3.81
13G
0.00
54.22
8.80
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT Misd -DV
Misd -CN Civil
7.50
Sm Clms AH /DV
MCH
Admin
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.97778
Clerk
10.75
4.76
5.36
1.98
2.84
2.57
1.80
1.45
Judical Assist
0.38
1.82
1.22
0.83
1.02
0.73
0.53
0.47
0.50
Judges
0.94
1.67
1.04
0.70
0.84
0.73
0.50
0.47
0.50
MHC
4.50
AH /DV (Civil cases
/not Criminal)
Totals
13.05
9.23
8.59
4.49
5.68
5.01
3.81
3.36
6.48
8.80
8.80
31.50
31.50
7.50
7.50
7.40
7.40
4.50
4.50
0.00
1 1
1.00
1.00 60.70
60.70
EXHIBIT 2B-1
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Administration
FTE
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
ISm Clms
AH /DV
I MCH
TOT
%of each day
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
100%
Friberg, Sandy AT2
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
7.50
Ingram, Ronda OM
7.50
Gray, Becky Sec2
7.50
Miller, Wayne CAA
7.50
Searl, Sheri AT3
7.50
Shaw, Denny JOM
7.50
Witter, John DCC
7.50
suu ..; �.�� �
u.E
�j. _%
0.42
0.4-
U.421
i
U.4i
0.4
JA .5 - 3.75 (Geteheh'!
0.42
0.42
0.41
� 2
0.42
DA2
U..,
0.42
0.42
3.75
;ourt Administrator
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
6.00
TOTAL
7.331
7.331
7.331
7.33
7.33
7.331
7.331
7.331
7.331
66.00
Staffing and Work load Information is Effective 9 -1 -2099
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
MCH
%of each day
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
100%
# of Employees
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
8.80
Staffing and Work load Information is Effective 9 -1 -2099
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Clerk's Office
FTE
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
ISm Clrns
AH /DV
TOT
% of each day
34%
15%
17%
6%
9%
8%
6%
5%
100%
Baseler, AT2
1.00
1.75
2.50
0.75
1.50
2.57
1.80
1.45
7.50
Bentl , AT2
3.00
1.50
1.75
0.25
1.00
7.50
Engan, AT2
5.25
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.50
7.50
AT2
3.50
1.00
1.50
0.25
1.25
7.50
.Gray,
Harris, AT2
4.25
0.75
1.25
0.25
1.00
7.50
Lara, AT2
4.25
0.75
1.25
0.25
1.00
7.50
Schoonover, AT2
7.50
7.50
Wa, ar, AT2
7.50
7.50
Wentz, AT2
5.00
2.00
0.50
7.50
Clark, OA4
2.00
1.82
1.82
1.37
0.49
7.50
Countryman, OA4
6.00
1.50
7.50
Dorman, OA4
1.90
2.16
2.16
0.10
1.08
0.10
7.50
Morig, OA4
6.00
0.07
0.97
0.08
0.38
7.50
Morris, OA4
1.50
6.00
7.50
Carroll, OA3
3.38
1.00
1.90
0.12
1.00
0.10
7.50
Castillo, OA3
4.50
1.20
1.00
0.40
0.20
0.20
7.50
Coyle, OA3
5.75
0.67
0.64
0.22
0.22
7.50
ECR OA3
4.00
3.50
7.50
Falmo, CMS
2.00
1.00
4.00
0.10
0.40
7.50
Perry, CMS
1.50
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
7.50
Holmes, AT3
7.50
7.50
Maffia, AT3
0.50
2.00
2.50
1.00
1.50
7.50
Anderson, CC
1.00
4.00
1.25
1.25
7.50
Bell, CC (.5 FTE rant )
0.10
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.40
3.75
Dravland, CC
1.00
0.25
5.00
0.25
1.00
7.50
Galla her,CC
0.75
4.50
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.25
7.50
Gerke, CC
7.50
7.50
Krotova, CC
0.50
0.75
1.00
4.25
1.00
7.50
Supita, CC
0.75
4.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
7.50
Albano, OS
3.75
0.76
2.43
0.18
0.38
7.50
Cameron, OS
0.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
7.50
Hansen, OS
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.50
2.75
0.50
0.50
7.50
Jur evich, OS Vacancy
TOTAL
80.631
35.681
40.171
14.821
21.30
19.25
13-1501
10.90
236.25
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -1 -2091
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
% of each day
34%
15%
17%
6%
9%
8%
6%
5%
100%
# of Employees
10.75
4.76
5.36
1.98
2.84
2.57
1.80
1.45
31.50
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -1 -2091
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Judicial Assistants
FTE
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd-CNI
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
MCH
