Citizen Action William G. Andersen, Jr., Editor

Ways to Govern Metropolitan Areas Getting Renewed, Serious Attention

EGIONAL governance mecha- R nisms, ranging from citizen-based organizations and private sector partner- ships to new governmental frameworks are receiving serious consideration. The loss of federal funding and new local per- spectives on economic development pro- vide the thrust for a regional agenda.

The Municipal League of Seattle and King County, in its Issue Wirch (414 Central Building, Seattle 98104, (206) 622-8333, Summer 1986) presents a con- cise analysis of current mechanisms and poses questions for the Seattle area. The article, “Regional Government: Has Its Time Come?” by Elizabeth Kaye, is re- printed here.

he issue of regional government has T been reborn in King County thanks to such challenges as major federal fund- ing cuts to local government, the solid waste crisis, and the promisekhreat of the Bellevue Dam. Due to record growth, King County’s nearly 200 municipalities and special districts are scrambling to meet the demand for more services with less money. Accordingly, renewed advo- cacy for regional governance emphasizes civic concerns for potential economies of scale and reduced duplication of services, direct representation for all constituents, easy access to services and representa- tives, and revenue and expenditure eq- uity.

Areas that have developed regional governments, such as Los Angeles County, Nashville/Davidson County, Toronto and the Twin Cities, have done so in response to specific issues-unmet service demands, unwelcome annexation efforts, or looming governmental crises. The common element in these situations usually involves the definition of accept- able growth: Who should benefit from economic progress? How should the costs be distributed? Whose needs and wishes get priority? It remains to be seen whether problems and opportunities in Seattle and King County are compelling enough to catalyze similar reforms.

Although the context has changed over the years, regionalism is not a new issue for the SeattleIKing County area. As far back as 1897, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce considered a proposed city- county consolidation. The issue resur- faced over the next 50 years in various incarnations, from forming a separate Se- attle County and then merging it with the city, to dissolving Seattle’s boundaries and forming a city-county government based on King County’s borders. Since the 1950s, the region has witnessed the formation of the Puget Sound Council of Governments and Metro, while King County’s government has evolved from a three-commissioner entity to a more inde- pendent executive-council organization with “home rule” jurisdiction. [Home

319

320 1 NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW

rule granted the county all powers not ex- pressly reserved by the state constitution or the legislature.] Amendment 58 to the state constitution gives this area enor- mous latitude in designing and imple- menting new forms of regional govern- ment, subject to a vote of the people.

While Metro’s duties have expanded from regional water pollution abatement to include countywide mass transit, the PSCOG’s role has diminished with shrinking federal grants for regional plan- ning and coordination. At the same time, urbanlrural and interjurisdictional friction has increased: for example, Seattle’s per- ceived domination of regional planning prompted the PSCOG to strengthen the influence of county representatives in 1977 by creating four subregional coun- cils, and fueled King County’s unsuc- cessful bid to take over Metro in 1979.

King County alone has 189 govern- mental jurisdictions, including 28 incor- porated towns and cities, 36 fire districts, 22 school districts, and 74 water and sewer districts. Any reorganization plan would have to consider that the interests of these districts’ bureaucracies may not lie with regionalization.

Faced with similar resistance, what forms of metropolitan government have other regions established to overcome in- efficiency and deal successfully with growth issues? Four examples are Los Angeles County’s interlocal contract agreements, Toronto’s two-tier federa- tion, Nashville and Davidson County’s consolidation, and the Twin Cities’ met- ropolitan council. . . .

Los Angeles County: A reorganization similar to Los Angeles County’s would require the least amount of structural change for King County. L A . County makes regional services available to those

September-October 1986

wishing to contract for them, and munici- palities retain those services which they perceive to be properly their own. Unfor- tunately, this reorganization’s contribu- tion to regional land use planning and zoning is slight, and, although duplica- tion has been reduced, questions of finan- cial equity have emerged over the distri- bution of service costs.

