My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Proposal Brief County Governace Structure Discussion Mar 16 2022 (2)
>
Meetings
>
2022
>
09. September
>
2022-09-06 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
Proposal Brief County Governace Structure Discussion Mar 16 2022 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2022 1:10:32 PM
Creation date
9/1/2022 1:10:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
9/6/2022
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Item
Request to Approve a Resolution Forming a County Executive Management Advisory Committee
Order
17
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
93293
Type
Resolution
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />KITTITAS COUNTY <br />BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />PROPOSAL BRIEF <br /> <br />DATE: March 16, 2022 <br /> <br />POLICY TOPIC: County Governance Structure Discussion <br />BOCC-Administrator Form <br /> <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Kittitas County has experienced rapid growth in the last 20 years. Commissioner tasks <br />around county executive administration duties, policy development, legislative advocacy, <br />and participation in multiagency forums has grown significantly during the same span. <br /> <br />Under the Washington Constitution, our form of county government is considered the <br />“default” structure with independently elected officials administering discrete <br />departments performing duties defined by statute – aka a commission county. Seven <br />counties in Washington have adopted home rule with processes outside of the common <br />commission structure. These counties have separated the powers of the legislative and <br />executive branches into codified elected and appointed positions as well as redistributed <br />the duties of other county officials in commission counties. Of the remaining 32 counties, <br />15 have county administrators with primary executive authority for county operations and <br />5 have administrative directors with limited authority mainly over internal and budgetary <br />management. There is no approximation to organization or population size as some <br />similar or smaller counties (e.g., Douglas and Jefferson) have full county administrator <br />positions while much larger counties (e.g., Yakima and Grant) have no central authority <br />structure. <br /> <br />MRSC’s article, Your Responsibilities as a County Commissioner (appendix 1), define <br />the major parts of the commissioner job description. Along with those areas highlighted <br />in the first paragraph of this background, Environmental and Land Use Planning is also <br />raised as a key component of the position, and this is especially pivotal in Kittitas <br />County. The article also discusses the executive administration portion of commissioner <br />duties and the many forms it can take. However, it closes with the following, “A <br />commissioner’s executive and administrative responsibilities are very time-consuming; <br />consequently, boards of commissioners should seriously consider hiring professional <br />staff for managing the day-to-day affairs of the county.” As we have come to experience, <br />the majority of our working hours are devoted to managing internal operations which <br />comes at the expense of other critical job requirements that reduce our ability to act <br />strategically in the interests of Kittitas County. <br /> <br />But how does this position translate to ultimate benefit for the organization? IBM <br />conducted a study in 2013 among the nation’s 100 largest cities and published the <br />findings in Smarter, Faster, Cheaper: An Operations Efficiency Benchmarking Study of <br />100 American Cites (appendix 2). In it, researchers worked to determine how efficiency <br />across different cities could be measured by normalizing multiple service delivery points <br />to account for population, geographic size, and other variables independent of <br />administrative control. After analysis, the report concluded that those cities with council- <br />manager forms of government were 10% more efficient than elected strong mayor <br />administrations based on per capita cost of service delivery. The report states,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.