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

 


 

Meeting 8 - July 7, 2003
Meeting Summary

 

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

Consulting Team:
Berk & Associates, 206-324-8760
Marty Wine, Senior Associate
Brian Murphy, 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 3:07 p.m. in Room 4050 and 4060, 40th floor, Key Tower Building, Seattle, Washington by temporary Chair Bill Ptacek.

Commission members present:  Richard Derham, Mark Endresen, Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, Arun Jhaveri, Sharon Maeda, Jim Montgomery, and Bill Ptacek

Absent:  Steve Williamson

Guests present:  Suzanne Dale-Estey, Office of the King County Executive; Miriam Helgeland, League of Women Voters

1. Approval of Meeting Summaries

The June 19, 2003 meeting summary was approved.  It was decided to discontinue the practice of excusing absent members, as the Commission felt this practice served no relevant purpose in context of the Commission’s composition and work.  In this and future meeting summaries, members will be noted as present or absent.  Motion to approve the summary:  Jim Montgomery; Second:  Dave Gering.

2.  Overview of Budget Advisory Task Force (BATF) Recommendations

Marty Wine gave a briefing summarizing the BATF final recommendations.  Ms. Wine spoke from a written summary:  “General Government Budget Advisory Task Force” contained on the pink page in the meeting packet. 

A question was asked regarding a seeming contradiction in the BATF recommendations:  the Task Force recommends eliminating the “urban subsidy” it identified, but also recommends making infrastructure investments in these areas in order to make them more attractive to annexation by cities.  Ms. Wine and Suzanne Dale Estey, of the Office of the King County Executive, who was in attendance, explained that short-term infrastructure investments were recommended in order to make the areas more appealing to cities for annexation, while maintenance of the “urban subsidy” was not recommended by the group.  Some federal funding, from HOPE VI, Community Development Block Grants or other sources, may also be available for infrastructure investments in economically depressed communities. 

Ms. Dale Estey was asked if there is hope of progress in refining the annexation process at the state level.  She said yes, there are several related bills, including a move to reconsider a recent ruling making petition annexation unconstitutional and a bill to facilitate the annexation of urban islands.  The County would like an interlocal agreement to be required between County and cities regarding annexation:  this would require a legislative change to the Growth Management Act.  It was noted that it would be useful for the Commission to receive a full briefing of such efforts.

It was noted that the County has the legal capacity to implement a utility tax, subject to the same 6% cap on city utility taxes.  It has been estimated that this could raise approximately $40 million, roughly equivalent to the annual subsidy amount as estimated.

Ms. Wine directed the Commission to the second half of the pink sheet which highlights the overall between the Commission’s scope and the work done by the BATF.  She invited Commission discussion:  should the BATF work be used by the Commission as a launching point?

Mark Endresen moved that the Commission endorse the BATF work and focus its efforts on governance issues.  This would add weight to the BATF recommendations and allow the Commission to examine other important issues.  Arun Jhaveri seconded this motion.

There was considerable discussion of this proposal, including whether a Commission statement would “endorse” or “acknowledge” the BATF effort and recommendations.  The BATF work and its findings were praised as quality work on first review, and it was stated that their work would provide valuable and time-saving background and context for the Commission.  Commission members generally expressed the opinion that it was too early in the Commission’s work, and the Commission’s first-hand familiarity with the issues was too limited to support accepting the BATF work and recommendations at this time.  It was noted that the Commission’s scope was substantially broader than that of the BATF:  the BATF focused on financial issues only, and while the BATF found few un-mandated services which could be examined for cost-savings opportunities, the Commission would actually have the ability to recommend modifying the underlying mandates.  It was further noted that while the Commission had not been tasked with directly commenting on the BATF work, citizens and elected officials have recommended minimizing overlap, and the BATF included text in its conclusion that the Commission work would ideally review and build on the BATF body of work.

The Commission reached consensus to table the motion to acknowledge the BATF work at this time, with the understanding that this or another motion may be raised by the Chair or another member at any point in the Commission’s process.  Continued Commission discussion included the following points:

  • Over the past ten years there has been a popular movement to limit government revenues.  Functionally-oriented taxes may be appropriate in such a climate, and are worth considering in future Commission work.
  • It is important for the Commission to maintain a broad perspective, as the BATF did, avoiding minutia and not focusing on highly detailed recommendations; recommendations for wholesale change are desirable, as opposed to tinkering with small known problems.
  • The Commission will examine best practices in comparable and non-comparable counties.
  • Background on human services was provided, which is not mandated County responsibilities.  Approximately 20 years ago a shift occurred, in which service delivery  responsibilities were passed from public community-based service providers.  These agencies were thought to be closer to the community and most effective at delivering services in a culturally appropriate manner.  Competition and annual grant processes has resulted in “grantsmanship,” in which service delivery has become dependent upon an agency’s ability to raise funds from federal, state, and county sources.  Agency resources become focused on grant writing.  Many agencies are on the edge of sustainability, trying to make up cuts in public funding.
    • A discussion and question whether biennial or multi-year funding might be beneficial was raised.  Also that as some agencies receive both city and county funding, perhaps this is a case of “mis-governance,” with inappropriately overlapping responsibilities.
    • Kimberly Lockard of Councilmember Patterson’s office noted that the Regional Policy Committee has been evaluating city and county roles in human service provision, as well as defining federal, state, and regional responsibilities.  The Committee’s work will be made available to the Commission.
  • The Commission noted that its responsibility to investigate criminal justice issues was greater than finding efficiencies and controlling costs:  governance issues would be critical.

