King County Governance Commission Meeting Agenda

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

June 19, 2003
DRAFT Meeting Summary

Members:
Richard Derham
Mark Endresen
Dave Gering
Steve Goldblatt
Arun Jhaveri
Sharon Maeda
Jim Montgomery
Bill Ptacek
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 1:07 p.m. in the Maynard Conference Room, 2nd Floor, King County Administration Building, Seattle, Washington by temporary Chair Dave Gering.

The following Commission members were present: Richard Derham, Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, Arun Jhaveri, Sharon Maeda, Jim Montgomery, and Steve Williamson

Excused: Mark Endresen, Bill Ptacek

Guests present: Rose Feliciano, Office of Intergovernmental Relations, City of Seattle; Dave Regnier, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; Rich Feldman, King County Labor Council; Suzanne Dale, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Executive; Councilmember Rob McKenna; Russ Carlsen, Legislative Aide, Councilmember Kathy Lambert’s office; Councilmember Kathy Lambert.

1. Approval of Meeting Summaries

The second revised May 6, 2003 meeting summary was approved after discussion of changes.

The June 6, 2003 meeting summary was approved after noting dates cited in last paragraph should be changed from July to June.

2. Status Reports

A. BAT Force Subcommittee. A one-page document was distributed describing the BAT Force mission. Dave Gering reported on a meeting between the Commission’s BAT Force Subcommittee and a subset of the BAT Force. During this meeting, concerns were expressed about duplication of effort between the scopes of work. There will be another meeting between the subcommittee and BAT Force members to understand recommendations and invite BAT Force representatives to address full Commission in July. It was noted that this is important work and that the Commission needs to focus on governance issues. It was stated that the Commission should add to and build on the BAT Force work.
B. Communications Subcommittee. It was suggested that the Commission have a graphic identity for their website and correspondence. Marty Wine responded that Berk & Associates and County Council staff plans to work on this in the next few weeks. The Communication Subgroup will meet on Monday, June 23, from 3:15 – 3:45 p.m. The location is to be confirmed.
C. Unincorporated area representatives. Marty Wine reported on conversations with Scott White regarding unincorporated area representation and the expansion of the Commission to 11 members. It was noted that an ordinance could probably be approved by July 7 and that new members will hopefully be selected according to the process outlined in the ordinance and joining the Commission by the July 17 meeting.
If members have suggestions of individuals they would like considered for inclusion on the Commission, they should be sent to Scott White, Council staff. Members will be appointed by the Executive from nominations submitted by a selection committee comprised of the Chair of the County Council, the County Executive, the Prosecuting Attorney, and Superior Court Presiding Judge.

3. Draft Work Plan Discussion & Adoption

These two documents are a work in progress. The Commission received input from Suburban Cities Association and one Unincorporated Area Council (UAC); other organizations (Seattle, Bellevue, other UACs, League of Women Voters, Municipal League) need more time to review and submit comments. UAC concerns include the urban subsidy issue and the lack of representation from the unincorporated area. The Commission would appreciate comments from Executive Sims. In future versions, drafts will be maintained in the “track changes” mode.

The Commission reviewed the following changes to the workplan:

