King County Governance Commission Meeting Minutes November 6, 2003

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

DRAFT Meeting Summary
Meeting 17 – November 6, 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, Dave Gering, Steve Goldblatt, Sharon Maeda, Bill Ptacek, Kathleen Royer, Steve Williamson
Absent: Arun Jhaveri, Jim Montgomery

Audience Members: Russ Carlsen, King County Council, Kathy Lambert’s Office; Anthony Hemstad, Suburban Cities Association, City of Maple Valley; Ammon Shoenfeld, King County
DCHS/MHCADSD; Marisa Alegria, King County DCHS; Miriam Helgeland, League of Women Voters; Presiding Judge Wesley Saint Clair and Tricia Crozier, King County District Court

1. Welcome and Meeting Overview

The goal for the meeting is to get as far as possible in having the substantive discussions to lead to Phase 2 recommendations today, and surface your questions to start research on Phase 3.

2. Briefing: King County District Court

Presiding Judge Wesley Saint Clair and Court Administrator Tricia Crozier commended the Commission for their work, and presented to the Commission about the nature of District Court operations, and recent changes in the Court’s budget and revenues, and operations.

District Court has taken many cuts in the current budget crisis and has actively looked for efficiencies, has cut staff while maintaining level of service. They are most proud of the implementation of special courts.

In addition to civil cases, small claims, impounds, protection orders, name changes, traffic and parking infractions; the District Court handles preliminary hearings for criminal and some felony cases and inquests. Filings since 1996 have been declining because municipalities formed their own courts; once that independence is achieved, we see filings trend up again. District Court makes up less than 1% of the County budget and about 4% of the Current Expense Fund, with about 240 FTEs, 25 judges, and a budget of about $21 million. Budget cuts since 2001 have totaled $5.4 million; proportionate to the Court’s budget these are very severe cuts.

Q: Are these “real cuts” or just cuts to a proposed increase?
A: From August 2001 to December 2002 the Court implemented a hiring freeze and then laid off 33 employees to meet budget cuts. There are now 57 District Court FTE fewer than 3 years ago. Reduced probation staff by 50%, administrative and line staff as well. The Court further restructured Court districts, resulting in the closure of facilities. This effort streamlined the governance of the Court. We consulted with the Suburban Cities Association and others who were concerned about the structure.

A new probation structure was created. Formerly people were supervised by a probation officer with caseloads of 300 or more, but the Court employed a better model based on Mental Health Court and Domestic Violence Court – the new court calendars decreased the number of people on probation and increased communication. The Court also changed its criteria for who is on probation – thefts and property crimes were not on active probation but compliance, while domestic violence cases remained in “active” status. This model increases accountability and decreases recidivism. The specialized court calendars have an opt-in process that starts with willingness to be on the program; if it is mandated we end up with a different structure. Filings, jail days are reduced and accountability is increased. Because of liability issues, court supervision is necessary.

Between Seattle, Superior and District Court we spend about $500,000 annually on interpreter services. A new pilot project with a staff interpreter shared with other courts has been implemented, as have intranet forms required for staff use.

Alternatives to jail has been a primary focus – County has always had but now expanded work release and electronic home detention. Courts are now using pre-trial release and work crew.

Q: Aren’t there restrictions because of mandates and statute?
A: Not for District Court; there are for Superior Court.

Q: Do you have an estimate of the total savings of these programs?
A: No, but we can supply that to you.

Q: Are there really savings in the phone tree concept you have implemented?
A: Not cost savings, but in deployment of staff – it has freed some up to work on other issues, has meant we don’t need to make more staff reductions.

The Court has also implemented the Mental Health Court for frequent offenders with cooccurring disorders. The Court’s philosophy is that this calendar offers intervention in murders waiting to happen.

Relicensing Court has been very successful and is likely to be replicated in Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Reduces the prosecution and defense costs in adjudicating Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) cases.

Q: Doesn’t allowing people to keep their cars also increase their employability?
A: Yes. My point of view is that this is a financial crime – a downward spiral with no way out. This court calendar creates an alternative. We have a walk-in component where people can come in without being charged and we provide the service to anyone with licensing problems.

Trial Court Consolidation is being addressed with state Supreme Court funding task force. Should we consolidate courts of limited jurisdiction? My opinion is that there should be one trial court with various departments: superior, limited jurisdiction, complex cases. Being studied is whether courts should share resources. We received a grant to put together a program to allow “therapeutic courts” (Mental Health Court, Drug Diversion Court, Seattle Municipal Court) to technologically talk to one another. Also seeking one collection agency – we have been able to get a lower rate for collections.

Contracting with 17 suburban cities: for a while it was unclear whether the County would remain in this business; the Executive said the County didn’t want to do this anymore, but there is now a proposed contract circulating. Hopefully by mid-January 2004 this will be completed – a 2-year extension. The dialogue about what courts should look like for 10 years is ongoing. Our operational master plan will help to answer some of these issues.

Q: Do municipalities’ fees fully recover costs?
A: Not now, but with a new contract, fees will cover costs. The Court is implementing BATF recommendations of full cost recovery.

Q: What is your opinion about full cost recovery?
A: (Judge Crozier) I’m a lone voice. I believe a unified court system offers great flexibility. Others say to become too large is ineffective. I support one trial court. I think a unification of district and superior court administration would be a great first step.

Q: Why do you think you are a lone voice?
A: “Territoriality,” fear of what it will look like and what will need to happen in practice. District Court will be reviewing this in the Operational Master Plan (OMP) and Facilities Master Plan (FMP).

Q: What district do you work in?
A: Redmond.

Q: Seattle District and Municipal Court – the Seattle District Court is primarily civil, also staffs jail calendar and jail facility. Seattle Municipal has authority to review civil matters but doesn’t – there’s not a lot of revenue associated with it.

3. Approval of October 23 Meeting Summary

Bill Ptacek moved and Mark Endresen seconded the approval of the October 23 minutes. The motion was unanimously approved.

4. Project Overview – Where we are headed and how we’ll get there

omment: We just heard another reasonable presentation showing that County agencies are handling their management and funding well. I’m not hearing that we could make significant cuts or major suggestions. Marty Wine reviewed where the Commission is now, where it’s headed and proposed a process to reach recommendations. She said the consulting team has heard the Commission’s concerns about time and whether we have enough time and meetings to cover issues adequately. Most felt that this is an opportunity for the Commission members to make strong statements about what should be done. Members were asked to identify for each phase:

whether the universe of questions and issues about this phase have been raised,

if not, what information is still needed to reach recommendations.

Big picture question to be answered by the Commission: What does it take for King County to have a really effective government? Recommendations must:

Focus on regionally important issues
Help with chronic Current Expense problem

Phase 1 Recommendation Adopted in Draft on September 11: What Services Should be Provided by King County? In the Commission’s review of the full County budget and services provided, we do not recommend that the County get out of any business. We consider the County to have a role in service provision in the following service areas, and may revise this finding based on Phase 2 and 3 findings.

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.