Clark County voters to weigh in on 9 charter amendments

On Nov. 3, Clark County voters will decide on nine county charter amendments. The proposals by the Charter Review Commission cover a wide range of issues, including term limits, budget transparency, elections, taxes and the initiative process. While some amendments seem to have flown under the radar (see sidebar on Page C6), others have attracted strong support and opposition. Amendment 19: Term limits This amendment would limit the number of consecutive terms county councilors can serve, balancing the benefit of accumulated experience against new ideas and interests, its sponsors said. “What that would bring to Clark County is that a county councilor can serve for three consecutive terms, which would be 12 years, and then they would have to take a break, sit out for a full term, and then their eligibility would return,” said Brandon Erickson, chair of the Charter Review Commission. “And if the public wanted them back in there, they could be reelected.” Rob Anderson from Reform Clark County described the amendment as “a real head scratcher, because it’s the only charter amendment I’ve seen that is offering to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.” He said there’s no history of county councilors serving more than three consecutive terms, but passing the amendment would prevent voters from reelecting experienced councilors they believe are doing a good job. “People should not be limited in their choice of representation unless it becomes a clear problem that needs to be addressed,” Anderson said. Of the seven counties in Washington with a home-rule charter, Erickson said, four counties have term limits in place. “The intent is that if this passes, then next year we would look at a term-limit amendment for the executive offices, which would be like auditor or clerk,” he said. Amendment 20: Budget transparency Supported by Republican commission members Peter Silliman and Brad Benton, the amendment would move county budget deadlines up by one to two months. Currently, the budget process begins in mid- to late October, with final council adoption occurring in early December. Amendment 20 would require the initial budget presentation be held the first week of September, with a second presentation in October and the final adoption hearing in November. By starting the budget process earlier in the year, more residents will be able to participate, the sponsors said. “When the budget is being adopted and the public has a chance to chime in on it, it’s at a very busy time of the year. … There’s the election, there’s Thanksgiving, there’s Christmas,” Erickson said. “It just shifts the schedule earlier in the year to allow for some of those more critical decision-making milestones to occur at a time when, hopefully, the public is able to pay more attention.” Opponents of the amendment say there is nothing preventing the county from beginning the budget process earlier and that passing the measure would take away needed flexibility for the council, county manager and staff. Amendment 22: Nonpartisan elections In 2020, Clark County voters approved making all county elected executive and legislative offices nonpartisan. However, remaining language in the charter states these offices should be elected and provided for in a partisan manner. During election season, this means all county elected offices are included on primary ballots even if only one or two candidates are running for an office. Amendment 22 would treat county elected offices like other nonpartisan races, leaving them off the primary ballot if there are two or fewer candidates. Erickson said it can be confusing to voters when the same candidates for the same races are listed on both the primary and general election ballot. “There’s also some cost savings, a little bit of savings on the publication but also the time it takes to count those votes,” he said. Amendment opponents say removing these races from the primary ballot shortchanges voters and candidates. Anderson said passing Amendment 22 would give incumbents a significant advantage over their challengers. Ann Donnelly, a member of the Charter Review Commission, was among those working to defeat the amendment. In a statement for the Voters’ Pamphlet, she said removing the races from primary ballots also would leave off important information about the candidates and where they stand on important issues. “The primary election introduces candidates, encourages public discussion and gives voters time to compare qualifications before November,” Donnelly said in the statement. Anderson agreed that voters would have less information about their options, which will lead to fewer voters participating in elections. “This charter amendment takes us in the opposite direction we should be going,” he said. Amendment 24: Housing impact analysis The amendment would require analysis of land supply and construction cost impacts before land-use or construction code changes are adopted by the county council. The analysis must be data-driven and use generally accepted planning and housing methods. Findings also must be made publicly available for review. The amendment also requires all analysis work to be funded by the county’s general fund, rather than development-related fees, like permit, impact or mitigation fees. Clark County has struggled with meaningful ways to address the ongoing shortage of affordable housing. Supporters of this amendment said requiring a clear, credible analysis upfront will create a predictable and accountable policy process that balances development goals with community needs. “The intent was to put the council in a position to make a more informed vote. A similar amendment passed last year in Whatcom County,” Erickson said. Former Charter Review Commissioner Chuck Green is among those opposed to the amendment. He provided the “against” statement for the Voters’ Pamphlet. Green said the amendment is an example of overreach and micromanagement. “Housing and land use policy and priorities should be left to the council, where current needs can be assessed at public hearings,” he said in the statement. Green said home construction costs are outside of the council’s control and that construction engineering standards are primarily driven by state and federal regulations. Additionally, local land-use decisions, code and policies do not cause housing shortages, he said. “More analysis will not solve the problem of housing affordability. This amendment would cost taxpayers for issues the county cannot control,” Green said. Amendment 25: Supermajority vote Perhaps the most contested of all the amendments, Amendment 25 would require a supermajority of the county council to increase or create a new tax. While a supermajority vote requires a two-thirds or 66.67 percent vote of the council, the reality is that four of the five council members — 80 percent — would have to vote for the new tax or tax increase. Currently, a vote by three of the five county councilors, or 60 percent, is required to pass. “There is some discussion amongst some of the charter commissioners to look at expanding the council to seven (members). Should that happen, a supermajority then would be 5 out of 7,” Erickson said. Charter Review Commissioner Janet Landesberg provided the Voters’ Pamphlet statement against the amendment. The county council has been very thoughtful and deliberate when voting for new taxes or tax increases, she said. “In seven of the last 14 years, (the council) did not approve the 1 percent property tax increase allowed by law,” Landesberg said. “By not increasing taxes by 1 percent, Clark County has had a hard time keeping up with services people expect and the state requires.” Allowing two councilors to effectively control funding decisions would put those public services at risk, she said. Clark County Elections will begin mailing ballots Oct. 16.

Amendment 19: Term limits

Related Stories