King County Governance Commission Meeting Minutes December 4, 2003

Home
Meeting Schedule
Agendas
Meeting Minutes
Commission Members
Commission Operations
Contact Us

DRAFT Meeting Summary
Meeting 19 – December 4, 2003

Members:
Richard Bonewits
Richard Derham
Mark Endresen
Dave Gering
Steve Goldblatt
Arun Jhaveri
Sharon Maeda
Jim Montgomery
Bill Ptacek
Kathleen Royer
Steve Williamson

Consulting Team:
Berk & Associates, 206-324-8760
Marty Wine, Senior Associate
Cherienne Tibbetts, Associate

Council Staff:
David deCourcy, Council Chief of Staff, 296-0343
Scott White, Council Staff, 296-0324
Gennevie Cook, Committee Assistant, 205-5079

The Commission on Governance meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m., 44th Floor, Wells Fargo Building, 999 – 3rd Avenue, Seattle, Washington by Co-Chair Dave Gering.

Commission members present: Richard Bonewits, Richard Derham, Mark Endresen, Steve Goldblatt, Arun Jhaveri, Sharon Maeda, Jim Montgomery, Bill Ptacek, Kathleen Royer,
Absent: Dave Gering, Steve Williamson

Guests: Norm Maleng, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; Dan Satterburg, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; Sheriff David G. Reichert, King County Sheriff’s Office; Chief Financial Officer William Wilson, King County Sheriff’s Office.

Audience Members: Charlie Bush, City Manager’s Office, City of Bellevue; Anthony Hemstad, Suburban Cities Association, City of Maple Valley; Marisa Alegria, King County DCHS; Miriam Helgeland, League of Women Voters; Kimberly Lockard, Councilmember Julia Patterson’s office; Rose Feliciano, Regional Affairs Coordinator, City of Seattle; Leesa Manion, King County Prosecutor's Office; and Dave Regnier, King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

1. Approval of November 20 Meeting Summary

Richard Bonewits moved, and Sharon Maeda seconded the approval of the November 20 meeting summary. The motion was unanimously approved. Phase 3.

2. Prosecutor Norm Maleng Discussion

Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng discussed the four divisions of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office: Criminal Division (159 deputy prosecutors), Civil Division (54 deputy prosecutors), Fraud Division (8 deputy prosecutors) and Family Support Division (18 deputy prosecutors). The Office includes approximately 480 employees: 240 attorneys and 240 administrative staff.

The 2003 budget was $44 million. Approximately $30 million came from CX funds and the remainder came from the State and other sources.

Felony LODI is described as felony referrals from other police departments. Approximately 14,000 cases are felony adult cases. From 2000 to 2002, the Mainstream consisting of murders, assaults, burglaries, robberies, and typical street crimes was approximately 44-45% each year; drug cases were approximately 34-45% each year; sexual assault cases were approximately 7-8% each year; and domestic violence cases were approximately 13-14% each year.

In 2000, 10,000 felony cases were actually filed of the 14,000 referred cases. There are approximately 1,000 felony trials per year (2000-2002). Approximately 90% of felonies do not go to trial as a result of guilty pleas. Juvenile filings have decreased since 2000 and District Court filings have decreased from approximately 20,000 to approximately 10,000 filings, mainly due to incorporations of cities which are no longer in the County system, removal of driving while license suspended cases, and removal of failure to pay fines cases. Over the past two years, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office took a $2.4 million budget reduction and eliminated 24 positions, 11 of which were attorneys.

Mr. Maleng stated that the challenge for the Criminal Justice system is how to maintain what we have and make it better. King County has a superb program compared to other counties throughout the country on every new and leading edge issue.

Q: Do you have any idea how communications of success can be made known in a broader fashion?
A: We should discuss how much we have done in order to give us energy to tackle it in the future.

Q: Do you support unifying courts?
A: I support a unified trial court. We should first focus on Superior Court and District Court, then look beyond to Municipal Court.

Q: What would be your recommendations to make King County more efficient?
A: Continuation of the Criminal Justice Council.

