Freeholders Split On Options Half Want To Offer Three Choices For City-County Consolidation
A narrow majority of freeholders believes voters either won’t or shouldn’t support the group’s plan to merge Spokane city and county governments.
But those dissident freeholders failed this week in an effort to give voters additional choices.
In voting that started Tuesday and continued Thursday, the Board of Freeholders split 12-12 on a proposal to send voters three options: full consolidation or two less-sweeping alternatives.
The 25th freeholder, Betty Nunnery, failed to attend either meeting.
Nunnery said Friday she stayed home because she doesn’t support either faction and didn’t want to offend anyone.
But in a letter recently published in The Spokesman-Review, Nunnery wrote that voters “will have to reject the whole charter” unless given other alternatives.
The different alternatives can’t be reconsidered until the next freeholder meeting April 6, which is one of the group’s last before a proposal is sent to voters. If dissidents can’t pass the changes then, they say they’ll submit it as a minority report to county commissioners.
Whether commissioners could put the minority proposal on the ballot is debated among the freeholders.
Voters elected the freeholders in November 1992 to study local government and suggest changes. In February 1994, the group decided that consolidating the two governments would end turf battles and be more efficient.
A recent study concluded that a consolidated government would also be more expensive, about $20 million more each year than the two governments spend separately.
That money would pay for better services in suburban areas. Most freeholders say they believe consolidation would lead to long-term savings.
Some supporters of the three-tiered proposal said hopes for a consolidated government died when taxpayers learned the results of the financial study.
“It killed us. It put the last nail in the coffin,” said Bill Anderson.
The three-tiered proposal would offer varying degrees of the charter freeholders have written.
Voters would have to approve the first tier for any changes to take place. That option merges some government agencies.
If they approved the first and second tiers, those changes plus others would occur before county residents would vote on full consolidation within five years.
If all three tiers passed, the county and city would merge immediately.
“We’re not changing a thing on (the charter),” said freeholder Sue Kaun. “We’re just cutting it up and putting it in bite-sized pieces.”
Freeholders who favor the singleoption charter said they believe voters will understand the benefits of consolidation.
Voters faced with multiple options likely would vote against all three, said Shirley Archer.
“If we give them too many options, or even two options, they won’t know which one to take,” Archer said. “It will confuse them.”
Bob Dellwo said freeholders are not “doing our duty” if they put anything short of full consolidation on the ballot.
What’s more, Dellwo said, “I don’t think we have the option of submitting options. I think our options would be shot down” by the courts.
xxxx HOW THE FREEHOLDERS VOTED Question: Should voters have more than one charter option?
Yes No Bill Anderson Steve Worthington Eric Anderson Vern Ziegler Karen Ann Baker Shirley Archer Charlie Greenwood Bob Dellwo Clyde Haase Isabelle Green Sue Kaun Carol Lawton Lisa Kilian Al Lewis Rick Mendoza Ann Prideaux Ryan Murphy Mike Senske Kathleen Nuffer Ed Sharman Kathy Reid Eileen Thomas Judi Williams Dianne White *Betty Nunnery did not vote.