HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Transfer - Accounting (003)GRANT COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AGENDA MEETING REQUEST FORM
(Must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board by 12:00pm on Thursday)
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:Auditor
REQUEST SUBMITTED BY:Emili Wash
CONTACT PERSON ATTENDING ROUNDTABLE: I
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: E]YES - ®NO
DATE:
'1=101z ta
IWA:j
1111111111=GM=
Jor.4w
OAgreement / Contract
OAP Vouchers
DAppointment / Reappointment
OARPA Related
D Bids / RFPs / Quotes Award
0 Bid Opening Scheduled
0 Boards / Committees
0 Budget
DComputer Related
OCounty Code
OEmergency Purchase
OEmployee Rel.
[]Facilities Related
ElFinancial
ElFunds
El Hearing
El Invoices / Purchase Orders
0 Grants — Fed/State/County
FlLeases
El MOA / MOU
1--lMinutes
00rdinances
DOut of State Travel
El Petty Cash
FlPolicies
OProclarnations
0 Request for Purchase
DResolution
DRecommendation
OProfessional Serv/Consultant
E]Support Letter
DSurplus Req.
DTax Levies
DThank You's
DTax Title Property
OWSLCB
TF1 D
Need review and approval for cash transfer for the amount of $39,764.68 from Current Expense to
Econ Enhance Rural
6
If necessary, was this document reviewed by accounting? El YES 1:1 NO E] N/A
If necessary, was this document reviewed by legal? 0 YES 0 NO 0 N/A
DATE OF ACTION: -7 DEFERRED OR CONTINUED TO:
APPROVE: DENIED ABSTAIN
D1:
D2: VN�
D3: WTA
I
4/23/24
GRANT COUNTY
CASH TRANSFER REQUEST
DEPARTMENT:
AUDITOR
EFFECTIVE DATE:.
12.31.2023
DESCRIPTION:
133T0001 COR2023
REQUESTED BY:
EMILI WASH
ACCOUNTING JE NO. 959,480
TRANSFER DETAILS:
MOVING INELIGIBLE EXPENSES FROM ECOC
ENHANCE RURAL TO CURR EXP REQUESTED
BY BOCC; TREAS OFFICE WILL POST IN 4.2024
TREASURER GL NO.
TRANSFER TO TRANSFER FROM
.. ': __....�...�.._ _. ,.. .. �. �i /.._ .- /. i. _� � .i .. � _/.ice. .... .. .. �. ... � v -r.. -r :a.0 / .�:.
. .. /.,_ �. �. _. ice. �.� ..� -r .__ :,. ... .. .. .. ., .s ti - . �.. -•,. �� :is'
_, ,i _ rte" t � � �.
,U N A.M.E.. � _ y
F D. N - y_ ._ , . :%„ ..y U - , ,._.. P .CCT:.
/ _ , y N ROJ A D ,.
-.. ...moi ,-.._ ,. y -,. . - e„ R) ,
ECON ENHANCE RURAL 133.000.00 0000 101000000
$ 39,764.68
CURRENT EXPENSE 001.000.00 0000 101000000
$ 39,764.68
/���• Cil/Gc%�G�fi
Completed By: Approved By:
$ 39,764.68 $ 39,764.68
TOTAL TO TOTAL FROM
katie
System: 4/23/2024 12:12:51 PM County of Grant Page: 1
User Date: 4/23/2024 GENERAL TRANSACTION EDIT LIST User ID: eswash
General Ledger
# Intercompany Journal Entry
Batch ID: 133T0001COR2023
Batch Comment:
Approved: No Batch Total Actual:
Approved By: Trx Total Actual:
Approval Date:
$159,058.72 Batch Total Control:
1 Trx Total Control:
$159,058.72
0
Journal Transaction Transaction Reversing Source Transaction
Entry Type Date Date Document Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User-Defined 1 User -Defined 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
959,480 Standard 12/31/2023 GJ 133T0001COR2023
Account
Description
Debit
Credit
-------------------------
133.184.00.0000.558701100
----------------------------------------------- ----------------------
ECONOMIC RURAL CO. . . .REG SALARIES & WAGES
----------------------
$12,000.00
133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
$22,528.62
133.184.00.0000.558704300
TRAVEL
$236.06
133.184.00.0000.558704900
ECON RURAL CO. . MISC - CBDL
$5,000.00
133.000.00.0000.101000000
CASH
$39,764.68
001.000.00.0000.101000000
CURRENT EXPENSE..CASH
$39,764.68
001.125.00.0000.558701100
REG SALARIES & WAGES
$12,000.00
001.125.00.0000.558704100
PROF. SVCS TRANSLATOR FEES
$22,528.62
001.125.00.0000.558704300
ECON RURAL CO ... TRAVEL
$236.06
001.125.00.0000.558704900
CURRENT EXPENSE. MISC CBDL
$5,000.00
Total Distributions: 10
--------------------------------------------
Totals:
$79,529.36
$79,529.36
Total Journal Entries: 1
RVI���
ED
B y eswash at, 1 2.1 6."m, A 23, 202
eo
VFn
APPR.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
By Katie Smith at 10:54 am .Apr -
Year
Period ID Account Number
Account Description
Debit Amount
Credit Amount
Period Balance
2023
5 133.184.00.0000.558701100
ECONOMIC RURAL CO .... REG SALARIES & WAGES
5,000.00000
0.00000
5,000.00000
2023
6 133.184.00.0000.558701100
ECONOMIC RURAL CO .... REG SALARIES & WAGES
1,000.00000