Q: Can you discuss the Juvenile Court and the Family Court? Do you envision looking at courts that unify criminal trials and unify civil trials but recognizes that there are some differences of what occurs in Family Court and what occurs in a specialty court?
A: Family Court is a specialty court as well as Juvenile Court. We should first make misdemeanors a specialty court, then move on to a felony specialty court, and then others. It would be a much more efficient system using a method such as this.

Q: How do you budget for a case such as the Green River case and who is responsible for making sure it is done properly?
A: With regard to the budgeting of the case, King County has a sophisticated way of budgeting. The County over the past four or five years has set up reserves. The Ridgway case was an expensive case and next year there may be a potential savings of $10 million as a result of the plea agreement.

Q: What are the pros and cons of an elected Prosecuting Attorney?
A: It is critical that the Prosecuting Attorney is an elected position. The Office can have a huge impact on the lives of individuals and communities. If the trust is abused in any way, it could have a terrible impact.

Q: What is the relationship between King County and the Legislature? What can the Commission do to obtain ongoing funding from the State for the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office?
A: The criminal justice system has a good relationship with the State, the Governor and the Legislature. When the County is in Olympia to obtain additional resources, it is to obtain general resources for the County which are then allocated within the County. Categorical funding would need to be communicated to the Legislature.

Q: Can we take ideas from Proposition 36 in California and could we learn from this in King County?
A: Our program is a much better program than what they have in California. Proposition 36 involves drug cases in which no jail or prison time is served but include a treatment program. In California’s system there is room for failure due to lapses in treatment. In California there are not sanctions for failure to go through the program.

Q: What are the benefits of elected versus appointed Sheriff?
A: My preference is an elected Sheriff. The primary responsibility of government is security. There is higher visibility with an elected Sheriff than there is with an appointed sheriff. I believe this is an advantage and has to do with the quality of the people in the position.

Q: Do you have any sense of how much further you can push innovative programs to reduce case load or/and expenditures? Is there any State legislation that you recommend we review?
A: In 1985 the outbreak of the crack cocaine epidemic across the United States occurred. The late 1980’s and early 1990’s were the most dangerous time on the streets which included gangs and drive by shootings. Over the last 20 years we have put our emphasis on tough law enforcement but failed on treatment. We can expand treatment programs within drug cases and be a leader in the country. There is no need for new legislation at this time.

Q: What are your ideas on partisanship versus nonpartisanship?
A: You cannot affect the Office of Prosecutor at the County level but it would need to be done in the State Legislature. I am satisfied with the current system and support partisanship.

3. Sheriff Dave Reichert – King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) Roles and Responsibilities Discussion

Sheriff David Reichert presented from the King County Sheriff’s Office Roles and Responsibilities handout. He noted that there 1100 employees total; 44% are contract employees. KCSO provides services to 569,900 people in unincorporated King County as well as 13 cities, King County Metro and the King County International Airport. The Sheriff is accountable to all residents in the County.

CFO William Wilson noted that the KCSO budgets reflect the County’s austere fiscal environment and changing public safety needs. Almost all of the non-mandatory expenditure growth has been backed by offsetting revenues. KCSO recognizes the current fiscal crisis and is committed to finding solutions. All contracts to provide police service to cities are based on full cost recovery; KCSO actively seeks partnerships to eliminate duplicate services; KCSO is in support of changes that create logical service areas, do not compromise public safety and provide true cost savings.

Service cuts and reductions include block watch, DARE, gang unit, pawnshop investigations, specialized auto theft investigations, minor accident investigation, bad checks, vice, gambling, criminal warrants, building security, local DUI enforcement, crime prevention, and training.

Cumulative revenue growth since 1997 has been approximately 153% while net CX expenditure growth has been only 31%.

As previously mentioned all policing contracts attain full cost recovery and include the following benefits:

Lower unit costs through economies of scale;

Enhanced recruiting ability and retention of quality officers due to variety of career opportunities;

KCSO has become more customer service oriented;

Reduced liability risks;

Operational efficiencies; and

Broader understanding of and response to Countywide crime trends.