TOT
% of each day
5%
24%
16%
11%
14%
10%
7%
6%
7%
100%
Neber all, JA -RAB
0.50
1.00
3.50
1.00
1.50
0.73
0.53
0.47
0.50
7.50
Amistoso, JA -JOC
0.25
0.25
5.00
2.00
7.50
7.50
Getchell, JA -DRH
0.25
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
3.75
Bartole, JA- VWP(cbc )
1.00
2.75
1.25
0.50
1.25
0.50
0.25
7.50
Hansen, JA -GJT
0.50
3.751
1.50
1.75
e
7.50
Plewman, JA -PCW
4.00
3.50
7.50
Gerrells, JA -DW
0.25
3.25
1.00
1.25
1.75
7.50
MHC
3.75
3.75
Adjust for admin
-0.13
-2.13
-0.63
0.00
-0.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-3.75
TOTAL
2.II75
13.625
9.125
6.250
7.6251
5.500
4.0001
3.500
3.750
56.250
a --
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
MCH
% of each day
5%
24%
16%
11%
14%
10%
7%
6%
7%
100%
# of Employees
0.38
1.82
1.22
0.83
1.02
0.73
0.53
0.47
0.50
7.50
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -1 -2011
EAMBIT
i
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS ® Mental Health Cowart
FTE
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
TOT
% of each day
0%
11%
0%
39%
50%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Bell, Stephanie (.5 FTE )
0.00
0.88
0.00
1
1.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.75
Bender, Sec 2
0.75
3.00
3.75
7.50
Folden, MH Eval
0.75
3.00
3.75
7.50
Hammond, MH Cs Mgr
0.75
3.00
3.75
7.50
Manfred, Manager
0.75
3.00
3.75
7.50
TOTAL
0.001
3.881
0.00
13.001
16.881
0.001
0.001
0.00
33.75
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -9 -2011
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
% of each day
0%
11%
0%
39%
50%
0%
0%
0%
100%
# of Employees
0.00
0.52
0.00
1.73
2.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -9 -2011
EAHIBIT 2B-5
Judge Hayes 50% of her position is as a MHC judge & 50% is admin as presiding
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -1 -2011
Note: Judge Tripp spends up to 15 hrs a month in Cheney (2 days). 162.5 hrs /mo _ 15 hrs = 10.8 %, 7.5 hrs x 10%
equals .75. 7.50 -.75 = 6.75 Workweek for Judge Tripp instead of 7.5. Must back out the Cheney work. We
subtracted. 19 each (.19 x 4 =. 75) from Infractions, DUI, Misd CT, Misd. CN and Small Claims.
Infractions
DUI
I Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
ISm Clm
AH /DV
I MHC
TOT
% of each day
13%
23%
14%
9%
11%
10%
7%
6%
7%
100%
Brandt, Judge
0.50
1.00
3.50
1.00
1.50
0.73
0.50
0.47
0.50
7.50
Cooney, Jude
0.25
0.25
5.00
2.00
7.50
Derr, Jude
0.25
4.25
1.25
1.75
7.50
Ha es, Jude
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
3.75
3.75
Peterson, Judge(cbc)
5.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.50
7.50
Tripp, Judge
0.32
3.56
1.31
1.56
6.75
Walker, Jude
4.00
3.50
7.50
Wilson, Judge
0.25
3.25
1.00
1.25
1.75
7.50
TOTAL 1
7.07
12.56
7.811
5.25
6.31
5.50
3.75
3.50
3.75
55.50
Judge Hayes 50% of her position is as a MHC judge & 50% is admin as presiding
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -1 -2011
Note: Judge Tripp spends up to 15 hrs a month in Cheney (2 days). 162.5 hrs /mo _ 15 hrs = 10.8 %, 7.5 hrs x 10%
equals .75. 7.50 -.75 = 6.75 Workweek for Judge Tripp instead of 7.5. Must back out the Cheney work. We
subtracted. 19 each (.19 x 4 =. 75) from Infractions, DUI, Misd CT, Misd. CN and Small Claims.
Infractions
DUI
Misd -CT
Misd -DV
Misd -CN
Civil
Sm Clms
AH /DV
MHC
% of each day
13%
23%
14%
9%
11%
10%
7%
6%
7%
100%
# of Employees
0.94
1.67
1.04
0.70
0.84
0.73
0.50
0.47
0.50
7.40
Judge Hayes 50% of her position is as a MHC judge & 50% is admin as presiding
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9 -1 -2011
Note: Judge Tripp spends up to 15 hrs a month in Cheney (2 days). 162.5 hrs /mo _ 15 hrs = 10.8 %, 7.5 hrs x 10%
equals .75. 7.50 -.75 = 6.75 Workweek for Judge Tripp instead of 7.5. Must back out the Cheney work. We
subtracted. 19 each (.19 x 4 =. 75) from Infractions, DUI, Misd CT, Misd. CN and Small Claims.
