Washington Research Council Fiscal Report January 1989

Transcription

1 Washington Research Council Fiscal Report January 1989 Citizens' Guide to Local Government ''-.../ Local governments in Washington are mandated to provide certain services, such as law enforcement, justice, and local streets and roads. In recent years, with population growth in the urban fringe areas and increasing demands for traditional urban services in more suburban and rural settings, pressures on cities and counties have increased. As a result, it's more important than ever that local governments spend their money wisely. That means it's also more important that Washington residents monitor where their local governments get money and how they spend it. The Citizens' Guide to Local Government is a reference guide for people who want to monitor or participate in the city and county budgeting that takes place each fall. The information is arranged in easy-to-read tables and graphs. The first part of the Guide provides background information on local government budgeting in Washington. It is followed by an explanation of the various budgeting methods. "Approaches to Budget Analysis" contains suggestions for how to analyze a local government budget. The Introduction and Highlights next section presents statistical data on the 451argest cities, followed by a section on counties. Highlights from those tables include the following: 2.3 million people lived in Washington's 266 cities and towns in That's about half of the state's population. Overall state population increased 21 percent between 1978 and Population in incorporated areas increased 9 percent. About 52 percent of the state population lives in the three largest counties in Washington - King, Pierce and Snohomish - and 30 percent of city population lived in the three largest cities-seattle, Spokane and Tacoma. Property taxes are the single largest revenue source for counties, while cities rely heavily on service charges for their funding. Other important revenue sources are state government, sales and use tax, business taxes (cities). Major categories of local government spending in 1987 were general government, law enforcement and security activities, physical environment and transportation. Local Government in Washington State....._ Washington is divided into 39 counties. Roughly half of the state's population lives in its 266 incorporated cities and towns. As political subdivisions of the state, cities and counties are subject to regulation under the state constitution and the Revised Code of Washington. In addition to cities and counties, there are more than 1,300 special districts. Special districts are local government entities that are neither city, town, or county. They are quasi-municipal corporations created by law to perform a single function or a group of closely related functions. There are more 50 types of special districts in Washington. The Budget Process One of the requirements of state law is that local government entities adopt annual operating budgets. This takes place through a specified process involving public hearings and passage of a budget ordinance. The fiscal year for local governments is January 1 through December 31 and budget hearings generally take place in late fall. The budget calendar is specified by state law. Cities have the option of operating with biennial budgets. The regular city budget calendar is used by cities with biennial budgets. They go through a full budget process every two years with a mid-biennium review and modification of their budgets taking place eight to 12 months into the biennium. This process involves public notices and hearings, and the passage of an ordinance. Although a uniform budget document is not required by the state for cities and counties, as there is for school districts, there are legal requirements as to what should be included in the budget and what adoption of that budget means. City and county budgets must use uniform revenue and expenditure categories specified by the state auditor. City budgets should be accompanied by a budget message. With the exceptions of reserve funds and special programs, budget appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year and are considered unexpended funds. For a given year, budgeted expenditures should not exceed estimated available revenue plus any unexpended funds. An adopted budget sets spending limits for that fiscal year. ( 906 S. Columbia, Suite 350 Olympia, WA (206) )

2 ( Page 2 January 1989 The format and contents of final budget documents vary widely across the state. Some local governments put considerable effort into their budget documents; several have won awards for distinguished budget presentation. Such a budget may include "a guide to the budget," information about the city or county and its budget process, narrative explaining the functions or purposes of its departments or programs, and the required budget message. Less elaborate, but acceptable budget documents include a brief explanation or summary of the entity's organization, a summary of the budget, and a narrative explanation of the revenue sources and the functions and activities of the various departments. Other things that may help citizens to better understand the budget are graphs and charts. BARS Cities and counties throughout Washington are required to use accounting procedures and classifications prescribed by the state auditor. The need for uniformity in local government financial operations resulted in the development of the Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting System (BARS) and its use by cities and counties since BARS was designed to provide financial information on local governments for the following: (1) to aid the legislature in assessing local government needs and help determine the allocation of state collected and shared revenue; (2) to form the basis for evaluation of the services provided to citizens and provide the foundation for planning future actions at the local level; (3) to help determine the amount of federal aid; and, (4) to provide nongovernmental research groups, investors, and taxpayers with data so that they can evaluate the fiscal condition of local governments in Washington. Washington Research Council ) BARS account numbers are periodically revised to keep up with changes in governmental accounting procedures on the national level. A major revision took place in 1985 and care should be taken in making comparisons with pre-1985 data. In addition, revenue and spending data shown here include dedicated funds not available for general purposes, which were not included in previous versions of this publication. Revenue Local governments receive revenue from several major sources. Cities receive a large portion of their total funds - 41 percent - from service charges (see graphs below). A large part of these funds is earmarked for utility purposes and therefore not available for general government spending. Taxes, the most important of which is the property tax, are the largest single general-purpose revenue source. For counties the property taxes were the largest single revenue source in 1987, making up 30 percent of total revenue. Property taxes accounted for 1 0 percent of city revenue. Other major sources include sales and use and business taxes, and revenue from other governments. Property taxes are based on the true and fair value (market value) of real and personal property. The total assessed value (AV) of property in a city or county indicates its potential for levying property taxes. Regular property taxes in Washington are subject to a number of statutory and constitutional limitations:,..--..,.. Maximum rates are set by statute for each type of taxing district (for example.50/$1,000 of AVfor library districts); The aggregate tax rate in a given tax code area cannot exceed $9.15 per $1,000 AV. This amount includes Cities Local Goverment Revenue Sources 1987 Counties PropertyTaxes 30.3% Charges* 40.8% 3.0% * Includes utility charges earmarked for utility purposes and not available to suooort aeneral aovernment ooerations Source: Office of the State Auditor

3 --... ( Washington Research Council $3.60/$1,000 for the state levy; and port, public utility and emergency medical district levies are not included in this limit. If the limit is exceeded tax rates are reduced according to a proration formula determined by the legislature; In a given taxing district, the amount of the levy (dollars to be collected) cannot increase more than 6 percent over the largest levy of the last three years (the 1 06 percent limit). Increases in collections which result from new construction are not included. During periods of rapid increase in property values this may drive levy rates down. The 1 06 percent lid may be lifted by a vote of the people. Regular property tax rates may not exceed 1 percent of the true and fair value of property (as determined by the state). This value may differ from the assessed value determined by the county assessor. Property tax rates must be uniform across a district. If a rate is prorated in one area, that reduced rate applies to the entire district. Voter-approved excess property tax levies are not subject to these limitations. Cities and counties may levy local sales and use taxes of up to 1 percent and transit districts may impose up to a 0.6 percent sales tax. The maximum combined state and local rate is 8.1 percent. Cities may also impose business taxes. \...- Intergovernmental revenue is another major source of funds. It includes federal, state, and inter-local grants; entitlements; impact payments; and general shared revenue. Non-tax sources include fees for licenses and permits, charges for services, interest, fines and forfeits. January 1989 Page 3 ) Expenditures Local government budgets classify expenditures according to BARS categories. Because cities and counties are required to provide different services, their expenditures cannot be directly compared. About 40 percent of county spending is for general government operations and the protection of persons and property (see graphs below). Counties also spend a large portion of their money, 17 percent in 1987, on roads. Activities relating to physical environment, including utilities and garbage collection, made up about 34 percent of city expenditures in Many of these activies are supported by service fees. Law enforcement and security activities, general government operations, building and equipment and roads are other major areas of city spending. Employee salaries and benefits are the single largest local government cost - as much as 85 percent of the total budget. The trend of municipal or county salaries over the past five or ten years can be analyzed, taking inflation into consideration. Often one of the fastest growing elements of a local government budget is the cost of fringe benefits. These include health, life, accident and unemployment insurance, as well as the employer costs of retirement programs. Budget Techniques and Issues The future of city and county governments depends upon sound fiscal management. Any budgeting process involves the allocation of limited resources to produce a given service or product. Problems currently facing local governments include health insurance costs, solid waste disposal, correc- Cities Local Goverment Spending Priorities 1987 Counties I - Other 23.5% General Govemment 20.8%..... Physical Environment* 33.9% * Includes utility activities supported by earmarked funds Source: Office of the State Auditor