Q: Have you considered reverse contracting with the cities?
A: The largest obstacle is our labor issues involved in reverse contracting. The guild claims this work and will not give it up.

Q: Would you recommend renegotiating labor contracts?
A: Yes that would be the route to take.

Q: As you might know from the draft recommendations, the Commission is considering recommending that bookings be eliminated for non-violent crimes. How much would that save and are there any public safety implications from that?
A: I have been working on a program called JAWS, Jail Alternative Warrants Service, which is a pre-book home detention concept. This is actually in a pilot program at the present time. For non-violent offenders, a bracelet costing $10/month can be put on and the offender can be sent home. The next day the offender must arrive in court and the judge can decide at that time between three options: 1) continue home detention, 2) fine and release, or 3) jail time. Individuals should be held accountable and responsible for their actions. I would like to see this program be implemented in a Countywide fashion.

Q: Is there ever an issue identifying individuals arrested for minor offenses who may have committed a felony?
A: What we do is conduct a full background check and/or life scan (fingerprinting) check. In those cases we would follow through with these checks.

Q: What are the cost trend revenue drivers?
A: Labor costs and internal costs such County overhead that we do not have control over.

Q: What are the services that King County provides that others cannot provide with exception to the Cities of Bellevue and Seattle?
A: There are services that larger agencies are better equipped to provide. More experienced officers who use their training in practice and performing the functions learned.

Q: What are the implications if the County goes a major annexation process? Describe briefly what is happening between the Sheriff’s Office and the Seattle Police Department with regards to the crimes in the White Center area.
A: We have always anticipated annexations occurring and have planned for them accordingly. We recognize that some of the contract cities may annex certain areas. In these cases there would be staffing additions made to cover those areas because of the higher level of service in contract cities compared to unincorporated King County. Similarly if non-contract cities annex unincorporated areas, this would result in a reduction of Sheriff’s deputies. King County is greatly understaffed and according to the most recent FBI report, nationwide King County is 300 police officers short. There has been great improvement in White Center since store fronts have been put in the neighborhood. We have been involved in sharing grants with the Seattle Police Department. To reduce gangs and drugs we have put together a mini-task force working out of Burien to assist in reducing those crimes.

Q: How would you characterize the negotiating environment between the King County Sheriff and the contracting cities during the last four or five years? Do you see any mutual cost benefits and efficiency improvements if you increase those types of partnerships with other cities in the County?
A: There has been a tremendous change between the King County Sheriff’s Office and the contracting cities. Relations have improved and there has been an increased trust in County government. Yes, we believe it is mutually cost beneficial to increase contracting cities and reduce duplication of services.

Q: Wouldn’t it be better for King County to be unified and have total control?
A: Yes it would be more effective and efficient if King County were unified but this presents a difficult problem with some cities.

Q: What are your recommendations for the Commission?
A: The County needs a Countywide transportation system; a Countywide records management system; and a Countywide communications system.

Q: What is your opinion regarding an elected versus an appointed sheriff?
A: There is an advantage to having an elected sheriff. It brings money to this County to augment local tax dollars in providing criminal justice and law enforcement services. The $28 million has been used in the unincorporated areas, shared with contract cities and spread across the County.

4. Phase 2 Recommendations Discussion
Marty Wine noted items in the meeting materials which included the Draft Phase 2 Recommendations, the Center for Social Justice letter addressed to the Commission, and the discussion draft of the Criminal Justice Recommendations. Court Consolidation Discussion
    1. Consolidate administrative functions: district and superior courts
    2. Trial court consolidation: all superior and district functions
    3. Consolidate courts of limited jurisdiction: district and municipal
    4. “Full” consolidation: all local functions

Discussion included how best to start regarding consolidation. It was noted to be realistic and start small, then move to larger court consolidation. Start decisions with the consolidation of administrative functions of the district and superior courts.
It was noted that trial court consolidation and consolidation of courts of limited jurisdictions might be in conflict. They should be discussed separately. It was noted that the administrative functions of the District and Superior Courts and as well as trial court consolidation should be completed first, then full consolidation.