0.00000
1,000.00000
2023
8 133.184.00.0000.558701100
ECONOMIC RURAL CO .... REG SALARIES & WAGES
2,000.00000
0.00000
2,000.00000
2023
9 133.184.00.0000.558701100
ECONOMIC RURAL CO .... REG SALARIES & WAGES
1,000.00000
0.00000
11000.00000
2023
10 133.184.00.0000.558701100
ECONOMIC RURAL CO .... REG SALARIES & WAGES
1,000.00000
0.00000
1,000.00000
2023
12 133.184.00.0000.558701100
ECONOMIC RURAL CO .... REG SALARIES & WAGES
2,000.00000
0.00000
2,000.00000
2023
1 133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
2,488.50000
0.00000
21488.50000
2023
4 133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
4,522.96000
0.00000
4,522.96000
2023
5 133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
8,898.49000
0.00000
81898.49000
2023
6 133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
1,022.50000
0.00000
1,022.50000
2023
8 133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
5,806.17000
0.00000
5,806.17000
2023
9 133.184.00.0000.558704100
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -TRANSLATOR FEES
0.00000
210.00000
-210.00000
2023
4133.184.00.0000.558704300
TRAVEL
117.90000
0.00000
117.90000
2023
6133.184.00.0000.558704300
TRAVEL
118.16000
0.00000
118.16000
2023
1 133.184.00.0000.558704900
ECON RURAL CO.. MISC - CBDL
5,000.00000
0.00000
51000.00000
39,764.68000
2023
6 133.184.00.0000.597000000
OPER. TRANSFERS OUT.
169,600.00000
169,600.00000
0.00000
2023
6 133.184.00.0000.597160000
TRANS-GO.BOND FUND
169,600.00000
0.00000
169,600.00000
2023
8 133.184.00.0000.597160000
TRANS-GO.BOND FUND
700.00000
0.00000
700.00000
2023
12 133.184.00.0000.597160000
TRANS -GO. BO N D FUND
1,149, 600.00000
0.00000
1,149, 600.00000
From: Katie R. Smith
To: Emili Wash
Subject: Economic Enhancement Coding Correction
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 10:33:18 AM
Attachments: Informal AG Letter.pdf
Economic Enhancement and Sister City Program Memo.docx
Emiii,
Please move the following expenses to Misc General Government (001.125) as requested by the
BOCC.
133.184.00.0000.5 58701100
12,000.00
133.184.00.0000.558704100
22,528.62
133.184.00.0000.558704300
236.06
133.184.00.0000.558704900
51000.00
Tota 1: 39,764.68
Thank you,
Katie Smith
Chief Financial Officer
Grant County Auditor's Office
Phone: 509.754.2011 ext. 2740
Email: krsmith@gra.ntcoLintywa.gov
P.O. Box 37
Ephrata, WA 98823
https://www.gi-antcountywa.gov/269/Accounting
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s), and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Katie Smith
FROM: Rebekah Kaylor
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
DATE: 04/17/2024
RE: Whether Economic Enhancement Funds (RCW 82.14.370) Can Be Used for the
Sister City Program?
What is the Economic Enhancement Fund and its limitations?
1. STATUTORY LANGUAGE
A rural county may impose a sales tax for the purpose of "finance[ing] public facilities serving
economic development purposes in rural counties and finance personnel in economic
development offices. The public facility must be listed as an item in the officially adopted
county ...economic development section of the county's comprehensive plan ...." RCW
82.14.370(3)(a) (emphasis added).
The pertinent definitions are as follows:
Public facilities
➢ "`Public facilities' means bridges, roads, domestic and industrial water facilities, sanitary
sewer facilities, earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities, railroads, electrical facilities,
natural gas facilities, research, testing, training, and incubation facilities in innovation
partnership zones designated under RCW 43.334.270, buildings, structures,
telecommunications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, or commercial
infrastructure, port facilities in the state of Washington, or affordable workforce housing
infrastructure or facilities."
RCW 82.14.370(3)(c)(i) (emphasis added).
Economic development PuLpose
➢ "`Economic development purposes' means those purposes which facilitate the
creation or retention of businesses and jobs in a county, including affordable
workforce housing infrastructure or facilities."
RCW 82.14.370(3)(c)(ii) (emphasis added).
Ppr.vnnnpl
➢ Black's Law Dictionary (the go -to law dictionary in the legal world) defines "personnel"
as "Employees working in a certain company/ organization or firm."
