The Municipal League of King County

Supports

King County Charter Amendments 1-A (I-18) and 1-B

King County Council Size Reduction

November 2, 2004 General Election

SUMMARY

Voters November 2 will be faced with the question of whether the King County Council should be reduced in size from 13 to 9 members, and whether that should be accomplished according to the process laid out by charter amendments 1A or 1B.  Option 1A, originally Initiative 18, would require new districts be drawn by January 2005 and election of a new Council with 9 members in November 2005.  Option 1B, an alternative measure created by the County Council, would allow two years for the redistricting process, require election of the new 9-member Council in November 2007, and would also reconfigure the membership of the three regional committees created as part of the 1992-approved Metro merger. 

BACKGROUND

 The Metropolitan King County Council was expanded to 13 members as part of King County government’s merger with Metro, approved by voters in 1992.  This new government was designed to provide both regional services to all parts of King County (transit, sewage treatment, courts and jails) as well as local services to unincorporated areas.  The Council had previously had 9 members since Home Rule was approved by voters in 1968 and became effective in 1969.   In the decade since 1994, county government’s service area has been reduced as a result of incorporations and annexations, and additionally revenues have shrunk due to initiatives 695 and 747.  The County Council had to cut its general fund budget by $41 million in 2002, by $50 million in 2003 and by $24 million in 2004.   Because many of the regional services are funded with dedicated revenue sources, the criminal justice system, which is primarily funded from general property tax levies, has been especially hard hit. 

 In its 2002 budget, the Council cut jail guard positions, earning the ire of the King County Corrections Guild.  In response, the Guild created Initiative18 to reduce the Council size from 13 to 9 and gathered 71,000 signatures to have it placed on the ballot.  The King County Prosecutor challenged I-18 in Superior Court on the grounds that the County Charter gave sole authority for charter amendment proposals to the Council.  The Superior Court found against the Initiative, but was overruled by the State Supreme Court, which stated that citizens have a right under the Washington State Constitution to initiate amendments.  As a result, the Council voted to put the measure on the ballot in 2004 as Charter Amendment 1-A.  The initiative would have appeared on the ballot in 2003 (allowing a year-long redistricting process and election of a new 9-member council in 2005), however, the delay caused by the court challenge and appeals shrank the time between the vote on the charter amendment and the districting deadline to a mere six weeks (November 2004 to January 2005). 

 In July of this year, the Council proposed amendments to the initiative that would set 2007 as the redistricting deadline, and reduce the size of the three regional committees.  These changes were supported by the King County Corrections Guild.  Tim Eyman, hired by the Guild as a consultant to I-18, broke with the Guild, announcing he would sue in Snohomish County.  On September 2, the Snohomish County Superior Court ruled that both versions of I-18, Charter Amendments 1-A and 1-B, would go on the general election ballot this November.

Charter Amendment 1-A                    Charter Amendment 1-B

 Size – 13 down to 9                             Size – 13 down to 9

Takes effect immediately                     Two-year delay – to 2007

Redistricting by 12/31/04                     2005-2006 redistricting

November 2005 elections                     November 2007 elections

                                                        Adjust regional policy committees

ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURES

Proponents of I-18 made the following arguments in support of reducing the Council size; they pertain to both 1A and 1B: 

·        The reduced scope of services and the government cutbacks in King County should be applied equitably to the Council and its staff as well as to front-line employees.

·        While Corrections Department staff had to take a $7 million cut (69 officers), the County Council increased its own budget by $500,000.

·        Reducing the County Council from 13 to 9 members along with proportionate reductions in council staff would yield savings of up to $4 million per year. 

·        The reduced scope and size of King County government make it evident that a 13-member Council is no longer needed; at 13 it is larger than any other county council on the west coast, including Los Angeles County’s.  The recent County Governance Commission recommended a Council size of 7.

·        The voters have a right to introduce charter amendments by initiative and should do so when elected officials are unable to see beyond their self-interest.

Of the two amendments, 1A might be preferable, because:

·        An extended and expensive redistricting process is not needed because the boundaries of the nine pre-1992 districts could be adopted quickly with slight adjustments.

Of the two amendments, 1B might be preferable, because:

·        The citizens are entitled to a thoughtful redistricting process with public participation and that cannot be accomplished in just a few weeks.

·        The two-year extension until 2007 will allow an orderly transition of elected representatives on the customary odd-year cycle.

·        The membership reconfiguration on the regional policy committees is a necessary technical adjustment that must accompany the reduction in Council size.  

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MEASURES

 Opponents cited the following arguments against the measures: 

·        The actual budget savings from four Council positions and their staffs is about $1.3 million a year, a savings that is insignificant in the County’s overall budget; of that amount only one-third, or $440,000, would be a general fund savings that could be spent on other services.

·        The average daily King County jail population has declined from 2900 to 2300 in the past four years for the adult population and from 190 to 105 for the youth population.  The reductions in jail guard positions were appropriate and commensurate to the workload.

·        The Corrections Guild was exercising a vendetta against the County Council because of the cutbacks and did so by employing a paid signature gathering campaign supported by Tim Eyman, the very person who created much of the revenue problem in the first place.

·        There is no basis to the argument that the County Council has reduced responsibilities; in fact the County budget has grown from $1.1 billion to $3.2 billion in the past ten years, due to significant increases in regional services.

·        Council members are required to participate in 36 different committees, many of them mandated by the county charter or state laws, as well as serve constituency populations of about 133,000 in each district.

·        Eliminating four Council positions would raise the constituency population to about 193,000 per district, resulting in a loss of representation for citizens. 

·        Cutting in half the membership of cities on the three Regional Committees negates the intent of the 1992 Charter Amendments to increase the participation of city representatives on regional issues. 

POSITION and RATIONALE

The Municipal League supports a “yes” vote for reducing the Council size.  It also supports Charter Amendment 1A, which would implement the reduction promptly.

 The Municipal League has repeatedly advocated for the reform of County governance.  In fact the League wrote to the Council on that subject as recently as this summer. The reduced scope of County government obligations brought about by annexations and incorporations, combined with the urgent need to reduce expenditures, provide compelling reason for reducing the size of the Council.  Although the annual savings will not be great in terms of the magnitude of the County’s fiscal problems, they will be symbolic.  In addition, a smaller size governing body is often more effective.

 In terms of the timing of the reduction in size, the clear message and the additional cost savings achieved by an immediate implementation schedule outweigh the benefits of a more careful, deliberative redistricting process.  Changes in the size of the regional committees can be achieved at a later election should the voters opt for 1-A.