From the piece:

"Others have pointed out that multiple transportation agencies in Puget Sound don't make sense: why not find a way to consolidate Sound Transit and Metro?"

The primary difference between those two is their governance structures. Sound Transit is managed by an appointive board of legislators. ST has supporters who are devoted to its taxation-without-representation structure. In contrast, Metro is an agency managed by a representative democracy people can control (the directly-elected King County Council and the directly-elected King Co. Executive manage it).

If the facilities and operations of ST and Metro were to be combined an initial determination would need to be made: which form of government would be better going forward?

Interesting, please expalain how tax collection for existing bonds and control of infrastructure would be impacted as Seattle divested itself of taxing districts outside the new Seattle county and in the new Cedar county.

Two sides of the same argument: Tom Brokaw wrote in the New York Times about his native South Dakota: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/opinion/20brokaw.html?_r=2&scp;=2&sq;=Brokaw&st;=cse

The Daily Yonder (subtitle: Keep It Rural) argued he was wrong: http://www.dailyyonder.com/brokaw-says-big-counties-cheaper-small-they-arent/2009/04/29/2088

Cameron: Nixon's proposal provided for a transition period, the appointment of a special master (judge) to oversee the transition and the process of equitably apportioning assets and between the two resulting counties (Cascade and King (Seattle). It's worth looking at his bill to see how this is set up. Clearly, there would have a be a review to ensure fairness and resolve disputes.

"One could argue that fewer counties would help attack the systemic problem of government welfare."

One could also argue those constitutional changes proposed by Sightline Institute would expand the "systemic problem of government welfare".

Knute,

Can Cedar/Cascade County pick the Special Master from say, Snoqualmie to just to keep it fair? I didn't think so.

Two obvious problems here: The creation of Cedar County was simply an effort to skirt the county's growth plan. Shopping centers where horse pastures now exist. That would have collapsed because so many environmental regulations are now state or federally required, had the lines been drawn as they were proposed, Cedar County would have looked more like the poor post-logging counties than a vibrant, but liberal-free entity. Plus, Seattle and King County wouldn't have taken lying down the Cedar County idea of growth regulation (none!) which would have dumped more cars on to King County roads with drivers in search of jobs.

Secondly, Cedar County would have had to assume a pro-rated share of the existing county bonded debt, so, combined with the large pile money it would had to spend on start-up costs, Cedar County would have started in a deep, deep financial hole with essentially nothing but residential to pay for it.

Nixon has been part of a long line of Eastside politicians who make much hay bashing Seattle, but enthusiastically take the tax transfer from the "Blue Districts" to the "Red Districts."

I think we should work for independence for Eastern Washington. I'm tired of my taxes going across the mountains to subsidize the ungrateful SOB's.

Since a far greater portion of the counties population exists outside of Seattle, I am sure they appreciate the Seattle-centric governing policies that have emerged from the bowels of Downtown Seattle.

Let's run the numbers!

I know it's bothersome to keep hearing about how much Portland is better than Seattle, but Trimet works fairly well. Unlike Seattle, which is contained in a single county, Portland is part of three counties: Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah. All rely on Trimet for bus and light rail service. Trimet itself is a state-chartered corporation with all necessary powers for its operation granted by the state.

The most common argument against a single King-Pierce-Snohomish transit agency is that King County would lose service because Pierce and Snohomish counties would be less willing to fund it. That seems like a problem that ought to be fixable.

If Seattle becomes a County, then it assumes the LEGAL OBLIGATIONS of a County government: An Auditor, Elections supervision, Recording, Property Assessor, Treasurer and tax collector, foreclosure sales, a jail (!), a Medical Examiner, Superior Courts, Prosecuting Attorney, a Clerk for maintaining Court records, etc., etc.

Nearly 70% of present County revenues in the big Counties is consumed by law and justice programs. You might be able to contract for some of this, but if your goal is to save money?

Hah!

Ross Kane Snohomish County Council 1990 - 1993

How would the county sewer system be cut up into 39 pieces?
And how would Cedar county afford medic one or decent fire departments?

Ross Kane writes: “Nearly 70% of present County revenues in the big Counties is consumed by law and justice programs.”

Ross – you’ve been out of the game a while. Things have changed. Take a look at what a sitting King Co. Councilman had to say about that issue last month:

“King County's overall budget is $5.1 billion, with about $620 million of that going into the county's general fund. By state law, our criminal-justice system is funded principally out of the general fund, which has been cut by nearly $200 million over the past three years.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013559183_guest01dunn.html

As you can see, “law and justice” amounts to about 10% of King County’s budget, not 70%.

Let's run the numbers indeed, Cameron. The majority of King County's population lives outside Seattle. That majority elects a majority of the King County Council and can elect the county executive when it wants to. No more talk about Seattle-centric governing policies. Please.

Crossrip: I should have said, 70% of GENERAL FUND revenues. The number you cite includes monthly FEES charged by METRO for sewer and water, as well as County Wide METRO transit revenues (fare box and dedicated sales tax). My point is that a re-drawn Seattle would have limited general government tax revenues and a number of statutory obligations - under the State Constitution - to provide general government services .