4 ( Page 4 January 1989 tions, and law enforcement. Under these circumstances, careful use of existing resources becomes crucial. Citizen involvement in the budget process can help local government officials make important fiscal decisions. Budgeting Methods Most local governments rely on line-item, or incremental, budgeting, although the budgets may include elements of program or zero-base budgeting. Line-item budgets are frequently prepared by adding proposed spending increases to current expenditure levels, allowing relatively quick preparation. However, line-item budgeting assumes that the current level of expenditures is justified and that programs or operations are effective and productive, which may or may not be true. It also makes isolation and aggregation of government expenditures extremely difficult, hampering analysis of alternative service delivery. Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures Government programs can be evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency measures relate inputs directly to their outputs. Examples are the amount of garbage collected per $1,000 spent, or the amount collected per man-hour. Efficiency measures may reveal overly costly procedures or duplication of effort. If efficiency comparsions are done over several years, the impact of inflation should be considered. Effectiveness measures gauge the impact of government activities on specific clientele groups or on an entire community. Performing an activity more efficiently may be less importantthan whether the activity is meeting a specific policy goal, or whether it should be undertaken at all. Effectiveness measures include the extent of citizen agreement with existing levels of service, the extent to which a service is provided equitably and fairly, service quality, and citizen satisfaction. Alternative Service Delivery Alternative service delivery options should be an integral element of every budgetary discussion. It may be possible and rational to shift service provision responsibilities to other governments orto private sector providers. Commonly transferred responsibilities include solid waste collection and disposal, sewage collection and treatment, social service provision, safety inspection, and planning functions. Shifting of service responsibility to other governmental bodies is fairly common and can provide economies-ofscale, eliminate duplication, and may use equipment and facilities more thoroughly. Intergovernmental arrangements may be contracts for complete service provision, or informal cooperative agreements to share equipment or other resources. Privatization - contracting with private businesses for services- can result in better performance and lower costs. This can be due to competition, economies-of-scale, technological innovation, and circumvention of rigid governmental personnel systems. Private contracting can be considered for services that have quantifiable dimensions and easily specified contract terms, such as solid waste collection or Washington Research Council ) building maintenance, or highly specialized and periodic services, such as road building, tree trimming and consulting. Approaches to Budget Analysis Analysis of a local government's fiscal condition can begin by examining its budgets.this can include trend analysis, comparative analysis and audit review. Trend Analysis Examining trends over several years in revenues and expenditures and comparing budgeted figures against actual receipts and expenditures may pinpoint areas of concern. As with any comparative analysis, there may be logical explanations for variations. An explanation should be in the budget message. Questions about variations should be directed to the administrator's office. Historical data can be found in old budget documents. Comparative Analysis Another way to put expenditures into perspective is to compare expenditure levels among similar local governments. Take care to make relevant comparisons. Do the governmental units being compared have the same array of functions? It is also important to examine all budgets to determine the total cost of a service, as all costs may not be centered in the budget of a particular department. The information found in the tables in this book can be used for comparative analysis. Selection of the appropriate governments can be based on data in Table 1. Refer to explanations of the tables for definitions of data, detail, and sources. This comparison may reveal similarities and differences in operations of cities and counties of approximately the same size. A high or low ranking in a particular category does not necessarily indicate a problem; however, it can suggest areas that merit further analysis. Audit Review In addition to data that are directly available from local government budgets, more information may be available in audit reports. Each city and county is audited annually by the state auditor. The audit reports may be the best source of accounting information on cash balances, revenues, expenditures and, in some instances, past budgets. These documents also report irregularities in budgeting and expenditure practices. A copy of the audit report should be on file in the local government's administrative office. Cities Cities are authorized to levy sales, business, and property taxes and must furnish police and fire protection. They may require and issue licenses for the purpose of regulation or revenue generation; grant various franchises and acquire and operate certain types of public utilities; and borrow money or issue bonds for the purpose of raising funds. They may enact building codes and zoning ordinances; may purchase, lease, condemn, or otherwise acquire real and per-

5 ( Washington Research Council sonal property for city purposes; and provide construction and maintenance of streets, alleys, parks, and sidewalks. Cities are classified on the basis of population. In some instances, the powers and obligations of a municipality are determined by the class to which it belongs. First class cities may choose the form of their government through local charters. As a result their governments do not follow a uniform organizational pattern. Any city or town, regardless of population, may elect to become a non-charter code city and be governed under statues in the Optional Municipal Code, rather than under existing statutes relating to the class to which it belongs. Unincorporated areas may choose to incorporate under the optional code as a non-charter city. Any city choosing to become a code city will abandon its classification as a first, second, third or fourth class city. Any city with 1 0,000 or more residents that has a charter or wishes to adopt one, may elect to become a charter code city and be governed under the code rather than under existing laws relating to cities of the class to which it now belongs. It is the intent of the Optional Municipal Code to confer the broadest powers of local self-government consistent with the state's constitution. Any specific enumeration of municipal power contained in the Optional Municipal Code or any other general law is not to be construed to limit general municipal City Classification First Second Third Fourth Unclassified January 1989 Page 5 ) Classification of Cities Optional Municipal Code (non-charter) Popylatjon* More than 20,000 10,000-20,000 1,50D-1 0, D-1,500 N/A N/A * At time of organization or reorganization. power. Specifically, enumerated powers are supplementary and additional to powers conferred in general terms. Adoption of the Optional Municipal Code permits smaller cities and towns to enjoy the same broad powers otherwise granted only to first class cities. Types of City Government There are three principal forms of government used by Washington cities: mayor-council, council-manager, and commission. The basic difference among the three forms of city government is in the placement of responsibility for the administration of the city and the relationship of the administrative officer to the policy-making body, and to the public. "-'"' I City Class and Form of Government., I City Class Form of Govt. City Class Form of Govt. Aberdeen 1 Mayor-Council Moses Lake Code Council-Manager Anacortes Code Mayor-Council Mountlake Terr. Code Council-Manager Auburn Code Mayor-Council Mount Vernon Code Mayor-Council Bellevue Code Council-Manager Oak Harbor Code Mayor-Council* Bellingham 1 Mayor-Council Olympia Code Council-Manager Bothell Code Council-Manager Pasco Code Council-Manager Bremerton 1 Mayor-Council Port Angeles Code Council-Manager Centralia Code Council-Manager Pullman Code Mayor-Council* Cheney Code Mayor-Council* Puyallup Code Council-Manager Des Moines Code Council-Manager Redmond Code Mayor-Council* Edmonds Code Mayor-Council Renton Code Mayor-Council* Ellensburg 3 Council-Manager Richland 1 Council-Manager Everett 1 Mayor-Council Seattle 1 Mayor-Council Hoquiam Code Mayor-Council Shelton Code Commission* Kelso Code Council-Manager Spokane 1 Council-Manager Kennewick Code Council-Manager Sunnyside Code Council-Manager Kent Code Mayor-Council* Tacoma 1 Council-Manager Kirkland Code Council-Manager Tumwater 3 Mayor-Council* Lacey Code Council-Manager Vancouver 1 Council-Manager Longview Code Council-Manager Walla Walla Code Council-Manager Lynnwood Code Mayor-Council* Wenatchee Code Commission Marysville Code Mayor-Council* Yakima 1 Council-Manager Mercer Island Code Council-Manager * Cities with city supervisor, city superintendent, city Source: Officials of Washington Cities: , Assoadministrator, or administrative assistant. ciation of Washington Cities.