5. Next Steps

The next meeting was set for December 22 from 8:00 – 11:00 a.m. with a location to be determined.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

Regional Provider:

• Developmental • Prosecuting Attorney • Public Health Disabilities (County Cases)

• Juvenile Detention & Courts • Courts • Public Defense

• Adult Detention Pretrial & Felonies • Mental Health, Involuntary Treatment • Medical Examiner

• Youth Services • Public Transportation • Roads

• Surface Water • Sewage Collection & Treatment • Budget

• Auditor • Elections • Finance/Treasurer

• Executive • Council • Assessor

Local Provider

• Public Safety (Police Services/Crimes) • Traffic Enforcement • Planning (GMA)

• Land Use Controls (GMA) • Parks & Recreation • Building/Fire Code Inspections

• Community Development

The Commission recommends that King County obtain input about its role in the following services. The Commission invited input on October 1 about what activities are in the best interest of County citizens and taxpayers for the County to provide.

Economic development

District Court

Regional transportation

Airport

Boundary Review Board

Animal Control

King County Fair

Emergency Medical Services

Phase 2 Findings: How Should County Services Be Provided? Commission has identified key Phase 2 management and service challenges by issue/service area. The Commission will make recommendations that the County make changes in the following areas to address these challenges:

Intergovernmental relations: County’s role as a regional and rural provider, annexation, urban subsidy, relations with cities, regional finance and governance. A subgroup is working on a recommendation now.
Criminal justice (to be covered today, November 6)
Employment policies (A subgroup working on recommendations)
Management approach to fiscal challenges (overhead, internal services)
Human services (to be covered today, November 6)

Proposal is to review progress on recommendations for intergovernmental relations and employment policies. Berk & Associates has synthesized all the background materials to date (including peer/innovator research) and is offering draft recommendations to the group regarding criminal justice, human services. Management approaches has yet to be researched.

Phase 3 Focus: How services should be paid for to ensure adequate long-term funding; any changes to current expense revenue structure; any dedicated revenue resources to fund specific services.
Work plan said the Commission would address the following steps (R=research):

Analyze cross-subsidization of urban unincorporated King County (R)

Revenue source assessment:

Stability, sufficiency of CX, non-CX funds
How other areas develop their funding base (R)
New sources – utility tax and others (R)
Use existing sources in new ways (R)

Regional financing mechanisms in King County and other metropolitan counties

Potential for expenditure reductions in lieu of revenue changes

Crosswalk of recommendations to BAT Force recommendations, other studies

Consider interrelations of this phase to prior phases

Proposal is to address some of this using 2004 budget information and BATF recommendations as a starting point. Today, Committee members will be asked to identify what we already have and know to answer this question; ask the Committee what information, within these tasks, is still needed to make recommendations; and develop recommendations by the end of the December 4 meeting.
Phase 4 Focus is on:

Changes to governance structure and governance policies

Partisan/non-partisan elections;

Change any elected office to appointed;

Change size and structure of government;

Change size and structure of county council, including staffing and salaries.

The Commission stated its intent to consider these questions in context of County’s regional role, needs and services, internal structure and external influences; to consider what other counties inside and outside Washington do; consider structures to bring other elected positions into a more cohesive unit with the legislative body (i.e. serve on a Council that might reduce the need for councilmembers or judicial offices).

Finally, intent was to discuss reorganization of the governance structure, and the implications of reducing the number of elected positions, and whether central services could be provided from single offices such as (for example only) a central Office of Management & Budget, equally responsible to all the elected County officials and eliminating this function in departments.

Have a discussion about factual information: forms of government, representation, pros and cons of different structures.

Commission member requested that we have the International City/County Management Association speak with us about advantages/disadvantages of different forms of government.

Elected auditor has been proposed by members of the Council, as has discussion of election by district or at-large by a citizen.

The consulting team will ask the Commission to brainstorm who should be consulted for this phase with a plan that draft recommendations might be available by February 1.