Ross KAne

Goforride says:
I think we should work for independence for Eastern Washington. I'm tired of my taxes going across the mountains to subsidize the ungrateful SOB's.

I agree, but I think we should work for independence for Seattle, by shrinking King County to the Seattle city limits. Let the Cascade bicycle club have the roads within the Seattle city limits, and those of us who actually pay for the roads can have them back to drive our cars on. Berger hits the nail right on the head: "less 'green' influence outside the city" would be wonderful. We could get our roads AND our property back! Seattle could keep its King County council, and political diversity could have a chance in the rest of the state.

Goforride says:
I think we should work for independence for Eastern Washington. I'm tired of my taxes going across the mountains to subsidize the ungrateful SOB's.

I agree, but I think we should work for independence for Seattle, by shrinking King County to the Seattle city limits. Let the Cascade bicycle club have the roads within the Seattle city limits, and those of us who actually pay for the roads can have them back to drive our cars on. Berger hits the nail right on the head: "less 'green' influence outside the city" would be wonderful. We could get our roads AND our property back! Seattle could keep its King County council, and political diversity could have a chance in the rest of the state.

— cphilips

Back from whom?

Ross - thanks for clarifying. Thing is though, a new Seattle county would be able to use the revenues the people and businesses from Seattle now pay to King County for the required county services.

Obviously there'd be additional needs if the city government were to expand to take over the required functions of a county as well, but all the property and sales tax generated from people and businesses in Seattle now going to King Co. should be able to cover those costs. There wouldn't need to be revenues diverted to a new separate Sheriff's Office (for example); the SPD could become the Sheriff's Office. The Seattle Municipal Courts are funded already, they wouldn't need much more to beef up and serve as Superior Courts.

I believe a more practical goal, and one that actually stands a chance of succeeding and paying dividends for people in the near future, would be combining all transit operations in the central Puget Sound region into a single entity, one that is accountable to people.

If Seattle were to become its own county, there would be no need to duplicate most services. There's no reason the "Seattle County" sheriffs couldn't do the required things like run a jail and provide security for the courts, as well as provide typical police services. The King County Sheriff's department already does that in unincorporated King County.

It would have to set up its own Superior Courts, though with one courthouse facility and one jail in Seattle and the other in Kent already, that one big expense wouldn't happen.

Metro would have to change. That could be painful because most of Metro Transit's revenue comes from the sales tax. Does anyone know how the generation of sales tax alone breaks down in Seattle vs. the rest of King County?

St. Louis did this years ago and in the long run it was not good for the city of St. Louis. I don't think it would be good for Seattle either. St. Louis broke away from St. Louis County when all the money was in the city. Now it is the opposite and St. Louis suffers.

This is a fine idea, especially consolidating some of the counties east of the mountains with minuscule populations. But I can't see them doing it voluntarily unless they were forced to do so by economic circumstances, and perhaps not even then.

In the last election, there was a measure on Benton County ballots to move the county seat from Prosser (population around 5,000) to Kennewick (population over 65,000). It failed.
http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/benton-county-election-result/

These tiny counties don't make much sense, but they do provide at least a sense of more local control. And distance to the county seat does matter, though less and less as more information goes online. (Yes, occasionally online information does go offline; thanks, Island County [http://goo.gl/Qq1dw].)

Still, definitely worth considering. King County needed "defragging" 2 1/2 years ago… maybe it's time to run the process on the entire state.

http://crosscut.com/2008/04/24/king-county/13493/Defragging-King-County/

No, I don't know why I need so many at-large city council members.
I get better local support from my county council member and state house rep, in fact, I think everything north of 130th should cede to the City of Shoreline.

The county of downtown Seattle already just goes through the motions way out here, codifying it would be terrible.

This may be a grand idea where many factors are similar, but that is where the the good idea ends.

As to merging counties:

Some county-level services are already provided on a multi-county basis (such as Superior Court judges & regional planning agencies, jails).

The need for other services, such as basic law-enforcement as provided by county sheriffs, is determined by the number of people to be served (i.e., that is, a deputy for every so many people). This also applies to rural road maintenance, tax assessment & collection, & recording of real-estate transactions. In general, levels of service would presumably not be reduced, so costs would not be reduced either.

So, where are the savings?

Management, administration and back office personnel and systems are some of the areas of savings.

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the budgets of(say) Columbia, Garfield & Asotin Counties as they are now, & a budget for one new county incorporating all three.

I like this idea, it makes a lot of sense to combine those small-population counties as well as having Seattle be its own county. However, I would not put the remainder of what's in King County - roughly looking like a backwards "C" on the map - into its own county, with Kent as the interim seat. Having to drive from Shoreline to Kent to attend to county business isn't reasonable. Instead, I would consider options that would move Snohomish County's southern border to Seattle city limits. If necessary, perhaps split off the eastern parts of present-day Snohomish and King County into Cedar County, seat in Bellevue, and somewhere south of Bellevue, say from Newcastle south, to be the other county, with Kent or Renton as the seat. The latter wouldn't cut down the # of counties, though!