6 ( Page 6 January 1989 Mayor-Council Cities Under the mayor-council form of government, the citizens elect a mayor and city council members. The mayor is the chief administrative officer and also the political head of the city. As presiding officer of the city council, he is responsible both for determining city policy and for seeing that it is carried out. In some Washington cities, the council has the option to override many of the mayor's decisions. Under this form, policy development is primarily the responsibility of the city council, and the the mayor's job is one of coordination rather than leadership. While this is considered to be a weak form of mayor-council government, it does provide a system of checks and balances. Council-Manager Cities Under the council-manager system, the policy-making and administrative functions of the city are separate. The council determines city policies and selects a city manager who serves as the chief administrator of the city. City council members are elected by the voters and the mayor is chosen at the first meeting of the new council from among their own number. The mayor presides at meetings, is recognized as the head of the city for ceremonial purposes and by the governor for the purposes of military law. However, he does not have veto power or any regular administrative duties. Commission Cities Under the commission form of government, three commissioners are elected to serve four-year terms. The commissioners are elected at-large to fill the specific offices of commissioner of public safety (serves as mayor), commissioner of finances and accounting, and commissioner of streets and public improvements (public works). The commissioners, as a body, may determine the powers and duties of all officers and employees of each department. The mayor has essentially the same power as other members of the commission. He has neither veto power nor any powers to direct general city administration other than that of his own department of public safety. Counties Each of the 39 counties in Washington operates as a political subdivision of the state, and has governmental powers explicitly granted by statute. These powers and duties include authorization to assess, levy, and collect property taxes; construct and maintain highways, roads, and bridges; and improve open spaces, parks, and community facilities. A county provides for sanitation, public health, and garbage disposal (landfill operation). It initiates and coordinates water and sewerage planning, as well as construction and operation of water and sewer systems as needed. It establishes area-wide planning standards and supervises Washington Research Council ) formation of special districts. It enacts legislation governing unincorporated areas within its boundaries and enforces county laws. It provides courts and conducts and supervises elections. A county also operates as a municipal corporation and is empowered to transact county business such as buying and selling property, authorizing construction of public improvements, and employing personnel to conduct county affairs. Counties are classified according to population, based upon federal census figures. Certain aspects of a county's organizational structure depend upon its class. The organization of county government in Washington is defined by state law. Thirty-four of the counties utilize this organizational structure, which provides for the election of certain county officers. Counties may deviate from this structure by framing a "home rule charter" for their own governance. Currently Pierce, King, Whatcom, Snohomish and Clallam counties are operating under their own charters. Based on the experience of existing charters, the tendency in changing county government structure is to create a broader governing body. Counties adopting home rule charters generally have more councilors than they had commissioners, establish the office of county executive, and make some of the officials who are elected under the state structures positions of appointment. The state constitution also grants voters of any county the right to consolidate county and city governments. The citycounty may exercise any power granted to either cities or counties. Attempts to consolidate have been made, however currently no city-county exists in Washington., Classification of Counties Class AA A * 8* Population Counties w/i Class 500,000 or more King 210,000 to 500,000 Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane 125,000 to 21 0,000 Clark, Kitsap, Yakima 70,000 to 125,000 Benton, Cowlitz, Thurston, Whatcom 40,000 to 70,000 Chelan, Clallam, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island, Lewis, Skagit, Walla Walla, Whitman 18,000 to 40,000 Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Mason, Okanogan, Stevens 12,000 to 18,000 Adams, Asotin, Jefferson, Klickitat, Pacific 8,000 to 12,000 Lincoln, Pend Oreille 5,000 to 8,000 Ferry, San Juan, Skamania, Columbia 3,000 to 5,000 Wahkiakum, Garfield Home rule counties are in bold type * 7th and 8th class counties may retain classification although population fall below the minimum for that class. \, Source: Washington State Association of Counties. d

7 ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 7 ) Local Government Statistics '---'.... The following tables include information on the state's 50 largest cities, based on 1988 population, and all 39 counties. A total for all 266 incorporated cities and towns is included on some tables. Citizens are urged to read the explanation of tables carefully to help avoid misinterpretation of the data. Annexations have occurred in almost all cities listed over the past ten years and affect population and assessed valuation as well as land area. Table 1, Table2, Table 3, Table4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, 1988 Population, Per Capita Assessed Valuation, Land Area, and Population Density, presents basic characteristics that can be considered when determining which are similar enough for comparison. Population is an important determinant of the demand for services and of the level of revenue available. The population figures shown will be used for the distribution of 1989 state revenues. Per capita assessed valuation (AV) indicates the amount of taxable real and personal property per person in a city or county - useful in measuring a local government's ability to levy property taxes, a major source of revenue. Population Change-April1 of 1978, 1983 and 1988, shows population growth over a ten-year period. Property Taxes Due in 1978, 1983 and 1988, shows total property taxes due in 1978, 1983, and 1988 and the percentage growth over the ten-year period. Change in property taxes can be the result of new construction, a special levy rate increase, or revaluation of property. These factors will increase property tax receipts and generate more property tax revenue. In the case of new construction, there will usually be an increase in the demand for services. Consideration should be given to such factors when reviewing growth in population, revenues and expenditures. Employment Data for 1988, shows the number of employees for 1988, the number of employees with general law enforcement authority and their percentage in relation to the total work force Total and Per Capita Revenue by Selected Sources, shows the major revenue accounts for operating funds in This table should be helpful in understanding the sources of revenue and the degree of reliance which a government has on each revenue source. Per capita figures are based on 1987 population figures from the Office of Financial Management. Per $1,000 AV figures are based on 1987 AV figures from the Department of Revenue Total and Per Capita Expenditures by Selected Functions, shows expenditures by account for local government operating funds in It shows the degree to which a city or county spends its funds on a particular function. By dividing each expenditure in each account by the total expenditure figure, a percentage distribution of expenditures can be determined. Per capita figures are based on 1987 population figures from the Office of Financial Management. Per $1,000 AV figures are based on 1987 AV figures from the Department of Revenue Monthly Salaries for Selected Job Classes, shows the average salaries for major job classifications in Washington cities and counties. These should provide some idea of a local government's policy on salaries. Caution should be used in making comparisons between the same jobs in different areas of the state since hours worked, duties, responsibilities, skills, and experience may vary. Also the government's financial position, economic conditions, population, geographic location, and labor supply and demand influence variations in salaries and benefits..,. Note: The city and county revenue figures included in this publication do not include a few figures that are reported in local government budgets. Internal service funds transactions, inter-fund charges, operating transfers in and out and residual equity transfers are double counting of funds and therefore aren't included. Also, purchase and buy-back of investments are excluded. Corrections from prior years also are not shown. Funds shown include general, enterprise, special assessment, capital projects and debt service Bibliography ""' Association of Washington Cities, Officials of Washington Cities: , Information Bulletin #449, February Washington Local Government Personnel Institute, Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 1988, Washington State Department of Revenue, Property Tax Collections and Levies Due, July 1978, July 1983, August Washington State Office of the Attorney General, 1988 Washington State Law Enforcement Survey, August Washington State Office of Financial Management, State of Washington Population Trends, 1978, August Washington State Office of Financial Management, Population Trends for Washington State, Percent Change of Total Population: , August 1981.