➢ There is no case law regarding RCW 82.14.370. The three AGO opinions relating to this
statute were unhelpful in this matter. Additionally, I could not find any legislative history
addressing the meaning "personnel".
Economic development office
➢ "`Economic development office' means an office of a county, port districts, or an
associate development organization as defined in RCW 43.330.010, which
promotes economic development purposes within the county."
RCW 82.14.370(3)(c)(iii) (emphasis added).
➢ In turn, RCW 43.3 3 0.010(1) defines "Associate development organization" as meaning
"a local economic development nonprofit corporation that is broadly representative of
community interests."
2. AG OPINION
An informal AG opinion was issued May 14, 2013 addressing the question, "May taxes
collected under RCW 82.14.370 be used for long range water supply planning unrelated to any
specific public facility?" Attorney General of Washington, Informal Opinion Letter, (May 14,
2013), (https://mrsc.org/getmedia/a63b6494-dOab-4997-aO98-4072ed8377d8/w3ag5-14-13). In
this informal opinion letter the AG breaks down the two possible categories for use of the funds
as follows: "public facilities" or "personnel in economic development offices." In the letter he
addresses the presented issue under whether the project met the "public facilities" definition.
Based on the background information provided to the AG's Office, they declined to address
whether the planning fell within the category of "personnel in economic development offices."
The informal AG opinion identifies two separate categories for use of the tax funds: (1)
public facilities; and (2) personnel in economic development offices.
Background of the Exchange Program, employment status of Karrie
Stockton (previously Janice Flynn) and Reina Endo, and the BOCC Office?
Based on my understanding of the Exchange Program (previously Bridges) Grant County has
with several cities including the Japanese cities of Komaki and Toyoyama, one of the goals of the
program is to foster economic growth for the county. This exchange program is handled within
the Board of County Commissioner's Office.
➢ Karrie Stockton is an employee of Grant County.
➢ Reina Endo is not an employee but an independent contractor per her contract with the
County.
May payments for Karrie Stockton and Reina Endo come from the
Economic Enhancement Fund (RCW 82.14.370)?
1. ARE "PUBLIC FACILITIES SERVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES"
AND "PERSONNEL IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICES" TWO SEPARATE
CATEGORIES?
Although there is no case law or formal AGO opinions regarding this, the informal AGO
letter treats these two as separate categories for which funds from RCW 82.14.370 may be used.
Formal attorney general opinions are given great weight by the court, but are not controlling.
Here the letter was informal, so the court may consider the letter, but it is not obligated to give it
any weight to it. However, it does seem to be a reasonable reading of the statute.
2. DOES EITHER OF THE CATEGORIES ALLOW THE BOCC TO USE THE FUNDS
COLLECTED UNDER RCW 82.14.370 TO PAY FOR THE PERSONNEL COSTS OF
THE EXCHANGE PROGRAM?
The first category "public facilities serving economic development purposes" does not
appear to apply as the funds are not financing a public facility. See the MRSC blog "How May
the Revenues from the Sales Tax Authorized for Rural Counties in RCW 82.14.370 Be Used"
(https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/may-2013/how-may-the-revenues-from-the-sales-
tax-authorized) as well as AGO 2001 No. 5. (https://www.at .wa.gov/a o-opinions/authorized-
uses-local-option-sales-and-use-tax-authorized-under-rcw-82143 70 ).
The second category "personnel in economic development offices" is a category that I have
not found much authority on outside a brief reference in the AG's informal letter. As such, it is
unclear as to how the courts would come down on this.
"Personnel" is not defined within the statute. The definition provided by Black's Law
Dictionary does clarify that "personnel" refers to "employees." As such, this would appear to be
limited to employees and not independent contractors. Based on this, I would not recommend
using the funds under RCW 82.14.370 to pay for Reina Endo's contract as she is an independent
contractor.
That leaves payment for Karrie's position for the exchange program, which hinges on
"economic development office." For the County's purposes, this term refers to "an office of
a county ... which promotes economic development purposes within the county."
"Economic development purposes" means those purposes which facilitate the creation or
retention of businesses and jobs in a county, including affordable workforce housing
infrastructure or facilities." RCW 82.14.370(3)(c)(ii).
Under this category the emphasis is on the "office" rather than a program within an
office. Whether that means the entire purpose of the office or whether that means only a
part of the purpose of the office is unclear.
Here the "office" would be the BOCC. The overview on the BOCC's webpage
provides, "The Board of County Commissioners is the executive and legislative authority
for Grant County and as such strives to assure that the business, services, and functions of
the county proceed with efficiency and integrity, using sound judgment and best practice."
https://wvwv.grantcountywa.gov/317/County-Commissioners. It appears to mean the
"county" as a municipal corporation.
Although it does not appear to be its main purpose, within its responsibilities the BOCC
is required to plan for economic development, for example under the GMA. See RCW
36.70A.070(7). My concern with using this thought process as a basis for using the
Economic Enhancement Funds, would be that you would probably be able to tie almost all
county personnel to some sort of economic development purpose. While there is an
argument for this approach, I would not recommend this approach as it seems to undermine
the purpose of the special targeted funding.
