Skip to main content

1996-97 King County Charter Review Commission Final Report and Recommendations, June 1997

1996-97 King County Charter Review Commission Final Report and Recommendations, June 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION

The 1996-97 King County Charter Review Commission convened as the 20th Century was drawing to a close and the American political system was undergoing significant changes. The U.S. electorate was, paradoxically, both anxious for government to address the many complex problems it faced and wary of a government that meddled too much in the citizenry's business. Local governments in particular were feeling pressured to offer services that until very recently the federal government had provided. To make matters worse, they were being expected to do so without raising taxes.

King County government was not immune to the pressures that local governments were feeling nationwide, but it was also at a critical juncture in its 29-year history. King County government had recently undergone the consolidation of Metro and King County into a single entity charged with the delivery of both regional and local services. This infant government was experiencing the growing pains that understandably resulted from merging two quite different governments.

At the same time, the population of the County was undergoing its most significant growth and re-location ever, with people moving to existing cities in record numbers, or creating new cities in formerly unincorporated areas. King County experienced the formation of no fewer than eight cities from 1986 to 1996. In 1997, the pace of urbanized unincorporated areas incorporating or annexing continued unabated, creating tremendous pressure on King County government, which needed to meet the regional demands of an increasingly urbanized county, at the same time that it responded to the requirements of the rural population for local services.

REVIEW PROCESS

This was the setting as the 29-member 1996-97 Charter Review Commission began its deliberations in October 1996. Every decade, the King County Charter is reviewed by an appointed advisory commission composed of citizens chosen both for their knowledge of government and for how well they reflect the diverse population of the county. The 1996-97 Charter Review Commission was charged with reviewing all existing Charter provisions and developing recommendations for structural amendments to improve the way the County government was organized, as well as technical amendments to improve the way the County government operated. In addition, the Commission was asked to assess King County's role as a regional government and to recommend amendments that would improve its ability to deliver regional services.

The 1996-97 Commission worked on a compressed schedule from October 1996 until June 1997 so that its recommended charter amendments would have enough time to be reviewed by the Executive and the Council and placed on the 1997 ballot. The Commission began its work with a review of past Commission efforts and an outreach process requesting input from citizens on issues of governance they believed required attention. From this exercise, as well as from consultation with various "good government" groups, elected officials, county agencies, and representatives from the county's 33 cities, the Commission compiled a list of 30 issues to examine in depth.

Between February and June 1997, Commission members met with nearly 30 community and interest groups including six public meetings at locations throughout the county, and distributed an estimated 1000 copies of the Charter to the public for review. The Commission's public involvement process was among the first King County outreach efforts to make use of an Internet home page and e-mail for communicating information about the review process. In addition to general information about the Charter and the Commission, the Commission's agendas, minutes, issue summaries, and public comment were all posted on the Internet.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In January 1997, the Commission formed three working committees: Regional, Structural/Organizational, and Technical/Operational. By April 1997, the Commission had begun voting on recommendations as they came out of committee and by June 12, the Commission had concluded its work with recommendations for 10 Charter amendments to be placed on the fall 1997 ballot and for three ordinances to be enacted in 1997 by the King County Council.

Each issue was debated extensively with Commission members expressing a diverse range of opinions on topics. While not every issue achieved a 100 percent consensus vote, Commission members were unanimous in their view that all of its Charter amendments and ordinance recommendations should be acted on in 1997.

Priority Recommendation: Amending the Charter by Citizen Initiative

A super-majority of Commission members determined that the recommended charter amendment to permit citizens to amend the Charter by the initiative process deserved to stand above the others for emphasis. The remaining nine Charter amendment recommendations and three ordinances were to be given equal weight. Under the current Charter, only the King County Council may place a Charter amendment on the ballot. Commission members reasoned that the Charter was created and approved by the voters of King County and that the citizens should, therefore, have the ability to amend the Charter. The Commission opined that the King County Charter should provide for King County citizens to have that same right as neighboring citizens in Snohomish and Pierce Counties.

Commission members recognized the potential for the initiative process to be used frivolously or, as has been the case statewide, to result in language that is flawed, so they recommended a 20 percent threshold for the required number of signatures to validate an initiative proposing a Charter amendment to ensure only serious amendments with broad based support would be successful. In addition, the Commission recommended that the County Council be permitted to place a substitute charter amendment on the ballot at the same time that a citizen-led initiative went before the voters.