Toronto: Toronto’s two-tier federation was implemented by the Ontario legisla- ture. The “second-tier council” consists of mayors and legislators from Toronto and five suburban boroughs, the jurisdic- tions which constitute the first “tier.” Metro Toronto’s role is primarily one of setting standards and regulations which the muncipalities then implement with some freedom. Toronto’s government does “get things done,” but at the ex- pense of the central city’s health and citi- zens’ access to officials, in the opinion of some. Toronto municipal leaders claim that they do not receive equitable treat- ment or assistance to meet the urban so- cial problems that plague a big city.

NashvillelDavidson County: Nash- ville and Davidson County consolidated in 1963 in response to an aggressive an- nexation program started by Nashville and to service problems outside the city limits. The consolidation combined the former city and county school districts, established a general services district (GSD) to provide the majority of public services, and an urban services district (USD) to provide additional urban ser- vices such as supplemental police and fire protection, water and sewer systems, street cleaning and lighting, and refuse collection. In 1965, 83 percent of the voters in

Nashville/Davidson County were satis- fied with local services as a whole. and

NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW 1 321

supporters point to improved efficiency, increased services, and a stronger role in Tennessee’s political leadership. How- ever, governmental fragmentation re- mains a problem, with existing units of government simply having changed their responsibilities, and the council has not adjusted service boundaries to meet addi- tional service needs.

Twin Cities: Like Toronto, the Twin Cities’ metropolitan council was estab- lished “from the top down” by the Min- nesota state legislature. All council repre- sentatives are appointed by the governor for overlapping six-year terms. The council was not created to reduce service costs but to represent area interests and to assume functions not otherwise dele- gated, including areawide policy plan- ning and coordination of regional devel- opment.

The council’s success lies in its infor- mational capacity and its regional poli- cies for public transit use, highway con- struction, health care and solid waste. On the other hand, local municipalities are reluctant to work together in local plan- ning, and feel that they should be more directly represented on the council. The government environment remains frag- mented, and the council needs to lobby both state and local officials for policy support on key issues.

In considering these forms of metro- politan government as models for the Pu- get Sound region, it is important to real- ize that each emerged as a response to a particular concern: L.A. sought effi- ciency, NashvillelDavidson County sought cooperation and political equity; and Toronto and the Twin Cities sought orderly growth. On the other hand, re- form advocates in the King County area are concerned with a multiplicity of is-

sues. This lack of unity, together with the extreme fragmentation of existing juris- dictions, weakens any chance for signifi- cant change. For instance, supporters of a King CountylMetro merger are primar- ily concerned that Metro’s bureaucracy is too powerful vis-8-vis the indirect repre- sentation accorded by the Metro council. In turn, two-tier proponents are con- cerned about efficiency and long-range planning, but also see the current county government as underrepresenting citizens of unincorporated areas. And city-county consolidation supporters during the first half of the century sought economy and simplicity in a government far less com- plex than what exists today.

Agreement as to the best alternative for metropolitan government thus remains elusive for the northwest. Some feel that existing structures, including Metro, the county, Seattle, and the Puget Sound Council of Governments may already provide sufficient regional planning and services, while critics of the status quo rap the present system’s fragmentation, outdated tax structure based on a rural economy, and competitive rather than co- operative municipalities.

Of course, any preferred alternative de- pends on which criteria are considered most important. If saving money is para- mount, the Metro-county merger is the only option that does not predict higher costs up front, although the county’s effi- ciency in administering transit and water quality is unproven. If uniformity of ser- vices and less fragmentation is essential, a city-county consolidation similar to Nashville/Davidson County’s looks promising, although opponents claim that such reform may neglect the low-income and needy in Seattle, while raising taxes countywide. Finally, if regional coopera-

September-October 1986

322 I NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW

tion is the foremost goal, a two-tiered government along the lines of Metro To- ronto promises greater accountability and political dialogue among elected repre- sentatives in a decision-making capacity. Of course this, too, has its costs-greater complexity, the potential for increased intergovernmental tension, and increased taxes for increased services. . . .

Tips on Funding Local Housing Service

When looking for corporate sup- porters, appeal to the contributor’s inter- ests, seek a broad base of support and ex- amine each potential partner on a case-by-case basis. These are some of the general principles on corporate fundrais- ing heard at the National Housing Ser- vices National Leadership Conference.