Conclusion:
The law is unclear as to whether you may be able to use the RCW 82.14.370 funds for
Karrie and Reina's involvement with the Exchange Program, but based on the above, I
would not recommend it.
Bob Ferguson
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
1125 *Washington Street SE o PO Box 40 1. 00 * Olympia'WA. 98504-0100
May 14, 2013
The Honorable Jason Overstreet
State Representative, District 42
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 985040600
Dear Representative Overstreet:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have -requested our opinion on a question we
have paraphrased as follows,:
May taxes collected under RCW 82.14.370 be used for long range water
supply planning unrelated to any specific public facility?
BRIEF ANSWER
No. RCW 82.14.370(3)(a) expressly limits the use of taxes raised under that section to
"financ[ing]" "public facilities serving economic development purposes in rural counties" and
"personnel in economic development offices." The water supply planning described in your
request is not necessary to the completion of any particular "public facility" and would not be
conducted by personnel in an "economic development office," as those terms are defined by the
statute. Thus, such planning is not a permissible expenditure under RCW 82.14,370.
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the legislature enacted RCW 82.14.370 to address the chronic economic
challenges faced by rural areas in the state. Laws of 1997, ch. 366, § 3, The legislature sought
to assist rural counties with. infrastructure development in an effort to promote and expand
existing businesses and attract and develop new businesses. Laws of 1997, ch. 366, §§ 1-2.
Specifically, RCW-82,14.370 permits rural counties to impose a sales and use tax, the
proceeds from which may only be used "to finance public facilities serving economic
development purposes in rural counties and finance personnel in economic development offices."
RCW 82,14.370(1), (3)(a).
You ask whether taxes collected under RCW 82.14.370 may be used by a county to make
a grant to a public utility district (PUD) to undertake five tasks, and to fund a sixth task to be
performed by the county 'itself. First, the PUD would create a Water Users Group to assist with
the remaining tasks. Second, the PUD would obtain and integrate data on current and projected
water availability. Third, the county would update its Coordinated Water System Plan under
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
The Honorable Jason Overstreet
May 14, 2013
Page 2
RCW 70.116 to be integrated into a later update of the county's Comprehensive Plan. Fourth,
the PUD would develop a work plan for integrating the -updated Coordinated Water System Plan
with other water systems. Fifth, the PUD would engage in public outreach to encourage
participation in the other tasks. Finally, the PUD would complete a "water supply plan" to
establish a local fi-amework to address future water supply needs.
With that background, we turn to your question of whether this planning is a permissible
expenditure under RCW 82.14.370.
ANALYSIS
RCW 82.14.370 permits rural counties to impose a sales and use tax of up to 0.09 percent
to "finance" either "Public facilities" or "personnel in economic development offices."i
RCW 82.14.370(3)(a). The statute provides additional guidance as to the meaning of both
categories.
As to "public facilities," the statute defines them as "bridges, roads, domestic and
industrial water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities,
railroads, electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, research, testing, training, and incubation
Facilities in innovation. partnership zones designated -under RCW 43.330.270, buildings,
structures, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, or commercial
infrastructure, and port facilities in the state of Washington." RCW 82.14,370(3)(c)(i). To be
eligible for funding under RCW 82.14.370, a public facility must serve "economic development
purposes," which are defined as "those purposes which facilitate the creation or retention of
businesses and jobs in a county." RCW 82.14.370(3)(a), (c)(ii). Finally, to be eligible for
finding: "The public facility must be listed as an item in the officially adopted county overall
economic development plan, or the economic development section of the county's
comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of a city or town located within the county for
those counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040. For those counties that do not have an adopted
overall economic development plan and do not plan under the growth management act, the
public facility must be listed in the county's capital facilities plan or the capital facilities plan of
a city or town located,within the county." RCW 82.14.370(3)(a).
As to "personnel in economic development offices," the statute defines "economic
development office" as "an office of a county, port districts, or an associate development
organization as defined in RCW 43.330.010, which promotes economic development purposes
within the county." RCW 82.14.370(3)(c)(I*ii). As noted above, "economic development
purposes" are defined as "those put -poses which facilitate the creation or retention of businesses
and jobs in a county." RCW 82.14.370(3)(a), (c)(ii).
1 A copy of RCW 82.14.370 is attached for ease of reference.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
The Honorable Jason Overstreet
May 14, 2013
Page 3
For water supply planning to be a permissible expenditure under RCW 82.14.370, it must
fall within one of these two categories. Because the planning you describe would not be
conducted by "personnel in economic development offices," it does not fall within that category,
and we will not consider here the circumstances in which such personnel might be able to work
on water supply planning. We Will instead focus on whether the water supply planning you
describe qualifies as "financ[ing]" "public facilities" under RCW 82.14.370(3)(a).