To meet this schedule, it’s proposed that the January 8 and January 22 meetings be retreat format (January 8 meeting is already scheduled from 12-5 p.m.), and wrap up Phases 1-3 recommendations by December 4 to focus on these issues in January.

It was agreed that the January 31 hearing for Phases 1-3 would become the public consultation and comment meeting for all findings and recommendations including ideas for phase 4; the timing for that hearing might be mid-January instead of January 31.

Q: It appears from some news stories that the Commission should be addressing biennial budgeting. Should we?
A: It’s either a Phase 3 or Phase 4 issue, together with elected auditor and at-large or district representation.

5. Framework to Complete Phase 2 Recommendations

The types of recommendations that the Commission might make would be: Things King County would…

Do on their own
Need to have dialogue and agreement with the cities or the State
Need state legislative change
Need voter approval
Study in more depth (Commission was only able to scratch the surface)
Important to focus on the consequences of not acting; and the fact that there is a crisis.

Commission has identified key Phase 2 management and service challenges by issue/service area. The Commission will make recommendations that the County make changes in the following areas to address these challenges. The Commission reviewed all the information received to date in the following areas, summarized by Berk & Associates, including some preliminary language of recommendations that should be refined by the Commission before December 4 (see individual written packets about issues). Homework for the Commission: read the packets which summarize all the reading materials that have been distributed to date, read the draft recommendation, and send Marty preferred language and the direction for recommendations as soon as possible.

Intergovernmental relations

Issues haven’t addressed: Communication between Council and Executive.
Duplication of services across governments in King County.
Level of service delivery.
How to get consensus about the County’s regional role and how to identify who funds
which services.
Must understand the Suburban Cities’ philosophy and the reason they think this is
important.
The Commission does not have enough sway or expertise to compel anyone to follow such a recommendation. Is there some kind of forcing mechanism to do this? We need to look at recommendations that require State legislative change. Could the State give the power to some entity? Who to bring all the regional entities (cities, County, special districts) together about the issue of who does what. What is the right process or venue for that? Commission should be specific about how the County can bring together coordination of services.
Be sure to document the successes that have occurred.
What are the incentives that bring people to the table for this dialogue – the GMPC, the
Charter Commission.
Representation for rural King County.
Small group needs to meet to continue drafting recommendations. See below for additional issues this group has to address: regional human services, encouragement to develop agreements for local service delivery.

Criminal Justice

Issues haven’t addressed: Sheriff and Prosecutor’s budget and costs. They are scheduled for Dec. 4. Whatever the Commission decides about this recommendation should be tentative until their presentation, or small group of Commission members could meet with them and report back.

Cost sharing and the state committee: Marty will research the status of reimbursement of cases –what is status?

This is an opportunity. We need to say something positive or definitive about incarceration versus treatment and what these policy choices are costing the region.

Heard great ideas; recommendation that is in draft needs additional input and won’t alone address the problem. Need to be clear that savings does not equal the need for investment. There is no fiscal payoff early from reinvesting “deep-end” savings in prevention and treatment.

Must recognize when these issues become human service issues rather than criminal
justice issues. They are interrelated. United Way is interested in ending homelessness –
look at linkages between human services and criminal justice.

Find out more about Proposition 36; talk to Dan Merkle about it; how were savings accomplished.

Explore consolidation of city and county police forces which was suggested in several other counties. The Sheriff contracting with cities could be seen as regionalization of services. Marty will research historic growth in Sheriff and Prosecutor’s budgets.

Find out about court consolidation. What are persuasive arguments for and against it? Discuss with King County Bar Association, National Lawyer’s Guild.

Encourage Adult Justice Operational Master Plan (AJOMP) efforts.