• Percent of time allocated to funding issues. The Commission agreed to leave the timing as is and to the extent BAT Force recommendations reduce the number of issues to cover in the first two phases, take up funding and governance issues sooner.
• Services provided. What are the issues and economic and demographic trends facing the County? The population’s needs are changing, requiring changes in services provided.
• Is a comprehensive needs assessment needed? There may be some disconnect between what the County provides and what is needed. A suggestion was made to inventory existing needs assessments and understand or list the top five needs of the County 10 to 15 years from now.
• The Commission discussed and decided to keep references non-CX funds in the workplan.
• It was agreed to add trends/demographics to the one-page workplan as Phase 1, Item 2, per Steve Williamson’s email and comments. These trends and demographics include median family income, tax capacity, crime rates, medic response rates, and other such factors. Marty Wine will contact Chandler Felt (King County Demographer) for a report on demographic trends and the County’s Annual Growth report.
• Commission members discussed whether a Charter amendment would be needed to recommend addition or elimination of any County services.
• Members accepted an expanded list in Phase 2 item 1 of more groups to consult and a focus on information about the advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness of alternative delivery providers.
• Should the code overlap between jurisdictions be addressed? The Commission’s current workplan does not address this issue in depth. An example is conflicting building codes among cities and the County which complicate matters for contractors. The Commission wants to consider what regulatory services should be done at the regional level rather than by individual cities. Language in the Commission’s workplan highlighting issues to be considered was changed to: “Consider the issue of multiple County and city regulatory and service regimens.”
• Phase 3 language should be made consistent with Ordinance.
• Discussion of Phase 2 approach to case studies. It was determined to keep the 4th, 5th and 6th bullets of the first issue listed under Phase 2, and to be sure that benchmark studies like ICMA and Governing Magazine are consulted.
• Phase 3, regional financing issues should include Twin Cities and Montgomery County’s Housing Opportunity Commission. The Commission should be mindful of other metropolitan counties and keep the bigger picture in mind. Marty Wine and Steve Williamson will gather information.
• Phase 4 language needs to reflect the regional nature of King County and the regional nature of King County services. It was noted to look at both internal structure and external influences.
• There is a need to be sensitive to urban subsidy question on the one-page workplan.
• The Commission has agreed (per June 6, 2003 meeting) to delay discussing governance issues for 6 months; when the Commission does, it needs to have a clear factual basis for making recommendations about size of the Council, representation, and other such issues. It was noted that it may not be a good idea to put the issue totally aside, but to adopt a policy that while Commission members may all have opinions about these issues, definitive conclusions will not be reached until Phase 4.
• The Commission noted that at each phase they will need deadlines for comments from interested parties and to obtain as many existing documents and assessments as possible. This will allow the Commission to work most efficiently and not create duplicative work for other groups.

The workplan was unanimously approved by the Commission with the above changes.

4. Administrative Items & Next Steps

• Meeting 8 overview: County services. The meeting will be July 7, 3-5 p.m., room to be confirmed.

5. Discussions with King County Councilmembers: Scope and Vision for the Commission

Councilmember Rob McKenna
• Councilmember McKenna was asked to respond to the question, “what is your vision of what the Commission should focus on?”
• Councilmember McKenna is a co-sponsor of an ordinance supporting a 9-member Council. He stated that the Council is not overstaffed with 13 members, and King County is not overstaffed with line workers to deliver service to the public. There is a problem with middle and upper management: these are the people who write the budgets. The Council should lead by example. There are not enough votes in support of the ordinance currently. The Commission’s recommendations will have impact on restructuring the government.
• BATF report. Expect recommendations in the report for increased tax revenue from unincorporated areas, but not many specific ideas about productivity and efficiency or structural changes. The Commission should look at many models and do true rethinking of structure, checks and balances. A professional manager form of government should be reviewed and other models considered.
• Sound Transit. Has same issue as Metro Council which was due to nonaccountability. The cost structure is designed to drive up rates and costs. Citizens now know that the County owns Metro.

Responses to questions from Commission members (in italics)
• Members discussed their intent to discuss decisions about governance issues until the end of the Commission’s process. There should be a focus on what King County does well and just doing a few things well: what is the Councilmember’s opinion of areas should the County focus on? The State requires some services: real estate/real property, public health, sheriff. There is a need to improve productivity through accountability. We should look for opportunities to regionalize services. Opposes getting out of district court business and having 39 municipal courts as it would be harmful to justice. Our superior court system is very, very good. We should regionalize services, such as reducing County’s role of permitting in Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) which is a service issue not a fiscal issue. This is a constant source of complaints. The County only handles rural areas and needs to reach agreement with cities. The County might want to look at having cities take over police services in PAAs. Example given was Auburn, but this raises legal issues.
• Are interlocal agreements time consuming? Yes but worth it. City contract to annex unincorporated areas – examples given were White Center and Eastgate. Would it be a service improvement to citizens? Yes.
• Could the District Court become a division of the Superior Court? Yes, a unified court is being looked at.
• A dedicated source of revenue for Human Services with a board of city and counties to oversee the allocation of funds.
• Can the County road fund be made available countywide? Yes.
• CX/non-CX issue – should the Commission stay inside the CX box? If the Commission needs to go into non-CX issues and has the time to rationalize its recommendations, go ahead.
• Non partisan office? Councilmember McKenna is open to the idea.
• Part-time partisan offices? Has not been thought of. A strong county administrator - party labels convey what people believe. Council districts are larger than legislative districts.
• Biennial budget – does it work well for the Executive Branch to propose budget? There is a tendency to focus on incremental decisions, not on multi-year decisions such as the capital budget. Biennial budgets would be good, and to transmit the budget earlier. Financial systems need to be replaced in order to get real-time numbers. It now takes until March or April to get actuals. It would be good to move to the State cycle. • Criminal justice ideas – the Drug and Mental Health Court is a good example. We are making progress in the juvenile system, look at reducing incarceration. Community corrections programs need time to succeed.
• How would we reduce the size of Council? It would be done by Charter amendment and voters. We would have to redraw map? The State Constitution says the term of an officeholder can’t be changed while in office. Some would be elected to 4 year terms, some 2-year.