The remaining recommendations are grouped into three categories: overarching, technical, and ordinances:

Overarching Charter amendments effecting King County government's external relationships with the general public and the cities, and its role as a regional government:

  • Amendment to the Charter to improve the effectiveness of the procedures of the three Regional Committees established by the merger of King County and Metro.
      The Regional Water Quality, Transit, and Policy Committees were created to be an essential part of a regional government that brought together the cities and the County to address mutual concerns. After 2 1/2 years, several problems existed that prevented the Regional Committees from achieving that goal.
  • Amendment to the Charter to strengthen the independence of the County's Board of Ethics by making it a separate entity.
      The King County Board of Ethics was established by ordinance in 1972. Over the past 25 years, questions have arisen as to whether the board is sufficiently independent to address ethics issues involving County elected officials and employees.
  • Amendment to the Charter to allow the voters to determine whether the County's elective offices (King County Executive, the County Council, and the Assessor) should be elected on a partisan or nonpartisan basis. (A minority report was made on this issue.)
      The question of whether the County Executive, Council, and Assessor should be partisan or nonpartisan offices has been debated for years without giving the public a chance to vote on it. It was part of the original recommendation from the King County/Metro merger.

    Technical Charter Amendments having to do with the internal operation of King County government:

  • Amendment to the Charter to provide for automatic interim succession for the offices of Assessor, Sheriff, and Executive in the event of a sudden vacancy.
      The current provisions for filling vacancies in these elected offices are provided by state statute and the state constitution. Even with such provisions, there could be a lapse of several days to several weeks in the case of a sudden vacancy.
  • Amendment to the Charter to allow King County to use county employees for the construction of public buildings and works, including roads projects, with a monetary value of $25,000 or less, where one trade or craft is involved and a monetary value of $70,000, where two or more trades or crafts are involved.
      Currently, the Charter restricts King County to the use of county employees in the construction of roads projects only having a value monetary value of $25,000 or less. The proposed change will not decrease the amount of work that is contracted to consultants. It will allow the County Road Services Division and other King County agencies to be more efficient and timely in completing roads and other public projects that are within the above stated monetary values.
  • Amendment to the Charter to authorize the County Council to establish qualifications for the office of the Assessor by ordinance.
      The Assessor's duties are both policy-making and technical in nature and therefore should be administered by a professional. Currently, there are no safeguards ensuring that an elected Assessor has the qualifications necessary to perform the duties of the office professionally.
  • Amendment to the Charter to authorize the County to operate on a biennial budget.
      State law allows counties to adopt biennial budgets, but the King County Charter currently is worded to only support annual budgeting. This proposed amendment provides the opportunity to adopt a biennial budget. It does not advocate annual or biennial budgeting.
  • Amendment to the Charter to clarify the method for determining the number of signatures for referendum and initiative petitions for matters that only effect unincorporated areas of the county.
      The current method required to determine the number of signatures required on unincorporated-area-only referenda and initiatives is not very efficient or responsive to citizens needs.
  • Amendment to the Charter to authorize the County Council to revise ordinances approved through the initiative process after two years.
      All other home rule Charter counties in Washington and the state allow legislative bodies to revise ordinances or laws enacted by initiatives after a specified period of time.

    Changes to King County government that can be done by ordinance and do not require a Charter amendment:

  • An ordinance creating a task force charged with developing a plan for a separately elected body for the unincorporated area, as well as a method for electing the County Council that is different from its current process of electing by district. (A minority report on this issue can be found in the full report.)
      In 2010, even with expected incorporations and annexations, the unincorporated area population will be nearly 300,000, making it equivalent to the second largest city in King County. King County is the local government for the unincorporated area, but that role is being overshadowed by its expanding regional government role. A majority of the County Councilmembers making local area decisions for the unincorporated area reside in cities. In order for King County to effectively meet its local and regional government roles, local and regional decisions should be separated and those making decisions about matters of unincorporated area jurisdiction should be elected from the unincorporated area. There are concerns that the present method of electing the County Council detracts from regional decision-making. At the same time, it has raised concerns about unincorporated area representation in County decisions effecting the unincorporated area only.
  • An ordinance that would create one or more planning commissions for the unincorporated area of King County.
      King County had a planning commission prior to the adoption of the Charter. This was replaced by the Hearing Examiner and community planning committees to advise in the development of local unincorporated area community plans. With the adoption of Countywide Planning Policies and a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act, King County has moved away from citizen planning advisory committees.
  • An ordinance that would extend the amount of time allowed for gathering signatures for initiative and referendum petitions.
      Because of the large geographic area of the County, it is difficult for citizens to have a reasonable opportunity to gather the required number of signatures in the amount of time currently allowed (45 days for initiative and 60 days for referendums).

    For more information about the King County Charter or the 1996-1997 Charter Review process, please call (206) 296-4040 or send your inquiry by e-mail.

  • expand_less