National Housing Services (NHS) pro- grams are the means by which the Neigh- borhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) assists local revitalization efforts. Each NHS is a locally initiated and funded private, nonprofit corporation governed by a working partnership of residents, business leaders and govern- ment representatives. Traditionally, NHS corporate supporters have come from the financial community. But that pattern is changing, with a growing number rang- ing from steel producers and auto parts manufacturers to small businesses.

Following are ideas on corporate fund- raising presented by Aetna Life & Casu- alty, Sohio, R.J Reynolds, and others at the NHS conference, and reported in Stone Soup (Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1850 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 376- 2400):

1. Do a thorough evaluation of the neighborhood expansion site. Po- tential funders will want to know the ins and outs of the community.

2. Look beyond hard dollars. Other resources such as community lead- ership and campaigning abilities are important, too.

3. Make sure to estimate expansion costs adequately to the NHS in terms of time, materials and other resources.

4. Be realistic and open about the time demands a proposal will place on corporate supporters. They may be more willing to do- nate their time if they know what to expect.

5. Appeal to the interests of the cor- poration. Financial institutions may be interested in a secure envi- ronment for making loans or pro- viding insurance, and increasing property values. Manufacturers, hospitals or other corporations may be interested i n security, health, property values, labor pools or just philanthropy.

6. If you can’t find any common ground, emphasize that a healthy city is good for everyone. Many corporations have made public their interest in a healthy city.

7. Don’t overlook the ability of older and well-established nonprofit in- stitutions to lend support. Often this is an area fraught with poten- tial turf problems. But if a match can be made, the rewards in le- gitimization, contacts, and in-kind support are well worth the effort.

8. If possible, involve the chief exec- utive officers. This is always de- sirable, although not always possi- ble

9. Each potential partner from an in-

September-October 1986

NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW 1 323

dustry or business should be ex- amined on a case-by-case basis. Don’t stereotype an industry or business.

10. Seek a broad base of support. All- inclusive grants are always wel- come. But don’t ignore the long- term benefits of a fundraising campaign designed to solicit sup- port from a wide range of funders. A broadened campaign prevents the loss of support due to down- turns in a particular business.

11. Emphasize the leverage of contri- butions on neighborhood reinvest- ment. Business people respond to programs that continue to produce beyond their original investment.

12. The financial and non-financial corporate sectors are intertwined. An appeal to a non-financial cor- poration may succeed if made through a financial institution.

13. Emphasize the simplicity of NHS. 14. Show potential funders a good

program of yours in operation. That may close the deal.

15. Make sure to balance the amount of publicity you use. Contributors’ attitudes on public exposure vary. The best way to handle the situa- tion is to have an NHS that works, and let it speak for itself.

KENNETH NESSEL

Teachers and Taxes on CL Agenda

News from the Citizens League in the Twin Cities area (84 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis 55402, (612) 338-0791) re- ports a diverse agenda for the fall. Teach- ing quality in elementary and secondary schools, solid waste and property tax

questions will make up the principal study areas, with a fourth to be added later in the year.

“Making Teaching the Kind of Profes- sion It Needs to Become” includes fac- tors of supply and demand for teachers, and an evaluation of training, licensing and recruitment, compensation and work environments. The citizen study commit- tee will have maximum flexibility in as- sessing ways to make teaching more at- tractive in the state.

“Solid Waste Recycling in the Twin Cities” will deal with alternatives to landfill and incineration, both of which will have limited application in the future without changes in technology and cost. The study committee will consider pro- jected rates of waste generation, disposal expenses, necessary policy changes for adopting alternatives, and experience of other places.

“Property Tax in Minnesota” is keyed into !ax study efforts of other study groups, including the state legislature and other governmental bodies. The comrnit- tee is being asked to determine how real property should be taxed and revenues used. Included in the analysis will be how local government and school districts rely on the tax, assessment procedures, equal- ization techniques, concessions and im- pacts in rural areas.

Bicentennial The Council for the Advancement of

Citizenship is operating a Bicentennial Information Clearinghouse as part of its U.S. Constitution Bicentennial Leader- ship Project (One Dupont Circle, Suite 520, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 861-2583).

September-October 1 986