In construing a statute, the primary objective is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the
legislature. Bowie v. Dep't of Revenue, 171 Wn.2d 1, 10-11, 248 P.3d 504 (2011). The first
source for determining legislative intent is the statutory text. Id. If the plain language of the
statute is unambiguous, the statute is given its plain meaning and no further construction is
needed. Id. Where a statute defines a term, the term is given that meaning. United States v.
Hoffman, 154 Wn.2d 730, 741, 116 P.3d 999 (2005). If the term is undefined by the statute, a
dictionary may be consulted to determine the statute's meaning. Bowie, 171 Wn.2d at 10-11.
As indicated above, RCW 82.14.370(3)(c) defines "public facilities" in significant detail.
The statute's definition includes "domestic and 'industrial water facilities," but it does not further
define "domestic and industrial water facilities." Webster's, however, defines "facility" as
"something that promotes the case of any action, operation, transaction, or course of conduct —
usu[ally] used in plural] <excellent facilities for graduate study>" or "something (as a hospital,
machinery, plumbing) that is built, constructed, installed, or established to perform some
particular function or to serve or facilitate some particular end." Webster's Third New
International Dictionary 81213 (2002). Consistent in these definitions is the concept that a
"facility" is a physical place or thing, which water supply planning is not. Thus, based on the
plain meaning of "domestic and industrial water facilities," water supply planning is not a
"public facility."
This does not end our inquiry, however, as there are costs associated with constructing a
particular public facility that may be financed with funds under RCW 82.14.3 70 even though
they are not, themselves, "public facilities." In a prior Attorney General Opinion, we concluded
that expenses such as land use and permitting costs may be financed with funds under
RCW 82.14.370 because they are costs "that must be incurred in order to complete the public
facility or otherwise [are] directly related to the facility." AGO 2001 No. 5, at 3.2
To determine the relationship required under RCW 82.14.370 for an expenditure to be
considered "financ[ing] public facilities," the meaning of the term "finance," which is not
defined by the statute, must be determined. Webster's defines "finance" as "to raise or provide
funds or capital for" or "to provide with necessary funds in order to achieve a desired
2 A copy of AGO 2001 No. 5 is attached for ease of reference.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
The Honorable Jason Overstreet
May 14, 2013
Page 4
end." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 851 (2002). This definition makes clear
that RCW 82.14,370 may be used only to provide funds for the public facility or for expenses
that are necessary for the construction of a particular public, facility (or for "personnel in
economic development offices," but that is not at issue here). This is consistent with the
standard we previously articulated in AGO 2001 No, 5.
Given that we have already determined that the tasks identified in your question are not,
themselves, "Public facilities," the answer to your question thus turns on whether those tasks are
necessary for the completion of a particular public facility. Given that the water supply planning
your request describes is unrelated to the completion of any particular public facility, it is clear
that such planning is not necessary for the construction of a particular public facility.3This is
particularly clear because RCW 82.14.370 requires that the public facility to be financed be
listed in the - requisite county planning documents. Because this planning is unrelated to any
particular facility, that requirement is unmet. Your request asks whether funds r ' aised under
RCW 82.14.370 may be spent on creating or updating those planning documents, but
RCW 82.14.370 requires that the public facility be 'identified in those documents before the
expenditures are made. This use of such funds would thus impermissibly "put the cart -before the
horse," as the Washington Supreme Court has stated in a different. context. Washburn v. Beatt
Equip, Co., 120 Wn-2d 246, 298, 840 P.2d 860 (1992).
1P
In -sum, under the plain meaning of RCW 82.14.370, funds raised under that provision
may not be used to pay a public utility district to conduct water supply planning unrelated to any
specific project.
We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you. This is an informal opinion and will not
be published as an official Attorney General Opinion.
CHRISTOPHER B. LANESE
Assistant Attorney General
360-586-6326
wros
3 Our prior approval of the- expenditure of funds raised under RCW 82. X4.370 on "project design, including
feasibility and marketing studies and plans, and debt and revenue impact analysis" (AGO 2001 No. 5, at 3), does not
change this conclusion. Project design is a necessary step in the construction of a particular public facility and it is
clear from the context of that opinion that the aspects of project design identified in that opinion were necessary to
the construction of the public facility in question.
10 RCW 82ml4m370
11. Sales and use tax for public facilities in rural counties'
(1) The legislative authority of a rural county may impose a sales and use tax inaccordance with the termaofthis
c=p='' The tax ="' addition = other "taxes authorized "' law and must ~~ collected from those persons who are
taxable by the state under chapters 82.]8and 82.L2ROVV upon the occurrence of any taxable event within the
county. The rate of tax may not exceed 0.09 percent of the selling price in the case of a sales tax or value of the
article used in the case of a use tax, except that for rural counties with population densities between sixty and one
hundred persons per square mile, the rate shall not exceed 0.04 percent before January 1, 2000.
