County and health officials outline how millage, sales-tax funds would be used for therapeutic courts and developmental services

Okanogan County officials and public-health staff on Monday clarified how the county will process requests for money from several restricted revenue streams — mental-health millage, therapeutic-court (sales) tax, developmental-disability millage and alcohol/drug tax — and set next steps for invoice formats and committee review.

County Chief Financial Officer Carrie and Chief Operating Officer Josie told commissioners the recent accounting change that separated millage deposits into individual funds (104, 105 and 107) was an internal bookkeeping step; the underlying revenues and statutory limits remain the same. Carrie said the county is drawing contracts that will require program recipients to comply with the applicable Revised Code of Washington (RCW) uses for each funding type.

The office of public health asked for guidance on what documentation the board wants when agencies request millage reimbursements. Carrie and county staff asked recipients to submit a program-level profit-and-loss or an encounter-level invoice tied to the program period covered by the request. For behavioral-health and substance-use billings, public-health staff said they typically calculate a request by multiplying non-billed encounters or services by a payer rate (for example, the County’s Molina contract rates) and provide that as backup.

Commissioners and staff discussed calendar-year versus fiscal-year reporting. Staff said they can re-run program reports on the county fiscal year (July 1–June 30) if commissioners prefer, but that invoice timing can affect when money is actually available: a levy or millage approved by voters will not produce spendable revenue until the year specified by the statute and local collection schedules. Carrie warned that any supplemental appropriation above budgeted amounts would require a two‑week turnaround for a budget supplemental and must fit the auditor’s voucher schedule.

The county and the therapeutic‑court committee agreed to hold a short phone or Zoom meeting of the committee (judicial and county members) to decide whether movement of funds among budget line items within the same program should be allowed as a committee policy. If the committee agrees, staff said the chair (Judge Burke) should send a clarifying note to the county so staff can proceed with billing and reduce administrative back‑and‑forth.

Public-health staff and commissioners also discussed the smaller alcohol/drug tax fund (roughly $3,600 annual receipts) and a larger developmental‑disability reserve (about $170,000 in the fund; roughly $20,000 annual millage receipts). Staff said they will provide line‑item P&Ls or encounter reports so the board can consider one‑time requests to cover prior-year shortfalls and to weigh the implications for fund sustainability.

Commissioners asked staff to prepare the proposed invoice formats and sample backup and to schedule the brief STOC/committee call so that expectations for “allowable” budget-line movements and reporting formats are explicit going forward.