Councilmember Kathy Lambert
• Councilmember Lambert thanked the Commission members for their service, noting that she was a co-sponsor of the Commission. She stated that the Commission should be free to do what is needed to be done. There are many structural changes that need to be made and working on defining the problem is important. Councilmember Lambert stressed issues of regional government and unincorporated areas. She encouraged the Commission to be bold, stating there is a need to understand the big picture. There are no additional monies in future revenue forecasts: the County is at a crossroads. She encouraged the Commission to review past governance studies, and seek public input through the Commission’s website. She stated that the County’s problems are not all about the budget, but that there is a systemic problem in the County’s organization. As an example, she cited 113 bargaining units without a single contract.
• Councilmember Lambert handed out copies of the Citizens Guide to the 2003 Metropolitan King County Council to illustrate the geographic size of districts.

Responses to questions from Commission members (in italics)
• What should the services in unincorporated areas be? What should cities be responsible for? Councilmember Lambert stated that the County’s districts are very different. Standards can be the same in urban and rural areas. North Bend has tried to do PAA permitting. What is preventing it? Negotiations with the Executive. Need to align city and county standards.
• Do citizens care/pay attention to which level of government provides services? Not really, but it would be better if service provision were closer to the local level.
• What are service needs that have increased? The need for services in social/human services, mental health, in part due to 7% unemployment rate. In her district, DDES has had only 2 plat maps submitted recently because it is so onerous to permit in the County.
• What are challenges? Councilmember Lambert stated that she is not always aware of things happening in her district ahead of time. As a Councilmember she can’t initiate an appropriation, as appropriation ordinances originate with the Executive branch. The County needs a different form of Executive: unincorporated areas do not get enough attention; the County Administrator should have a closer relationship to, and work with the Council.
• Is partisanship a problem? No, the Council gets along well.
• What should the County do in terms regional services? Those things people can’t do for themselves: police, courts, environmental protections, public private partnerships.
• What is the status of adding unincorporated representatives to the Commission? It is going well, and we have names ready to submit. Predicts a 1-month turnaround time. The Commission members requested that candidates who are women be recruited.

6. Administrative Items & Next Steps

A. Operating principles and decision making process
• What should be decided by majority vote? It was stated that a 5-4 margin is ineffective: decisions with close margins should be reconsidered. Members discussed requiring a supermajority to approve recommendations, but decided that if the group cannot come to a strong consensus, the final report should reflect the minority opinion as well as the majority’s.
• It was noted that item A should be amended to show that the chair is spokesperson for the Commission and will be asked to work between meetings to make preparations.
• The Commission’s proposed operating principles were unanimously adopted as modified above.
B. Commission leadership
• Several members said they had other commitments that would preclude them to serve as chair of the Governance Commission (Dick Derham, Arun Jhaveri, Jim Montgomery and Steve Williamson). Three members indicated that they would be interested, or could serve in a co-chair role (Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, and Sharon Maeda).
• There was consensus that a co-chair arrangement would be best to manage the work. Co-chairs would work with Marty Wine between meetings to develop the agenda, be the spokesperson for the full Commission, and help bring the group to consensus.
• The Commission considered a discussion/straw poll nomination process, and indicated that they would like to vote on permanent leadership at their July 7 meeting in order to include excused members Mark Endresen and Bill Ptacek in the decision. The Commission discussed waiting for the addition of the two new Commission members, who will hopefully attend the mid-July meeting, but opted not to do so.

7. The meeting was adjourned at 3:24 p.m.