Employment Policies

A draft recommendation is underway by the subgroup on this issue.
Issues haven’t addressed:
- How did recent downsizing/reorganization of the County affect management?
- Binding interest arbitration – what are the costs and does it cause cost “creep?” Need to show that it does or does not cause salaries to be greater than IPD or CPI. Before we make final recommendation, may relate to Phase 3. Marty will research 10 years of salaries and benefits of those with BIA to the IPD/CPI.
Competitive bidding: San Diego County had the vehicle maintenance functions compete for bids; this is sometimes used as leverage at the bargaining table. The Commission could consider it not as tool to achieve savings, but to achieve different deployment or more efficient operations. The issues of competitive contracting are policy issues that the County has said should not be considered because of legal restrictions. Goldsmith: It is not always the right answer, but that does not mean it is never the right answer. In some cases it saves substantial amounts of money. In some cases services were improved as a result of competitive process; just going out for bid challenged staff to find better ways to do it. This is a governance issue – it should be considered as a tool. The County needs this kind of leverage long-term. This is an issue that needs the County’s attention – may be the Commission members are generalists. Some work must be contracted out; call it something else; we raise the issue not to decrease labor costs but to budge the County to collaborate with other jurisdictions. If this is not going to fix our structural problem, it is not really worth taking on.
We have not explored everything or heard from everyone, but we have concluded that employment policy is not the answer to the structural problem; we need to explore the link of labor issues to criminal justice issues.
We have learned that the County has a collaborative approach, not adversarial; the goal is to keep morale up and reduce distractions in the workplace. The labor relations folks we talked to said some financial intangibles were offered but it did not result in employees being paid outrageous amounts.
We have learned that the County has a collaborative approach, not adversarial; the goal is to keep morale up and reduce distractions in the workplace. The labor relations folks we talked to said some financial intangibles were offered but it did not result in employees being paid outrageous amounts.
Note where contracting is used now at the County: Public Works, Human Services.
The part of the recommendation regarding intergovernmental services with local governments should be part of the intergovernmental subgroup’s recommendation. There was an example of this (talk with Steve Williamson) about consolidation of parks departments. Workers changed unions and employers.
Marty will redraft the employment policy recommendation based on edits to date and work with the subgroup to finalize it.

Human Services

Issues and Potential Recommendations: decrease pressure on criminal justice system by investing discretionary funding on human services; encourage current dialogue among Regional Policy Committee and recently created Commission on Human Services – focusing on regional provision of human services.
Is there some driver to ensure these conversations take place? This was envisioned to be part of the Regional Finance & Governance dialogue and agreement that was never reached. What compels people to have this dialogue?
Health/mental health service delivery issues: County should take on issue the issue of mental health/other models. Could County take on organizing and providing these services or supplementing the provision of it at the local level? Pierce County made it possible by purchasing an inpatient psychiatric facility that had filed for bankruptcy. This is an important role for the County. In 1996, why did the SCA oppose moves to have a regional funding system for human services? Many are not funded by the County and there are minimal County services in smaller cities. Could the Commission suggest a funding system based on a per-capita contribution from all cities and the County? Remember that the County’s funding for human services is focused on Seattle and a little of Bellevue, very low in the rural areas.
Strengthen the language in bullet #2 in the recommendation; stress that these are regional services and strong regionalization is the way to go. The County must play a very proactive role. Commission should review p. 11 of this packet regarding the Human Services Commission, and recommend alternative language. The regionalization of human services should be moved to the intergovernmental relations subgroup. Marty will contact Sharon Maeda regarding these recommendations.
Strengthen the language in bullet #2 in the recommendation; stress that these are regional services and strong regionalization is the way to go. The County must play a very proactive role. Commission should review p. 11 of this packet regarding the Human Services Commission, and recommend alternative language. The regionalization of human services should be moved to the intergovernmental relations subgroup. Marty will contact Sharon Maeda regarding these recommendations.
Consider what are the costs or hidden costs associated with not providing human services (private, societal and individual).