(2) The tax imposed under subsection (1)ofthis section must bededucted from the amountoftax otherwise required
to be collected or paid over to the department of revenue under 82.12RCW. The department of
revenue must perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the county atnocost to the county.
collected underthis section. may only be used to finance public facilities serving economic
development purposes in rural counties and -finance personnel in economic development offices. The public facility
must be listed as an item in the officially adopted county overall economic development plan, or the economic
development section of the county's comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of a city or town located within
the county for those counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040. For those counties that do not have an adopted
overall economic development plan and do not plan under the growth management act, the public facility must be
listed in the county's capital facilities plan or the capital facilities plan of a city or town located within the county,
(b)|nimplementing this section, the county must consult with cities, towns, and port districts located within the county
and the associate development organization serving the county to ensure that the expenditure meets the goals of
chapter 18O.Laws of2OO4and the requirements cf (a)ofthis subsection. Each county collecting money d this
section must report, as follows, to the office of the state auditor, within hundred fifty dafter the close of each
fiscal year: (1) A list of new projects begun during the fiscal year, showing that the county has used the funds for those
projects consistent with the goals of chapter 130, Laws of 2004 and the requirements of (a) of this subsection; and (ii)
expenditures during the fiscal year on projects begun in a previous year. Any projects financed prior to June 1 Ov
2004, from the proceeds of obligations to which the tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section has been
pledged may not be deemed to be new projects under this subsection. No new projects funded with money collected
under this section may be for justice system facilities.
(c)The definitions in this section apply throughout this section.
(0"Public facilities" roads, domestic and industrial water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, earth
stabilization, storm sewer facilities, railroads, electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, research, testing, training, and
incubation facilities |ninnovation partnership zones designated under R�43,330.270.buildings, structures,
telecommunications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, or commercial infrastructure, and port facilities |nthe
state ofWashington.
(ii) "Economic development purposes" means those purposes which facilitate the creation or retentionofbuu\neasea
and jobs |necounty.
0i0"Economic development office" means anoffice ofacounty, port districts, oronassociate development
organization as deflned in RCW 43-330-010, which promotes economic development purposes within the county.
(4)Notax may becollected under this section before July 1.1998.
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, no tax may be collected under this section by a county more than
twenty-five years after the date that a tax is first imposed under this section.
(b) For counties imposing the tax at the rate of 0.09 percent before August 1, 2009, the tax expires on the date that is
twenty-five years after the date that the 0.09 percent tax rate was first imposed by that county,
(5)For purposes ofthis section, "rural county" means acounty with m population density ofless than one hundred
persons per square mile oracounty smaller than two hundred hwe fiveaquonam|(osaodetenn|nedbytheofOceof
financial management and published each year by the department for the period July 1 st to June 30th.
TAXATION " SALES AND USE TAX — COUNTIES — Authorized uses of local
option sales and use tax authorized under RCW 82.14.37041
1. A county way use the local option sales and use 'tax authorized under
RCW 82.14.370 for any of the following purposes if the activity in* question relates to
a public facility as defined in the statute:
facilities costs, including
capital faci
acquisition, construction,
rehabilitation, alteration, expansion, or improvements of public
facilities;
• 0 costs of development and improvement for the public facilities;
o project -specific environmental costs;
9 land use and permitting costs;
0 costs of site planning and analysis-,
a project d'esigii, including feasibility and marketing studies and
plans, and debt and revenue impact analysis.
As to counties which are required to plan under the Growth Management
Act, in order to be eligible for funding with revenue raised -under the local options
sales tax authorized under RCW 82.14.370, a project must be broadly related to
economic development, but the county has discretion to determine how a project or
facility will promote or foster economic development.
• 3. Counties which are not required to plan under the Growth Management
Act may use revenue raised under the local. options sales tax authorized under
RCW 82.14,370 for projects which do not constitute economize development so long
as such projects are included in the county's capital facilities plan or in the capital
facilities plan of a city or. town located within the county.
September 4; 2001
The Honorable Tim Sheldon
State Senator, 35th District
P, O. Box 40435
Olympia, WA 98504-0435
Dear Senator Sheldon-,
Cite as:
AGO 2001 No. 5
'
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following
questions relating to county revenues derived from the local option sale8 and use tax program set
forth in RCW 82.14,370-. 1
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Hofiorable Tim -Sheldon -2" 2001 AGO No. 5
11 May a county use revenues from the local option sales and use
tax program for rural communities, authorized under RCW 82.14.370, to,
finance any or all of the following costs related to public facilities: (1) capital
facilities costs, including acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, alteration,
expansion, or improvements of public facilities; (2) costs of development and
improvement for the public facilities; (3) project -specific environmental
cosU- (4) land use and permitting costs* (5) costs of site planning and
analysiss, and (6) project design, including feasibility and marketing studies
and plans, and debt and revenue impact analysis?
20 Does the requirement in RCW 82.14.370(3) that a public
facility must be listed as an item In an officially adopted county overall
economic development plan, or the economic development section of a
county's co mpreh exis ive plan, or the comprehensive plan of a city or town
located within a county for those counties planning -under the Growth
Management ' Act (GMA), mean that the public facility must have an
economic development purpose such as the permanent private sector job
creation or retention (beyond jobs created directly in constructing a
project)?