8 ( Page 8 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table 1A 1988 City Population, Per Capita Assessed Valuation, Land Area, and Population Density -, Assessed Valuation 1988 Poulation Total Per Caita Land Area Population per City County Amount Rank (1,000s) Amount Rank (sq. miles) Square Mile Aberdeen Grays Harbor 17, $374,569 $21, ,465 Anacortes Skagit 10, ,214 37, ,221 Auburn King 30, ,290,341 41, ,512 Bellevue King 85, ,632,972 66, ,280 Bellingham Whatcom 46, ,475,222 31, ,944 Bothell King/Snoh. 10, ,613 35, ,060 Bremerton Kitsap 37, ,892 22, ,796 Centralia Lewis 11, ,680 23, ,220 Cheney Spokane 7, ,714 14, ,865 Des Moines King 14, ,673 31, ,252 Edmonds Snohomish 28, ,201,113 42, ,812 Ellensburg Kittitas 11, ,254 19, ,264 Everett Snohomish 60, ,964,886 48, ,012 Hoquiam Grays Harbor 9, ,452 27, ,240 Kelso Cowlitz 10, ,662 19, ,344 Kennewick Benton 37, ,939 23, ,035 Kent King 32, ,387,227 73, ,640 Kirkland King 35, ,156,852 32, ,482 Lacey Thurston 16, ,420 27, ,546 Longview Cowlitz 29, ,721 25, ,342 Lynnwood Snohomish 25, ,116,471 43, ,670 Marysville Snohomish 7, ,731 34, ,960 Mercer Island King 20, ,321,197 63, ,337 Moses Lake Grant 10, ,824 25, ,208 Mount Vernon Skagit 14, ,606 32, ,637 Mountlake Terrace Snohomish 16, ,945 28, ,229 Oak Harbor Island 14, ,070 23, ,882 Olympia Thurston 30, ,206,225 39, ,705 Pasco Franklin 18, ,582 21, Port Angeles Clallam 17, ,810 33, ,821 Pullman Whitman 22, ,549 11, ,436 Puyallup Pierce 20, ,774 32, ,099 Redmond King 31, ,979,332 62, ,099 Renton King 36, ,031,930 55, ,261 Richland Benton 30, ,805 30, Seattle King 495, ,475,024 47, ,929 Shelton Mason 7, ,503 29, ,591 Spokane Spokane 170, ,409,648 25, ,982 Sunnyside Yakima 9, ,365 19, ,918 Tacoma Pierce 161, ,916,841 30, ,379 Tumwater Thurston 8, ,307 39, Vancouver Clark 43, ,380,251 31, ,774 Walla Walla Walla Walla 25, ,265 19, ,400 Wenatchee Chelan 18, ,107 29, ,274 Yakima Yakima 49, ,358,531 27, ,810 All Cities 2,255,526 $83,920,724 $37,207 1, ,023 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Washington State Departement of Revenue

9 -, - n. r. - 32,350 17,100 w 32,000 17,350.. ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 9 ) Table2A City Population Change - April 1 of 1978, 1983 and 1988 "---"'.... Percent Change City to 1988 Rank.._._ "-"- " v"j[,_.,., rr r. r.u Aberdeen 19,100 18,050 17, % 44 Anacortes 8,550 9,425 10, Auburn 24,750 29,000 30, Bellevue 72,700 73,900 85, Bellingham ,400 45,900 46, ,,,, N Bothell 6,708 7,600 10, Bremerton 36,100 35,475 37, Centralia 10,831 11,700 11, Cheney 7,092 7,600 7, Des Moines 6, ,250 14, Edmonds 27,350 27,000 28, Ellensburg 12,800 11,550 11, Everett 52,000 56,200 60, Hoquiam 10,400 9,200 9, Kelso 10,810 11,000 10, Kennewick 26,564 35,700 37, Kent 19,400 25,500 32, Kirkland 17,000 18,850 35, Lacey 12,660 14,030 16, Longview 30,200 -,.-,- -v.._., , , " Lynnwood 21,470 23,000 25, Marysville 4,820 6,275 7, Mercer Island 21,750 21,150 20, Moses Lake 10,900 10,300 10, Mount Vernon 11, ,600 14, NN Mountlake Terrace 16,900 16,000 16, Oak Harbor 11,980 12,150 14, Olympia 26,490 28,000 30, Pasco 16,000 19,100 18, Port Angeles -- 17, Pullman 23,300 23,000 22, Puyallup 16,300 18,550 20, Redmond 19,860 26,300 31, Renton 29,300 32,700 36, Richland 30, Seattle 490, , , Shelton 6,850 7,600 7, Spokane 176, , , Sunnyside 7,850 9,450 9, Tacoma 156, , , r..v.. o Tumwater 6,190 7,050 8, Vancouver 46,900 42,600 43, Walla Walla 24,570 25,600 25, Wenatchee 18,000 17,150 18, Yakima 52,250 48,500 49, All Cities 2,069,860 2,141,838 2,255, % Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management.

10 -, ( Page 1 0 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table3A Property Taxes Due for Washington Cities in 1978, 1983 and Percent Change City to 1988 Rank... Aberdeen $1,207,726 $1,674,433 $1,952, % 44 Anacortes 540, ,436 1,217, Auburn 1,722,752 2,927,423 4,952, Bellevue 4,396,507 8,795,313 12,458, Bellingham 1,682,253 3,801,775 4,362, Bothell 337, ,349 1 '153, Bremerton 1,175,725 1,851,698 2,587, Centralia 423, , , Cheney 188, , , Des Moines 235, ,683 1,137, Edmonds 1,083,777 1,733,931 2,603, Ellensburg 408, , , Everett 4,328,863 7,302,442 9,845, Hoquiam 535,210 1,180,628 1,232, Kelso 341, , , Kennewick 1,142,312 2,595,722 3,331, Kent 2,252,752 4,205,118 7,412, Kirkland 1,183,351 1,693,477 2,770, Lacey 539, ,756 1,549, Longview 1,355, ,047,938 2,754, Lynnwood 1,188,788 1,968,939 2,923, Marysville 196, , , Mercer Island 1 '116,609 2,468,894 3,749, Moses Lake 374, , , Mount Vernon 608,498 1,017,453 1,474, Mountlake Terrace 558, ,996 1,207, Oak Harbor 285, , , Olympia 1,606,925 2,762,506 4,514, Pasco 769,514 1,450,888 2,208, Port Angeles 885,593 1,481,557 1,974, P!JIIman 541, ,767 1,130, Puyallup 616,968 1,252,896 1,862, Redmond 1,194,661 3,070,427 6,333, Renton 2,889,369 5,801,648 7,962, Richland 1,210,093 2,336,061 3,446, Seattle 38,275,071 55,488,794 95,145, n 21 Shelton 330, , , Spokane 6,682,290 11,234,153 19,079, Sunnyside 349, , , Tacoma 8,701,485 14,440,725 21,768, Tumwater 417, ,033 1,646, Vancouver 2,448,618 3,707,896 4,910, Walla Walla 1,087,983 1,402,929 1,646, Wenatchee 817,791 1,273,529 1,717, Yakima 2,811,624 3,981,397 5,684, :: } ' All Cities $115,302,031 $190,170,91 0 $295,639, %. Source: Property Tax Collections and Levies Due, Department of Revenue.

11 --..! "--" ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 11 ) Table 4A City Employment Data for 1988 Number of Full-Time Personnel with Emloment General Law Enforcement Authoritv City Full-Time Part-Time Number Percent of Full-Time Employment Aberdeen % Anacortes Auburn Bellevue Bellingham Bothell Bremerton Centralia Cheney Des Moines Edmonds Ellensburg Everett Hoquiam m Kelso Kennewick Kent Kirkland Lacey L()ngview v.... Lynnwood Marysville Mercer Island Moses Lake Mount Vernon Mountlake Terrace Oak Harbor Olympia Pasco Port Angeles Pullman Puyallup Redmond Renton Richland Seattle 10,424 1,871 1, Shelton Spokane 1, Sunnyside Tacoma... 2,590..., Tumwater Vancouver Walla Walla Wenatchee Yakima ,_,. Source: 1988 Washington State Law Enforcement Survey, Office of the Attorney General. Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 1988, Washington Local Government Personnel Institute.