3.   King County Demographics, Trends about King County Government, past Charter Reviews, and Budget

Marty Wine introduced this topic by stating that the Commission has asked about current demographic and information about County trends to understand what’s happening with County residents.  The information to be provided here is summary-level and characterized as “50,000 foot level.”  The goal is to surface questions and issues to highlight and direct additional research. 

Ms. Wine introduced Chandler Felt, King County Demographer, who reviewed a series of overhead slides outlining demographic trends.  A summary of his points is contained on the green sheet in the meeting packet entitled “King County Reports Show Contrast between Short-term and Long-term Trends.”  Mr. Felt stated that the summary point of his presentation is that while a many short-term difficulties face the region, long-term prospects are much more positive.

Mr. Felt directed the Commission to the 2002 Annual Growth Report, the 2002 Benchmark Report and Affordable Housing: An Annual Bulletin Tracking Housing Costs in King County, all publications of his office, for further information.  Websites for these and additional sources are listed in the supplemental reading pack distributed at the conclusion of the Commission meeting. 

Following Mr. Felt’s presentation, the Commission asked a number of questions (in italics).

  • Are good statistics available on unincorporated areas?  Yes, the 2002 Annual Growth Report, due out in September, and 2004 budget will highlight unincorporated communities, with a one page description of each.  In general, unincorporated areas are relatively well-off, with the exception of North Highline and the West Hill area.
  • Has the cost of providing services to the 10 newest cities (most recently incorporated areas) has been examined?  It is critical to know whether these communities require more or less resources than when they were under the County.  Marty Wine noted that Steve Call, Director of the County’s Office of Management & Budget, is looking at that very complex issue, and that the Commission will have the opportunity to explore it.

Marty Wine introduced Brian Murphy of Berk & Associates, who presented additional demographic information as background information for the Commission.  Copies of his slides are included on white paper in the meeting packet.

  • In looking at incorporated and unincorporated areas, one Commission member questioned whether any legal challenge had been made on behalf of unincorporated resident’s right to ‘fair representation.’  This was noted as something to research.
  • Given time constraints, the second half of this presentation, King County Government/history of Charter review, was postponed until the Commission meeting on July 17.

4.   Status Report:  Communications Subcommittee

Bill Ptacek gave a review of recent Communications Subcommittee work:

  • The subcommittee will present a draft communications strategy at an upcoming meeting (probably July 31), and meets next on July 21, 3-5 p.m., room to be announced.
  • Invitations are being drafted to invite outside groups to address the Commission to future meetings.
  • Use of the I-Net system is being explored (fiber optic cable, could be used to get public input on recommendations by phase). The King County Library System is also already wired with I-NET and could be used as community meeting centers for a teleconferenced meeting, which could also be cablecast on CTV.
  • The group plans quarterly press releases, tied to the Commission’s workplan and Council progress reports.

A short description of the Commission’s work suitable for the website and introducing the Commission (on purple in the meeting packet) was introduced.  The document was approved by the Commission, with the condition that numbers 1, 2 and 3 be made into statements in order to be in parallel construction with 4.  Motion to approve:  Dave Gering; Second:  Mark Endresen.    Comments were also taken on the proposed Commission logo (stapled to the purple “About the King County Commission on Governance” page.  The Commission adopted a simpler logo, consisting of the King County crown and the text to its right in the proposed logo.  Motion to approve:  Steve Goldblatt; Second:  Richard Derham.

5.   Administrative Items

Commission leadership.  Marty Wine introduced the issue by stating that three Commission members – Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, and Sharon Maeda – had expressed interest in filling a leadership role on the Commission.  Three options were discussed:  1) Chair and Vice Chair; 2) Co-chairs; 3) Chair and Co-vice chairs.  A vote was taken, and the Commission determined to have two co-chairs.  A second vote was taken, with Commission members naming the two candidates they would like to see as co-chairs.  The vote determined that Dave Gering and Steve Goldblatt will be the Commission’s co-chairs.

Meetings 9 and 10 Overview.  The Criminal Justice Council and the Suburban Cities/Seattle/Bellevue will be invited to the July meetings.  A request was made to audio-record these presentations so absent Commission members might have access to them.  Commission members were reminded to read the BATF final report, and to review and highlight questions regarding the second half of the presentation focusing on King County governance structure and past governance reviews.

The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.