3. Is the answer to question 2 the same for those counties that do
not have an adopted overall economic development plan and do not plan
under the GMA, where RCW 82.14.370(3) requires that the public facilities
must be listed in the county's capital facilities plan or the capital facilities
plan of a city or town located within the county?
410 . If the answer to question 2 or 3 is yes, what is the standard, if
any, by which a county must determine whether a public facility has an
economic development purpose?
BRIEF ANSWERS
The answer to your first question is yes—a county can use revenues derived from the
local option sales and use tax program to finance the costs listed in your question when those
costs axe associated with public facilities as defined in RCW 82.14,370.
The answer to your second question is yes, because a public facility listed M' the
economic development plan or economic development section of the comprehensive. plan of a
county planning under the Crowd .Management Act will, by virtue of its inclusion in the plan,
have an economic development purpose.
The answer to your third question is no, because no statute requires a county that does not
plan under the Growth Management Act to 'Include an economic development purpose in its,
capital facilities plan.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
, Honorable Tire. Sheldon "3" . .. 2.001 AGO No, 5
The answer to your, fourth question is that there are no express statutory standards by
which a county can determine whether a public facility has an economic development purpose.
A county planning under the Growth Management Act need not independently measure the
economic purpose of public facilities under RCW 82,14.370 against any standards, Rather, the
county. (or city within the county) need only list the public facility in its economic development
plan or in the economic development section of its comprehensive plan in order to finance a
public facility with revenues derived from the local option sales and use tax,
ANALYSIS
May a county use revenues from the local option sales and use
tax program for rural comwunifies,, authorized under RCW 82.14.370, to
finance any or all of the follow'ing costs related to public facilities: (1) capital
facilities costs, including acquisition, construction, rehabillitatio-ii, alteration,
expansion, or impr*ovements of public facilities; (2) costs of development and
improvement for the public facilities; (3) project -specific environmental
costs; (4). land use and permitting costs,, (5) costs of site planning and
analysis,,, and (6) project design, including feasibility and ma'rketing studies
and plans, and debt and revenue impact analysis?
A rural county may use revenues derived from the local option sales and use tax for all of
the costs listed above provided those costs are associated with any of the public facilities defined
in RCW 82,14,370(3).' Other than identify the facilities that are eligible for funding and require
that they be listed in the comprehensive plan, the statute does not limit the use of revenues
derived from the tax to finance particular costs associated with the facility. Each item listed in
your request is a cost that must be incurred in order to complete the public facility or otherwise is
directly related to the facility.
I
2s Does the requirement that a public facility must be listed as an item in
the county's economic development plan, or the economic development
section of the county's comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of a
city or town located within the county for those counties planning under the
GMA mean that the public facility most have a economic development
purpose such as permanent private Job creation or retention?
The Legislature adopted the local option sales and use tax in 1997, See Laws of 1997, Ch.
366, § 3 (codified at RCW 82.14,370). As originally enacted, the revenues fibm the tax could
"only be used for the purpose of financing public facilities in rural counties." RCW 82,1.4, 370
(1997), The Legislature passed the local option sales and use tax as one of several measures that
' RCW 82,14,370(3) defines "public facilities" as "bridges, roads, domestic and ilidustrial water facilities,
sanitary sewer facilities, earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities,' railroad, electricity, natural gas, buildings,
structures, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, or commercial infrastructure, and port
facilities in the state of Washington."
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Honorable Tim Sheldon - -4- % 2_001 AGO No, 5
were intended to assist rural distressed counties in their efforts to promote economic
mt Laws of 19
development and employment opportunities, ies 97, ch. 366, §§ I & 2,
I
in 1999, the Legislature amended RCW 82,14,370 to define the public facilities that
mould qualify for financing with local options sales use tax revenues. See Laws of 1999, oh.
311� § 101, In the same chapter, the Legislature addedthe' requirement that the public tacnities
must be listed in a county or city comprehensive plan in order to be financed with the tax
revenues. Id,2
Your questions ask whether RCW 82.14,370 requires public facilities funded with
revenues from the local option sales and use tax to have an economic development purpose. The
primary objective. of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature,
LaceNursing Ctr.) Inc. -v, Dept ofRev.,128 Wn.2d 40, 53, 905 P,2d 338 (1995). To determine
y look first to theplain meaning of the words in the statute. Id.
the Legislature's intent, we must
RCW 82.14,370 requires that public facilities financed by the tax:
[M]ust be listed as an item in the officially adopted county overall economic
development plan, or -the economic development section of the county's.
cobaprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan of a city or town located within
the county for those counties planning under RCW 36,70A,040. For those
counties that do not have an adopted overall economic development plan and do
not plan under the growth management act, the public facility must be listed in the
county's capital facilities plan or the capital facilities plan of a city or -town
located within the county.
RCW 82,14,370(3).
