Although Washington State laws are specific in regard to the content and authorization requirements for interlocal agreements, the County has not adopted an official policy that clearly defines an interlocal agreement and authorization requirements. In addition, the County’s contracting processes, including processes for agreements with other public agencies, are largely decentralized with the exception of the interlocal agreement process for newly incorporated cities. The result was that numerous County agencies were confused about what constitutes an interlocal agreement, and the appropriateness of various contracting formats for interlocal agreements, other public agency contracts, and for amendments to interlocal agreements and contracts. More importantly, however, some County interlocal agreement and public agency contracts for joint cooperative and restricted public services (e.g., law enforcement, detention, etc.) were not consistent with State law.

It was also noted that the County largely deals and is treated in good faith in contractual arrangements with other public agencies. Given the fact that the County’s contracting processes were generally working well without serious legal complications (e.g., breached contracts), it was important to balance "technical neatness" with the delivery of essential public services. Public perception was also an important consideration because the County is often criticized if projects cannot be completed in a timely manner due to contractual issues.

The study recommended that the Metropolitan King County Council consider developing a committee comprised of officials and staff from the Council, Executive and Prosecuting Attorney’s Offices, to develop a policy on interlocal agreements that can be adopted as official County policy. The policy would also consider the criteria for decision-making or signature authority for the various types of interlocal agreements that are consistent with the State law. In addition, the Council should consider formally delegating signature authority to the County Executive for those agreements and contracts that do not require direct legislative review and approval.

Based upon the survey responses, 36 (26.7%) of the 135 interlocal agreements and public agency contracts selected in the sample were modified. One-half of the contractual amendments were attributed to financial adjustments (40%) and billing issues (10%). Term extensions accounted for approximately one-quarter or 24% of the amendments, and scope of service changes accounted for 20% of the amendments. Based upon the survey responses, the majority of the amendments were routine in nature.

However, few of the contractual amendments were directly authorized by the Council. In fact, only 8 (22%) of the 36 contractual amendments were directly approved by the Council even though 33 (92%) of the 36 amendments were consistent with the Council’s intent specified in the original contracts. It should be noted that the low percentage of Council-authorized contractual amendments identified in the survey responses was consistent with the County’s general contracting practices. That is, formal Council approval of contract amendments was not generally obtained except through the annual budget process.