12 ., ( Page 12 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table5A City Revenue Sources f![qg Ia Sal and!j Tax aui[] iidd!jlililll Ta Eral Aid City Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Aberdeen $1,425 $83.84 $2,047 $ $2,001 $ $166 $9.77 Anacortes 1, Auburn 4, , , Bellevue 12, , , Bellingham 3, , , , Bothell 1, Bremerton 2, , , Centralia ' Cheney Des Moines Edmonds 2, , , Ellensburg Everett 7, , , , Hoquiam 1, , Kelso , Kennewick 3, , , Kent 6, , , Kirkland 2, , , Lacey 1, , Longview NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Lynnwood 2, , Marysville , Mercer Island 3, , , Moses Lake , Mount Vernon 1, , M'tlake Terrace 1, Oak Harbor Olympia 4, , , , Pasco 1, , , , Port Angeles 1, , Pullman 1, , Puyallup 1, , , Redmond 5, , , Renton 7, , , , Richland 2, , , , Seattle 91, , , , Shelton Spokane 13, , , , Sunnyside Tacoma 20, , , , Tumwater 1, Vancouver 4, , , Walla Walla 1, , , Wenatchee NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yakima 4, , , , All Cities $267,706 $ $235,627 $ $215,387 $ $79,347 $ , Percent of Total 10.2% 9.0% 8.2% 3.0% * Other city revenue includes licenses and permits, fines and forfeits, and interest earnings. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 20 cities which did not report. Source: Office of the State Auditor

13 ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 13 ) Table SA (cont.) City Revenue Sources..,..., ' 1987 '-...- State Aid Charges for Services*** Other Revenue* Total Revenue City Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Per $1,000 AV Aberdeen $2,068 $ $4,525 $ $772 $45.43 $13,005 $ $34.57 Anacortes 1, , , , Auburn 1, , ,099 1, ,606 1, Bellevue 4, , , ,911 1, Bellingham 2, , , , Bothell , , , Bremerton 1, , , , Centralia , ,617 1, Cheney , ,862 1, Des Moines 1 ' , , Edmonds 2, , , , Ellensburg , ,282 1, Everett 3, , , , Hoquiam 1, , , , Kelso , , , Kennewick 2, , , , Kent 1, , , ,729 1, Kirkland 1, , , ,227 1, Lacey , , , Longview NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Lynnwood 1, , , , Marysville , , ,251 1, Mercer Island 1, , , , Moses Lake , , , Mount Vernon 1, , , , M'tlake Terrace 1, , , , Oak Harbor 1, , , , Olympia 2, ' , ,498 1, Pasco 2, , , , Port Angeles ,639 1, , ,105 1, Pullman 1, , , Puyallup 2, , , , Redmond 1, , , , Renton 2, , , ,098 1, Richland 15, , , ,828 2, Seattle 32, , , ,683 1, Shelton , , Spokane 12, , , , Sunnyside 1, , , , Tacoma 10, ,230 1, , ,239 2, Tumwater , , Vancouver 2, , , ,706 1, Walla Walla 4, , , ,904 1, Wenatchee NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yakima 2, , , , All Cities** $178,542 $83.58 $1,069,552 $ $575,244 $ $2,621,404 $1, $32.67 Percent of Total 6.8% 40.8% 21.9% * Other city revenue includes licenses and permits, fines and forfeits, and interest earnings. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 20 cities which did not report. *** Includes utility charges earmarked for utility purposes and not available to support general government operations. Source: Office of the State Auditor

14 ( Page 14 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table6A City Expenditures ,. General Government Law Enforcement Other Securit Trans12ortation City Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Aberdeen $858 $50.46 $1,472 $86.57 $1,996 $ $1,114 $65.51 Anacortes Au bum 1, , , , Bellevue 9, , , , Bellingham 10, , , , Bothell , Bremerton 3, , , , Centralia 1 ' Cheney Des Moines Edmonds 2, , , Ellensburg , Everett 7, , , , Hoquiam , Kelso , , Kennewick 2, , , , Kent 2, , , , Kirkland 2, , , , Lacey , ongview NA - NA... NA NA NA NA NA NA Lynnwood 1, , , Marysville Mercer Island 3, , , Moses Lake Mount Vernon , , M'tlake Terrace Oak Harbor Olympia 2, , , , Pasco 1, , , Port Angeles 1.:461., _, 1, , Pullman , , Puyallup 1, , , , Redmond 2, , , , Renton 3, , , , Richland - 3, , , Seattle 51, , , , Shelton Spokane 6, , , , Sunnyside Tacoma 10, , , , Tumwater Vancouver 4, , , , Walla Walla 1, , , Wenatchee NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yakima 3, , , , All Cities** $184,238 $86.24 $215,861 $ $205,261 $96.09 $239,245 $ Percent of Total 6.6% 7.7% 7.3% 8.5% * Other city expenditures includes economic environment, mental and physical health, and culture and recreation. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 20 cities which did not report. Source: Office of the State Auditor

15 ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 15 ) Table 6A (cont.) City Expenditures 1987 Physical Environment*** Caital Outla Other Exenditures Total Ex12enditures City Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Per $1,000 AV Aberdeen $3,873 $ $3,328 $ $2,021 $ $14,661 $ $38.97 Anacortes 2, , , , Auburn 8, , , , Bellevue 26, , , ,297 1, Bellingham 9, , , , Bothell , , , Bremerton 5, , , , Centralia 8, , , ,393 1, Cheney 4, , Des Moines , , , Edmonds 4, , , , Ellensburg , , Everett 1, , , , Hoquiam 1, , , , Kelso 2, , , Kennewick 3, , , , Kent 7, , , ,605 1, Kirkland 4, , , ,146 1, Lacey 2, , , Longview NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Lynnwood 3, , , , Marysville 2, , , ,481 1, Mercer Island 4, , , , Moses Lake , , , Mount Vernon , , , M'tlake Terrace 2, , , , Oak Harbor , , Olympia 9, , , ,379 1 ' Pasco 1, , , , Port Angeles , , , Pullman , , , Puyallup 3, , , , Redmond 3, , , ,069 1, Renton 9, , , ,433 1, Richland 32,362 1, ,480 1, , ,640 2, Seattle 453, , , ,139,375 2, Shelton , Spokane 29, , , , Sunnyside 1, , , Tacoma 213,544 1, , , ,403 2, Tumwater , , Vancouver 11, , , , Walla Walla 4, , , ,708 1, Wenatchee NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Yakima 3, , , , All Cities** $949,067 $ $462,866 $ $544,237 $ $2,800,775 $1, $34.91 Percent of Total 33.9% 16.5% 19.4% - * Other city expenditures includes economic environment, mental and physical health, and culture and recreation. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 20 cities which did not report. *** Includes utility activities supported by earmarked funds. Source: Office of the State Auditor

16 --.. A« ( Page 16 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table7A 1988 Monthly Salaries for Selected City Job Categories (Actual Mean Rate) City Council City City City Mayor Manager Member Attorney Treasurer Aberdeen $ $175, $3,686 - $3;869:J: - Anacortes 2, ,883 1,909 Auburn 4, ,917 Bellevue 900 6, ,392 Bellingham 3, ,225 3,167+ w :-.. Bothell 188 4, ,990 c, (40-94/hr) Bremerton 3,750 - (1 00/mtg) 3,813 3,118 Centralia 200 4, ,850 c, (75/hr) 3,229 Cheney 550 3, ,533 c, (50/hr) 1,638 Des Moines (1 00/mtg) 3,850 (50/mtg) 2,167 2, Edmonds 3, (50/mtg) 5,468 c, +hr rate Ellensburg (62.5/mtg) 3,878 (62.5/mtg) 2,537 c, (80/hr) Everett 5,889 5, ,371 3,750 Hoquiam ,616 Kelso 150 4, ,083 c - ---"- ---'"" Kennewick 600 5, ,797 Kent 1,200 +(50/mtg) 5, ,292 Kirkland 450 5, (75/hr) 2,735 Lacey 568 4, ,155 c Longview 600 5, ,049 c Lynnwood , (70/mtg) rate varies c 4, , Marysville 400 +(35/mtg) 3, (35/mtg) 2,400 c, (75/hr after 40 hrs) Mercer Island 200 5, ,592 Moses Lake (175/mtg) 4,357 (75/mtg) 2,250 c, (50/hr) Mount Vernon 3, , YN...,.,.._ -m o m ---- Mountlake Terrace 675 4, ,334 c Oak Harbor 1,500 4, ,625 Olympia ,545 Pasco (120/mtg) 4,333 (60/mtg) 3,793 Port Angeles 300 4, N/S """':::::: ,, ' - - Pullman 833 4, ,574 Puyallup 500 5, ,410 Redmond 4,250 4, , 700 c, (86/hr after 1 OOhrs) Renton 4,643 4, ,771 c, group Richland,..., , ,516 y OoYo Seattle 7,072-4,729 5,838 5,066. i-! Shelton 850 4, ,333 2,714+ Spokane 2,083 5,996 1,042 4,792 3,945 Sunnyside (20/mtg) 3,714 (20/mtg) 3,317 Tacoma 2,354 N/S N/S Tumwater 920 4, (65/hr) c Vancouver 500 5, ,863 Walla Walla 350 4, c 1,804+ Wenatchee 1,650 3,743 1,550 7,342 c 2,513 Yakima 650 5, ,627 Full-Time Average $3,902 $4,258 $2,497 $1, Clerk/Treasure (c) Contract position (#) Unit other than monthly - No equivalent position or position vacant at time of survey Source: Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for Washington Local Government Personnel Institute _