Management Approach to Fiscal Challenges

Issues include overhead, technology, management of internal services.
Technology – the Commission needs to address how the County can have an effective technology program? What besides the BATF recommendations should the Commission recommend?
To tackle the whole topic of management approach, pull out the BATF recommendations
and send them out for review. Much had to do with consolidation of operations.
To tackle the whole topic of management approach, pull out the BATF recommendations and send them out for review. Much had to do with consolidation of operations. The Commission can’t tell the County how to do it.
The BATF ducked the issue of why the County has this problem. Is it the merger?
The charge for the Commission is to look at the BATF stuff and say to Marty quickly what do we need to ask about other than what they have investigated.
The Council heard a presentation on August 27 about who has and uses “program management plans” now. To make any capital investments, departments must have and Council must approve an operational master plan (OMP), capital improvement plan (CIP), a Project Program Plan (PPP), and a site master plan. We heard of a few good ones in Wastewater and Transit and they are critical to good operations. We should talk about this in our next meeting: efficiency, overhead and span of control; who has authority over who does it? We might advise King County to have someone professionally review this. Marty will find out the current status of a recent overhead study.
Who mandates whether to have these program plans?

Whatever is recommended, we need to get access to middle-level managers and line workers responsible for implementation. The Commission should offer Marty language for recommendations prior to the 20th, to make it easier to have a conversation at the table. Let Marty know immediately what your preferred language is for criminal justice and human services recommendations.

6. Starting Phase 3 Recommendations

Marty will put together a profile of the County’s current sources of revenue, what they are, background on utility tax, and what types of revenue sources do counties have.

Instead of looking at these issues as cost problems, the Commission should be looking at the sufficiency of revenue – is that the problem?

Cross subsidization and regional financing mechanisms (on the workplan) will be handled by the intergovernmental relations subgroup. Change the language about “analyzing” the cross subsidization of urban unincorporated areas - the Commission does is not interested in doing that.

Need to identify final issues to wrap up Phase 3 issues by December 4.

Examine in other states: mandatory models where the State compels cities and counties to annex and speed the transition of unincorporated areas. Also try to get an idea of whether expense reductions would make any difference; use other jurisdictions’ budgets to identify how the County compares on a percapita expenditure basis to other areas.

Marty will re-send the matrix the sub-group developed for the BATF.

Q: Given labor’s preference for layoffs of a freeze on wage increases, if revenue stays constant are there service areas we should shut down?
A: Look at median income and tax burden per capita for this county and compare it to other counties. We have a low tax burden per capita. We operate in a representative government, and while the average citizen doesn’t understand, someone needs to do the right thing by creating a tax base that will respond to the ups and downs of the economy. We need a new tax structure in this County. Prior to I-695 we did not have a budget crisis.

Q: Property taxes here are higher than many parts of the country, as is sales tax. Maybe we’re encouraging too many services.
A: There’s no state income tax.

Q: You said there was no crisis before Initiative 695, but the crisis did exist according to the taxpayers. The private sector would have to downsize – a corrective device when the revenue base squeezes. It’s not fair to ask you where we should downsize because you have obligations to the employees you represent. But how would you suggest we go about looking at what units to downsize?
A: Flexibility exists with labor leaders to deal with doomsday scenarios. We’ve already downsized: look at parks. The public sector has downsized similar to the public sector, but is faced with mandated services it must provide.

7. Phase 4 – Governance issues. Ideas about who to hear from:

Pros and cons of partisan and non-partisan offices. When counties and cities have made the transition, what has the outcome been?

International City/County Management Association: Berk & Associates is trying to have a representative from ICMA talk with us about forms of government in January.

The Commission should hear from Secretary of State about the elected auditor idea, Evans School.

8. Next Steps

The November 20 meeting will include finalizing Phase 2 recommendations; a presentation on Phase 3 funding issues. The Commission should expect a lot of e-mail drafting between now and then. Plan to stay late if needed on November 20, with the exception of the criminal justice recommendations.

December 4 will include finalizing Phase 3 finance issues and initiating discussions about Phase 4; hear from Sheriff and Prosecutor.

January 8 – 5-hour meeting to wrap up and confirm Phase 1-3 recommendations and bring forward Phase 4 (governance) recommendations, hear from speakers on January 22 and plan public meeting for mid-January.

We’re not at a point to have a December public meeting, but need to have a public meeting early enough for the public to weigh in on Phase 4 issues.

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.