Thep lain language does not require that public facilities have an economic development
purpose, Rather, for counties that plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA.), the facilities
must be listed in the county's economic development plan or in the economic development
section of the comprehensive plan, Therefore, we, must determine whether the plans in question
require facilities listed within them to have an economic development purpose,
An 4ceconornic development plan' is not defined in RCW* 82.14. The GMM also does not
define "economic development plan". While .economic development is a goal of the GMA, it is
not a separable element of a comprehensive' plan for counties or cities that plan under the GMA.
See RCW 36.70A.020(5),070. Therefore, there is no requirement in the CTMA that counties
a n
must plan for economic development separately from the other planning g e lements that include
economic development aspects, such as land use, capital facilities, and transportation planning.
I in 1999, the Legislature also changed the description of the counties authorized to impose the tax, Under
the 1997 law, a "rural distressed county", which was defined as a county with an average UMMPIOYMOnt rate
exceeding the average statewide unemployment rate, could impose the tax, The .1999 amendments authorized a
"rugal county", defined as a county with a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile, to impose the
tax. Compare RCW 82,14.370(5)(1997) with RCW 9:2.14.370(1999). 1
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Honorable Tim Sheldon 2.001. AGO No. 5
See RCW 36.70A.070(1), (3), (6), Counties are free to include a separate econ6mic development
section in their comprehensive plans or to provide for economic development in their capita'l
facilities pians.
Although not specifically required by the GMA, a GMA-plarniing county nevertheless
must have either an overall econornic development plan or a comprehensive plan—and include
the public facility in that plan—in order to impose the local option sales and use, tax.
RCW 92,14,370. Therefore, we must determine what "economic development" means in the
context of the GMA,
"Eoonomic development" is not defined in the statute. Therefore, we must give it its
ordinary meaning, See Simpson* Inv. ' Co. v. Dep 't of Rev., 141 Wn.2d 139, 150, 3 P.3d 741
(20+00). Courts will look to a dictionary to discern the plain and ordinary meaning, of a word. See
Ravenscroft v. Wash, Water Power Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 922, 969 P.2d 75 (1998), "Economic"
is broadly defined as "of or relating to the development, production, and management of material
wealth, as of a country, household, or business enterprise,," Webster's 11 New College
Dictionary 357 (1995). "Development" means the act of aiding in the growth of something. Id.
at 310 (from. the definitions of "development" and "develop"), Under this definition, "economic
development" would include, among Other things, job growth and commercial and industrial
expansion. Thus, if a county includes a public facility in its economic development plan, the
county has identified that facility as -benefiting the county's economy,
We note that this standard grants counties consid6rable discretion in determining whether
a public facility should be 'Included in the economic developin'ent pla', However, in exercising
this discretion, counties must comply with the requirements of the GMA. For example, the
comprehensive plan must be consistent with the goals of the GMA, RCW 36-70A.020, as well as
with the adopted countywide plamffig policies. RCW 36.70A,210. Counties must coordinate
their planning with the economic development plans of neighboring and included jurisdictions,
RCW 36,70A,100. An economic development section of a comprehensive plan must be
consistent with the other seotions of the comprehensive plan, RCW 36,70A,070. And, very
importantly, counties must allow for early and continuous public participation in the
comprehensive planning process. RCW 36,70A.140, These requirements will ensure that
i
counties plan for their public facilities n advance, rather than use tax revenues to finance
projects not planned for or properly evaluated, I
31 Is the answer to question 2 the same for those counties that do
not have an adopted overall economic development plan and - do not plan
wider the GMA, where RCW 82.14,370(3) requires that the public faeflities
must be listed in the county's capital facill"fies plan or the capital faeffifles
plan of a city or town located within the county.
For those counties that do not plan under the GMA, RCW 82,t4,370 requires only that
the facility be listed in the capital facilities plan of the county or of a city within the county. For
those counties that do not plan under the GMA, economic development is not a mandatory
component of their comprehensive plans. See RCW 36.70,320, Therefore, in answer to your
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Honorable Tim Sheldon "6- .2001 AGO No. 5
thirdquestion, there is no statutory reqtfirement that the public facilities included in such a
county's comprehensive plan must have an economic development purpose,
44 If the answer to question 2 or 3 Is yes, what is the standard, if
any, by which a county must determine -whether a public facility has an
economic development purpose?
Our answer with respect to Question 2 is answered above, We answered question 3 in
the negative; therefore, we do not need to reach this question with respect to counties that do not
plan -under the GMA. - I
To summarize, RCW 82.14,370 authorizes a county -to finance the costs listed in your
request if incurred for a public facility as defined in RCW 82.14.370. A capital facility that is
included in a county's economic development plan or in the ec6nomic development section of a
county's comprehensive plan -need not have an economic development purpose separate from.
that contained in. the plan. A county that does not plan under the GMA is not 'required to
establish an e�onomi*c purpose for- those public facilities listed in its capital facilities plan,
Finally, there are no standards, other than those set forth in its comprehensive plan, �y which a
GMA-planning county can determine whether a public, facility has an economic development
purpose, I
:pmd
We trust this opinion is of assistance to you,
y
Sincerelyl
SHANNON E. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
(360) 596 2683