17 ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 17 ) '--"' '---'... Table 6A (cont.) 1988 Monthly Salaries for Selected City Job Categories (Actual Mean Rate) City Building Planning Finance Fire Police City Clerk Inspector Director Director Chief Chief Aberdeen - 2,373-3,869 3,686 3,869 Anacortes - N/S 3,076 3,338 3,308 3,099 Auburn 2,274 2,415 4,437 4,088-4,437 Bellevue 3,200 2,766 5,489 5,524 5,961 5,390 Bellingham - N/S 3,523-4,168 4,027 Bothell 2,691 2,373 3,607 3,519 3,880 3,787 Bremerton 3,513 2,413 3,466-3,906 3,906 Centralia 2,960 2, ,154 3,416 Cheney 3,641 2,135 3,380 3,641 3,435 3,470 Des Moines 1,940 2,097 2, ,356 Edmonds 2,631 2,450 3,602 4,065 4,065 4,065 Ellensburg - 2,180 2,752 3,070-3,090 Everett 3,750 2,710 4,396 5,045 5,045 5,045 Hoquiam - 2,167-3,029 2,920 2,920 Kelso - 2,203-3,574-3,967 Kennewick 2,829 2,616 4,297 4,797 4,297 4,297 Kent 3,082 2,466 4,350 4,350 4,900 4,500 Kirkland 2,795 2,253 4,409 4,409 4,420 4,420 Lacey - 2,394 3,440 3,743-3,743 Longview - 2,744 3,867 4,228 3,516 4,051 Lynnwood - 2,619 4,084 4,084 4,084 3,964 Marysville ,110 3,110 3,203 Mercer Island - 2,287 4,328 3,958 Moses Lake - 2,354-3,541 3,214 3,214 Mount Vernon - 2,247 3,075 3,476 3,433 3,579 Mountlake Terrace - 2,445-3,912 3, Oak Harbor 1,970 2,166 3,025 2,884 3,125 3,500 Olympia - 2,685-4,442 4,339 4,442 Pasco 1,911 2,202 2,921 3,600 3,450 3,659 Port Angeles N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S Pullman - 1,975-3,574 3,401 3,756 Puyallup 2,396-4,201 4,157-4,215 Redmond 3,191-4,151 4,099 4,712 4,786 Renton 3,017 2,486 4,229 4,664 4,664 4,664 Richland 2, ,092 4,704 4,833 4,449 4,406 Seattle 5,066 2,695 5, ,907 Shelton - 2, ,920 3,042 Spokane 3,010 2,206 4,137 4,698 4,933 5,156 Sunnyside - 2,500-3,005 2,860 2,932 Tacoma N/S - N/S N/S N/S N/S Tumwater - 2,484 2,950 2,950 3,400 3,510 Vancouver - 1,671 4,215 4,410 4,410 Walla Walla 3,347 2,365 2,609-3,657 3,711 Wenatchee 3,743 2,292 3,056-3,925 4,384 Yakima 3,044 2,395 3,136 4,273 4,345 4,515 Full-Time Average $2,571 $2,411 $3,698 $3,860 $3,627 $2,876 N/S Salary not settled when survey was taken. (#) Unit other than monthly - No equivalent position or position vacant at time of survey Source: Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for Washington Local Government Personnel Institute.

18 ( Page 18 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table County Population, Per Capita Assessed Valuation, Land Area, and Population Density Assessed Valuation* Percent 1988 Population Total Per Caita Land Area in Population per County Unincorporated Amount Rank (1,000s) Amount Rank Square Miles Square Mile 3 Adams 48% 14, $587,715 $41, ,894 7 Asotin 56 17, ,854 17, Benton , ,956,627 28, , Chelan 47 49, ,712,209 34, , Clallam , ,797,121 33, ,. 1, w:O:, u. n,, Clark , ,837,852 31, Columbia 30 4, ,068 38, Cowlitz 43 80, ,125,754 38, , Douglas 79 24, ,254 32, , Ferry 84 6, ,260 32, ,202 ''''''''''''''N Franklin 41 35, ,099,664 30, , Garfield 30 2, ,021 44, Grant 47 52, ,766,152 33, , Grays Harbor 38 63, ,860,150 29, , Island 69 53, ,181,410 40, Jefferson 63 18, ,023 49, , King 40 1,413, ,145,846 44, , Kitsap , ,544,821 31, Kittitas 37 25, ,777 31, , Klickitat , ,778 26, ,908 =-= ,.,.,., Lewis 60 57, ,900,156 33, ,449 23,-... Lincoln 41 9, ,533 49, ,306 4 Mason 80 36, ,431,702 38, Okanogan 56 31, ,369 26, ,301 6 Pacific , ,417 31, ;-; 19 Pend Oreille 69 8, ,682 28, ,402 6 Pierce , ,222,345 27, , San Juan 85 9, ,079, , Skagit 48 70, ,662,566 37, , Skamania 81 8, ,506 33, ,672 5 < "":,<. Snohomish , ,617,605 35, , Spokane , ,309,670 26, , Stevens 71 30, ,685 29, , Thurston , ,458,832 29, Wahkiakum 82 3, ,766 21, Walla Walla 32 48, ,478,071 30, , Whatcom , ,241,738 35, , Whitman 20 39, ,958 24, , Yakima , ,440,703 23, , All Counties 51% 4,565,000 $161,504,575 $35,379 66,663 68,... * General levy Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Washington State Department of Revenue

19 16,300 L ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 19 ) Table2B County Population Change- April1 of 1977, 1982 and 1987 Percent Change County to 1988 Rank ' Adams 14,200 13,600 14, % > y Asotin 15,600 16,800 17, Benton 90, , , Chelan 42,400 46,500 49, Clallam ,200 52,200 54, Clark 169, , , Columbia 4,600 4,000 4, Cowlitz 74,800 79,300 80, Douglas 20,600 22,400 24, Ferry 5,400 6,100 6, Franklin 30,400 36,000 35, Garfield 2,700 2,400 2, Grant 46,100 49,100 52, Grays Harbor 62,300 65,800 63, Island 39,100 47,000 53, Jefferson 13,600 16,800 18, King 1,196,900 1,315,800 1,413, Kitsap 129, , , Kittitas 25,600 24,900 25, Klickitat 14, , Lewis 50,800 56,000 57, Lincoln 9,900 9,600 9, Mason 26,000 33,600 36, Okanogan 29,000 31,500 31, Pacific 16,200 17,600 u,o 17, Pend Oreille 8,400 8,900 8, Pierce 442, , , San Juan 6,700 8,700 9, Skagit 57,600 66,100 70, Skamania 6,200 7,800 8, Snohomish 292, , , Spokane 320, , , Stevens 25,600 29,700 30, Thurston 107, , , Wahkiakum -:-: ,900 3,700 3, Walla Walla 43,800 48,200 48, Whatcom 96, , , Whitman 41,900 39,900 39, Yakima 156, , , All Counties 3,n4,300 4,285,100 4,565, % -...-' Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management