EXHIBIT 2C
Billing Schedule
2012
lay Jun I Jul
2012 2012 20
CCM CCM CC
5 -Jun I 5 -1
Jun
Jan - Feb 20
Feb
I Mar
Apr
Cost per Case
Jan - Feb 20
2012
2012
201
Estimate Based on
Calculate 2012
estimated cost per
CCM
CCM
CCN
2012
2012
2012
Usage Based on
case based on
2013
E
2013 c
CCM
Filings /Cases from
2011 Court
Expenditures, 2011
Jan
Feb
Ma
CCM! e
I t
County bills City on
Total Filings /Cases
or before
and 2010 Actual
OMB A -87 Indirect
20-Feb
20 -Mar
20 -Ap
case based on 2012
Cost
Sept
Oct
Nov
City pays County on
Court Expenditures,
Jani
Febi a
or before
r -nnnr
r -enr
r_ne,
EXHIBIT 2C
Billing Schedule
2012
lay Jun I Jul
2012 2012 20
CCM CCM CC
5 -Jun I 5 -1
Jun
2012 Settle & Adjust Multiply 2012
actual CPC by 2012 Total Filings /Cases.
Compare to what was billed in 2012.
Advise the City on /or before February
20 of the Settle & Adjust amount. The
City has until March 5 to dispute the
Settle & Adjust amount. An
overpayment will be credited to
subsequent billing(s) starting on March
20. An underpayment will be billed as
an additional amount on the March 20
billing. NOTE. The actual 2012 CPC is
the same as the estimated 2013 CPC.
i
2013
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Jan - Feb 20
Feb
I
I
Mar '
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
E
2013 c
CCM
CCM
CCM
CCM
Calculate 2013
CCM
CCM! e
I t
estimated cost per
case based on 2012
e
r
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Court Expenditures,
Jani
Febi a
2012 Total
Filings /Cases and
.0 -Oct
20 -Nov
20 -Dec
20-Janl
2011 Actual OMB A-
20 -Feb
20 -Mar-
87 Indirect Cost
I
5 -Nov
5 -Dec
5 -Jan
5 -Feb
S -Mar
S -Anr!
2012 Settle & Adjust Multiply 2012
actual CPC by 2012 Total Filings /Cases.
Compare to what was billed in 2012.
Advise the City on /or before February
20 of the Settle & Adjust amount. The
City has until March 5 to dispute the
Settle & Adjust amount. An
overpayment will be credited to
subsequent billing(s) starting on March
20. An underpayment will be billed as
an additional amount on the March 20
billing. NOTE. The actual 2012 CPC is
the same as the estimated 2013 CPC.
EXHIBIT 2D
2011 Filings by Category & Jurisdiction
Spokane County District COUrt
Cases Filed - Contracting .Jurisdictions Report
Cases filed 2011
tion Initials
. .
DPK
CITY OF DEER PARK
FFD
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
LLK
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
MIL
CITY OF MILLWOOD
ROC
CITY OF ROCKFORD
SPL
CITY OF SPANGLE
SPO
COUNTY OF SPOKANE
SPV
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
File Year >>
Jurisdiction >>
Totals
3,18!13 11:28 AM
Total
115
41 1
1415
783
2355
499
115 9
3507
1566
5696
34
21
466
425
946
38
27
1389
169
1623
886
5 615 29 44
7 32685
7243
41514
4
3
5670
333
6010
1576
5 822 39 44
7 45132
10519
58144
EXHIBIT 2D -1
2011 Dental Health Court Cases
Incoming /new assigned Mental Health Court cases, based on MCO coding in JIS system. data as of 01/11/13
DPK
CITY OF DEER PARK
LLK
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
ROC
CITY OF ROCKFORD
SPC
CITY OF SPOKANt_
SPO
COUNTY OF SPOKANE
SPV
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Totals 2 1 255 Go / 77 20% 3-
Data from Jurisdictio Billing /BOXI query, cases where case review code of WCO" was set during period
"Bill MHC" value is determined by a formula, if MCO imposed date month = case file date month then Bill MHC = Yes, it is assumed the
case shouldn't have already been billed to the jurisdiction at an earlier time, as a regular non MHC casetype. If the case file date was
earlier it assumes the case has already been billed as a regular non MHC casetype. (as to not double bill the jurisdiction.)
Total
36
15
25
16
1
14
7
15
2
160
19
68
6
2
386