Clark County council to consider increases to sheriff's civil‑service fees
June 18, 2026 | Clark County, Washington
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Clark County council members heard a presentation on proposed increases to the sheriff’s civil‑service fees at a work session. County staff said state law (RCW 36.18.040) and County Code 2.79 authorize the council to set fees for serving civil papers, evictions and related work performed for the sheriff.
Duncan, the presenter for the sheriff’s office, told the council the county has not updated the civil‑service fee schedule since 2017 and that the office calculated proposed fees by factoring time for deputies and non‑sworn staff and adding salary and benefits. “We will not get back all of the expenditures we put out but we’re very focused on making it non‑benefited … we’re just covering our costs,” Duncan said, summarizing the department’s objective.
As an example, staff proposed raising the fee for serving one respondent from $30 (2017 rate) to $40; Duncan said the statewide comparable average is about $34 but that the county used internal cost calculations rather than targeting the state average. Evelina Kerlinko, introduced as the unit manager, said earlier pandemic disruptions, staff turnover and small prior adjustments led the office to postpone updates until a fuller review could be completed.
Councilors asked for the full fee schedule and comparative data; a council member requested staff email detailed materials, and Duncan agreed to provide the complete package to council staff for review. Councilors also discussed aligning the mileage reimbursement in the fee schedule with the federal standard (roughly 72–75 cents per mile).
On budget impacts, Councilor Young asked whether higher fees would reduce general‑fund support for the sheriff’s office. Duncan said staff do not control fund allocation and that costs not recovered by fees are currently charged to the general fund, so increased fees would help offset those costs but do not by themselves determine budget transfers.
The council did not vote on fee changes at the work session. Members directed staff to schedule a public hearing and bring the full proposal back for formal consideration. Staff said they would send the package to council staff (Jake) and councilors ahead of the hearing.
Duncan, the presenter for the sheriff’s office, told the council the county has not updated the civil‑service fee schedule since 2017 and that the office calculated proposed fees by factoring time for deputies and non‑sworn staff and adding salary and benefits. “We will not get back all of the expenditures we put out but we’re very focused on making it non‑benefited … we’re just covering our costs,” Duncan said, summarizing the department’s objective.
As an example, staff proposed raising the fee for serving one respondent from $30 (2017 rate) to $40; Duncan said the statewide comparable average is about $34 but that the county used internal cost calculations rather than targeting the state average. Evelina Kerlinko, introduced as the unit manager, said earlier pandemic disruptions, staff turnover and small prior adjustments led the office to postpone updates until a fuller review could be completed.
Councilors asked for the full fee schedule and comparative data; a council member requested staff email detailed materials, and Duncan agreed to provide the complete package to council staff for review. Councilors also discussed aligning the mileage reimbursement in the fee schedule with the federal standard (roughly 72–75 cents per mile).
On budget impacts, Councilor Young asked whether higher fees would reduce general‑fund support for the sheriff’s office. Duncan said staff do not control fund allocation and that costs not recovered by fees are currently charged to the general fund, so increased fees would help offset those costs but do not by themselves determine budget transfers.
The council did not vote on fee changes at the work session. Members directed staff to schedule a public hearing and bring the full proposal back for formal consideration. Staff said they would send the package to council staff (Jake) and councilors ahead of the hearing.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