20 ( Page 20 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table3B Property Taxes Due for Washington Counties in 1978, 1983 and 1988 (General and Road Levies) Percent Change County to 1988 Rank : : : : : : Adams $1,358,683 $1,966,307 $2,035, % 34 "' " < "'" n = - Asotin 505, ,272 1,056, Benton 2,522,211 4,669,531 6,525, Chelan 2,006,441 3,054,027 4,779, Clallam 2,073,067 3,230,315 4,850,386 - > "'""' ,..., : Clark 7,215,154 12,787,627 19,834, Columbia 394, , , Cowlitz 6,130,747 10,713,110 10,456, Douglas 985,862 1,572,111 2,318, Ferry 187, ,056 < 696,125 - y y -y ;= "" Franklin 1,699,254 2,701,862 3,503, Garfield 290, , , Grant 2,099,189 3,377,673 5,585, Grays Harbor 2,573,435 4,378,652 5,105, Island 1,671, ,755,132 4,116,623 no- '',.,; Jefferson 1,040,600 1,642,949 2,394, King 62,708,260 98,346, ,525, Kitsap 4,877,706 8,364,162 12,764, Kittitas 1,055,001 1,620,193 2,402, Klickitat 1,009, ,859,025..., 1,615,244..., --=- -: ,..,v lewis 2,719,999 4,355,996 6,337, _.-... lincoln 1,218,477 1,510,839 1,698, Mason 1,705,071 2,950,132 4,426, Okanogan 1,150,747 1,759,840 2,596, Pacific 1,059,506 1,562,730.. nn... 1,978,977. :-n...,.,..,,.,.,.; -:-:-: ,.,... ' Pend Oreille 335, , , Pierce 13,788,981 23,520,043 39,232, San Juan 1,050,577 1,630,027 2,344, Skagit 3,236,743 5,332,554 7,847, Skamania 468, , , : '""" W'' ' ' ''"""""' ' Snohomish 10,962,175 19,675,490 30,020, Spokane 9,664,034 17,664,169 26,344, Stevens 11176,779 2,289,221 3,419, Thurston 4,526,815 8,404,949 12,867, Wahkiakum 213, , , :.;;:;, v Walla Walla 2,011,694 3,918,727 4,641, Whatcom 4,869,050 8,176,155 11,707, Whitman 1,936,290 3,357,815 2,890, Yakima 5,080,573 8,010,773 11,714, Total $169,579,768 $280,831 '1 05 $416,512, % -:::::--,---..,. Source: Property Taxes Collections and Levies Due. Department of Revenue

21 40 9 ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 21 )...../ Table 48 County Employment Data for 1988 Number of Full-Time Personnel with Employment General Law Enforcement Authorit County Full-Time Part-Time Number Percent of Full-Time Employment " Adams % Asotin Benton Chelan Clallam Clark Columbia Cowlitz Douglas Ferry Franklin Garfield Grant Grays Harbor Island 290. _, Jefferson King 4, Kitsap Kittitas Klickitat ,., Lewis _.. lincoln Mason Okanogan Pacific Pend Oreille Pierce 1, San Juan Skagit Skamania ,_ Snohomish 1, Spokane 1, Stevens Thurston Wahkiakum ,,, N Walla Walla Whatcom Whitman Yakima Source: Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 1988, Washington Local Government Personnel Institute Washington State Law Enforcement Survey, Office of the Attorney General.

22 ( Page 22 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table 58 County Revenue Sources 1987 Proerty Tax Sales and Use Tax Other Taxes Federal Aid County Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Adams $1,880 $ $200 $14.27 $201 $14.34 $757 $54.09 Asotin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Benton 5, , Chelan 4, , , Clallam 4, , , Clark 18, , , , Columbia Cowlitz 10, , , Douglas 2, Ferry ,., Franklin 3, :27 Garfield Grant 5, , , Grays Harbor 5, , , Island 3, , Jefferson 2, , , King 152, , , , Kitsap 11, , , , Kittitas 2, Klickitat 1, , Lewis 5, , , , Lincoln 1, Mason 4, Okanogan 2, , Pacific NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Pend Oreille Pierce 33, , , , San Juan NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Skagit 7, , , , Skamania , Snohomish 27, , , , Spokane 23, , , , Stevens 3, Thurston 13, , , , Wahkiakum Walla Walla 4, Whatcom 10, , , , Whitman 2, Yakima 10, , , , All Counties** $392,542 $88.46 $123,069 $27.73 $66,359 $14.95 $89,131 $20.09 Percent of Total 30.3% 9.5% 5.1% 6.9% * Other county revenue includes licenses and permits, fines and forfeits, and interest earnings. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 3 counties which did not report. Source: Office of the State Auditor

23 ' ( Washington Research Council Table 58 (cont.) County Revenue Sources 1987 January 1989 Page 23 ) County Adams Asotin Benton Chelan Clallam Clark Columbia Cowlitz Douglas Ferry Franklin Garfield Grant Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap Kittitas Klickitat lewis lincoln Mason Okanogan Pacific Pend Oreille Pierce San Juan Skagit Skamania Snohomish Spokane Stevens Thurston Wahkiakum Walla Walla Whatcom Whitman Yakima State Aid Charges for Services Other Revenue* Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita $21617 $ $480 $34.32 $843 $60.23 NA N A NA N A NA N A 5, , , , , , , , ' , , , , , , , , NA N A NA N A NA N A NA N A NA N A NA N A , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Total Revenue Amount Per Capita Per $1,000 AV $6,978 $ $12.11 NA NA NA 20, , , , , , , , , ,759 1, , , , , , , , , , , , NA NA NA 4, , NA NA N A 27, ,280 1 ' , , , , , , , , , All Counties** $203,972 $45.97 $179,634 $40.48 $240,887 $54.29 $1,295,594 $ $ '1/o 13.9% 18.6% "-..- * Other county revenue includes licenses and permits, fines and forfeits, and interest earnings. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 3 counties which did not report Source: Office of the State Auditor

24 ( Page 24 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table 68 County Expenditures 1987 General Government Law Enforcement Other Security Transortation County Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Adams $1,372 $97.98 $422 $30.12 $304 $21.71 $2,713 $ Asotin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Benton 5, , , , Chelan 3, , , , Clallam 4, , , , Clark 11, , , , Columbia Cowlitz 5, , , , Douglas 1, , Ferry , Franklin 3, , , Garfield , Grant 3, , , , Grays Harbor 3, , , , Island 2, , , , Jefferson 1, , King 79, , , , Kitsap 9, , , , Kittitas 1, , Klickitat 1, , Lewis 4, , , , Lincoln 1, , Mason 2, , , , Okanogan 2, , Pacific NA NA NA NA NA NA ' NA NA Pend Oreille , Pierce 25, , , , San Juan NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Skagit 5, , , , Skamania 1, , Snohomish 24, , , , Spokane 16, , , , Stevens 2, , Thurston 8, , , , Wahkiakum , Walla Walla 3, , , Whatcom 8, , , , Whitman 2, , Yakima 8, , , , All Counties** $264,263 $59.55 $101,037 $22.77 $140,794 $31.73 $214,133 $48.26 Percent of total 20.8% 7.9% 11.1% 16.8% * Other county expenditures includes physical environment, economic environment and culture and recreation. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 3 counties which did not report. Source: Office of the State Auditor

25 ...,,. ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 25 ) Table 68 (cont.) County Expenditures 1987 Mental and Phsical Health Caital Outla Other Exenditures* Total Expenditures County Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Amount Per Capita Per $1,000 AV Adams $287 $20.50 $1,088 $77.73 $455 $32.47 $6,640 $ $11.52 Asotin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Benton 2, , , , Chelan , , , Clallam 2, , , Clark 3, , , , Columbia , , Cowlitz 1, , , , Douglas , , Ferry , Franklin , Garfield ,419 1, Grant 1, , , , Grays Harbor 1, , , Island , , Jefferson 1, , , King 63, , , , Kitsap 1, , , , Kittitas , Klickitat , Lewis , , , '------" Lincoln , Mason , , Okanogan , Pacific NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Pend Oreille , Pierce 12, , , , San Juan NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Skagit 1, , , Skamania , , Snohomish 3, , , , Spokane 1, , , , Stevens , Thurston 4, , , , Wahkiakum , Walla Walla 1, , , Whatcom 3, , , , Whitman 1, , , Yakima 1, , , , NA NA All Counties** $116,461 $26.25 $136,919 $30.86 $299,133 $67.41 $1,272,739 $ Percent of Total 9.2% 10.8% 23.5% $ * Other county expenditures includes physical environment, economic environment and culture and recreation. ** Excludes data, including AV and population, for 3 counties which did not report. Source: Office of the State Auditor

26 2,590 ( Page 26 January 1989 Washington Research Council ) Table7B 1988 Monthly Salaries for Selected County Job Categories (Actual Mean Rate) Prosecuting City Commissioner Assessor Auditor Clerk Coroner Attorney Adams $1,295 $2,359 $2,359 $2,276 - $2,979 Asotin 1,430 1,800 1,800 1,800-3,131 Benton 3,000 2,889 2,889 2,889 1,633 5,175 Chelan 2,878 2,878 2,878 2,878-4,351 Clallam 3,000 2,590 2,230-3,918 Clark 4,209 3,410 3,563 3,310 2,148 5,203 Columbia 1,402 2,016 2,016 2,016-2,064 Cowlitz 3,843 3,080 3,080 3,080 1,320 4,908 Douglas 1,643 2,035 2,035 2,035-3,453 Ferry 708 1,667 1,667 1,667-2,750 Franklin 1,975 2,341 2,341 2,341-3,750 Garfield 871 1,699 1,699 1,699-2,085 Grant 2,856 2,650 2,650 2,650 1,325 4,858 Grays Harbor 3,371 2,955 2,955 2,955 1,159 4,851 Island 2,625 2,563 2,563 2,563 1,196 3,913 Jefferson 2,225 2,225 2,225 2,225-3,084 King 5,398 6,357-4,667 7,972 6,980 Kitsap 4,125 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,153 5,708 Kittitas 2,199 2,202 2,431 2,313-4,228 Klickitat 1,511 2,242 2,242 2,242-2,242 Lewis 2,910 2,671 2,671 2,671-4,333 Lincoln 1,363 2,199 2,199 2,199-3,500 Mason 2,042 2,555 2,555 2,555-4,312 Okanogan 2,075 2,171 2,171 2,106-3,612 Pacific 2,419 2,419 2,419 2,419-3,575 Pend Oreille 1,247 1,834 1,834 1,834-2,655 Pierce - 5,006 4,872 2,767 8,099 5,253 San Juan 2,417 2,560 2,560 2,560-3,572 Skagit 3,645 3,355 3,355 3,098 1,448 4,475 Skamania 2,068 2,205 2,205 2,205-3,635 - Snohomish 3,468 4,021 4,021 4,021 6,857 5,094 Spokane 3,626 3,400 3,400 3,400 2,975 4,941 Stevens Thurston 3,944 3,409 3,409 3,296 3,076 4,982 Wahkiakum 1,275 Walla Walla 2, ,056 2,056-3,333 Whatcom 675 Whitman 3,186 3,186 3,353-4,325 Yakima 3,500 3,200 3,200 3,200 2,400 5,708 All Counties $3,036 $2,788 $2,683 $2,656 $4,147 $4,2n N/S Salary not settled when survey was taken. - No equivalent position or position vacant at time of survey Source: Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 1988, Washington Local Government Personnel Institute ,_

27 3,042 ( Washington Research Council January 1989 Page 27 ) ---"' Table 78 (cont.) 1988 Monthly Salaries for Selected County Job Categories (Actual Mean Rate) Street/Road Planning Public Works County Sheriff Treasurer Superintendent Director Director Adams $2,492 $2,359 $2,616 $1,784 $3,179 Asotin 1,966 1,800 1,891-2,945 Benton 2,889 2,889 3,414 2,940 3,750 Chelan 3,269 2,878 2,930 3,119 3,969 Clallam 3,004 2,590 Clark 4,096 3,376 3,410-5,038 Columbia - 2,016 1,632 1,722 3,126 Cowlitz 3,343 3,080 3,827 3,614 4,668 Douglas 2,288 2,035-2,235 3,498 Ferry 2,083 1, ,547 Franklin 2,472 2,341 2,415 2,092 3,241 Garfield 1,870 1,699 1,790 Grant 2,871 2,650 2,500 2,438 4,000 Grays Harbor 3,390 2,955 3,265 2,975 3,816 Island 2,900 2,563 2,720 2,979 3,581 Jefferson 2,451 2,225 2,448 2,612 3,100 King 5,878 4,261 4,165 4,358 6,158 Kitsap 4,125 3,800 3,409 3,750 4,229 Kittitas 2,353 2,202-2,898 N/S Klickitat 2,242 2,242-2,042 3,156 Lewis 2,916 2,671 3,350 2,487 3,850 Lincoln 2,199 2,199 2,343 1,984 3,768 Mason 2,654 2,555 2,555 2,083 3,406 Okanogan 2,717 2,106 1,908 2,892 2,586 Pacific 2,849 2,419 2, ,294 ;-;-.. :v. 3,048 Pend Oreille 2,500 1,834-2,140 Pierce 5,104-3,028 4,065 San Juan 2,880 2,560 2,312 2,986 3,169 Skagit 3,602 3,355 3,247 3,259 3,855 Skamania 2, , , Snohomish 4,826 4,021 3,544 4,202 5,109 Spokane 4,820 3,400 3,080 3,856 4,590 Stevens Thurston 3,828 3,317 3,787-4,901 Wahkiakum 2,410 2,056 2,411-2,959 Walla Walla Whatcom 3,642 3,186 3,338 3,229 4,121 Whitman Yakima 3,700 3,200 3,542 3,455 4, All Counties $3,127 $2,656 $2,793 $2,855 $3,774 u N/S Salary not settled when survey was taken. - No equivalent position or position vacant at time of survey Source: Washington City and County Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 1988, Washington Local Government Personnel Institute.

28 About the Washington Research Council The Washington Research Council is a nonprofit, nongovernmental public policy research organization. Its mission is to serve its members by promoting efficient and effective government through independent analysis of public expenditure and taxation policies, coupled with broad dissemination of these analyses. Funding for the Research Council's work comes primarily from member dues and private grants. Members include businesses, schools, libraries, individuals and government agencies. You can share in the Washington Research Council's constructive work and contribute to improved government through your investment in a tax deductible membership. As a Research Council member you will receive: The monthly Notebook newsletter; up-to-date information and analyses of tax and spending issues through our Public Policy Briefs; special reports; and major Research Council publications, including How Washington Compares, Washington State Budget Trends, The Citizens' Guide to School Districts and The Citizens' Guide to Local Government. For membership information call (206) or write to the Washington Research Council, 906 S. Columbia, Suite 350, Olympia, WA Acknowledgements The Washington Research Council would like to thank the persons and organizations who assisted with or contributed to this publication. They include the State Auditor's Office, the Association of Washington Cities, the Office of Financial Management, and the Department of Revenue. Washington Research Council staff who contributed to the prepartion of theis publication were Kim Gorsuch, research intern; Barbara A. Cellarius, senior research analyst; Elaine L. Ramel, vice president for research; and RichardS. Davis, president. To order additional copies of this report contact the Research Council office at (206) This report is not copyrighted and may be reprinted with appropriate credit to the Washington Research Council.