Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › GOVERNANCE › County Forms of Government
Updated 08/03
 

County Forms of Government

Contents

Introduction

Article XI, §§ 4 and 5 of the state constitution authorize the legislature to create a uniform system of government for counties. State law relating to counties is generally collected in Title 36 RCW. The uniform plan of county government provided by state law is the three-member commission form.

The constitution was amended in 1948 to provide counties the option of adopting a "home rule" charter. Adoption of a home rule charter allows a county to choose a different form of government from the commission form specified by statute. Six counties have elected to adopt charters - Clallam (1979), King (1969), Pierce (1981), Snohomish (1980), Whatcom (1979), and San Juan (2005).

Article XI, § 16 was added to the state constitution in 1972 to provide the option of a consolidated city-county government. Although some of the larger cities and counties have considered this option, no consolidated city-county governments have yet been created in Washington State.

In contrast to counties, cities and towns can choose from three forms of government provided by statute, including the mayor-council, council-manager, and commission form of government. In addition to the choice in form of government already provided by state law, cities also have the ability to adopt a home rule charter, subject to certain requirements, and provide for their own form of government. Unlike counties, cities and towns do not have separately elected officers in addition to the council members and mayor.

Commission Form of County Government

The form of government provided in state law for noncharter counties is the commission form. All noncharter counties must adopt this form of government. The only method by which a county can entirely change its form of government is to adopt a "home rule" charter. There are some population-based differences in the state laws governing counties, but the commission form of government is the same for all 33 noncharter counties.

The commission form is often referred to as the "plural executive" form of government. It is the oldest and most traditional county organizational structure. Under the commission form, the county governing body consists of an elected board composed of three commissioners who serve as the legislative body and also perform executive functions. Counties with populations greater than 300,000 can increase the size of the commission from three to five members. No single administrator or executive oversees a county's operations under the commission form of government.

The board of county commissioners shares administrative and, to some extent, legislative functions with other independently elected county officials, including a clerk, treasurer, sheriff, assessor, coroner and auditor (or recorder). Other independently elected county officials and court officers include the county prosecuting attorney and the judges of the county superior court.

Although the county commissioners establish the budget and act as the county legislative body, the independent role of the other county elected officers makes county government quite different from other forms of municipal government that have separate legislative and executive branches.

Reference Sources

Back to Contents

"Home Rule" Charter Form of Government

Article XI, § 4 of the state constitution was amended in 1948 to provide the option for counties to adopt "home rule" charters to provide their own form of government. This home rule provision does not change the role and authority of counties, but it does allow counties to provide for a form of government different from the commission form prescribed by state law. By adopting a home rule charter, county voters can provide for appointed county officers to perform county functions previously performed by independently elected officials and can change the names and duties of the county officers prescribed by the constitution and state law. Home rule charters may not, however, change the elected status and duties of the county prosecuting attorney or superior and district court judges, or the jurisdiction of the courts.

Home Rule Charter County Authority

Home rule charter counties have broad authority to provide for purely local governance issues. The state supreme court has ruled, however, that, under the state constitution, county home rule charter rights are subordinate to express state law requirements that go beyond matters of local concern. The court has concluded that the state constitution expressly relegates county home rule charters to an inferior position vis-a-vis "the constitution and laws of this state" where the matter involves public policy of broad concern, expressed in general laws. For example, the state supreme court has concluded that home rule charter counties are free to provide a different time for election of county officers. However, they have also held that ordinances enacted to implement a county's comprehensive land use plan as required by the Growth Management Act cannot be subject to amendment or repeal by referendum power granted in a county's home rule charter.

After adoption of a charter, the powers, authority, and duties of county officers provided for by state law are vested in the county legislative authority, unless the charter expressly assigns powers and duties to a specific officer. The duties of the board of county commissioners and other elected officers may also be modified by charter. The board of commissioners and other elected officers may be entirely replaced, subject to certain restrictions.

Home Rule Charter Option for Power of Initiative and Referendum

Another reason for adopting a home rule charter is to provide the powers of initiative and referendum to the citizens of the county. All charter counties have provided for initiative and referendum powers.

Optional Municipal Code cities are authorized by state law to provide for the powers of initiative and referendum without adopting a home rule charter (RCW 35A.11.080 through 35A.11.100). Legislation was proposed in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 legislative sessions which would have allowed the board of county commissioners in noncharter counties to similarly authorize the use of initiative and referendum without the need to adopt a home rule charter. However, none of these proposals have been adopted.

Current Washington Charter Counties and Their Form of Government

Until 1969, all Washington counties operated under the commission form of government. However, since then, six counties have adopted home rule charters: Clallam (1979), King (1969), Pierce (1981), Snohomish (1980), Whatcom (1979) and San Juan (2005). Of the six home rule charter counties, five have adopted the council-executive form of government. The county executive is elected in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Whatcom counties, and is appointed in San Juan County. Clallam County has retained the three-member commission form of government with responsibilities similar to boards of commissioners in noncharter counties, and also has an appointed county administrator.

In the five council-executive charter counties, the size of the council ranges from five members in Snohomish County to nine in King County. The council's primary duty is to adopt a budget and establish county policy. The county executive or administrator is responsible for general administration and operation of the county. The executive or administrator is also responsible for proposing the budget and, in the case of an elected county executive, has a veto power over most council actions. All charter counties, except for San Juan County, have elected legislative bodies with partisan positions. The council positions in San Juan County are elected on a non-partisan basis. All of the four elected county executives are partisan positions.

A county charter can make any elected county official, except the prosecuting attorney and superior court judges, an appointive rather than an elective position. The coroner or medical examiner has been made an appointive position in every charter county, although in Clallam County, the Prosecuting Attorney serves as the ex officio coroner.

The six charter counties, however, vary greatly in their treatment of the offices of the assessor, auditor, superior court clerk, sheriff and treasurer. The assessor is an elected position in every county, although some make the position non-partisan. The auditor is an elected officer in all but one county (King), where the auditor is appointed by the council. The clerk is an appointive position in all but two counties (Snohomish and San Juan), with the appointing authority varying among the commissioners, the superior court judges, and the executive (with council confirmation). The sheriff is an elected position in all of the charter counties. Finally, the treasurer continues to be an elected position in all but one county (King). Pierce County has combined the assessor and treasurer into a single elected position.

To determine the particular organization structure of a home rule county government, refer to the county's charter.

Reference Sources

  • Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

    Art. XI, § 4 Wash. Const. (as amended by Amendment 21 (1948)) - Providing for adoption of county home rule charters as a method of providing flexible, alternative forms of county government. Specifies procedures for adoption of a charter and sets out limitations on the ability of a charter to affect certain elected positions.

  • Court Decisions

  • Attorney General Opinions

Back to Contents

Home Rule Charters

For information about City Charters, see "City Forms of Government"

Back to Contents

County Charter Adoption Process

The state constitution, in Article XI, § 4, specifies the procedure for a county to adopt a "home rule" charter. Any county may adopt a charter. There is no minimum population requirement. There are two methods to begin the charter adoption process - initiation by the county commissioners or intiation by voter petition. Under either method, a board of freeholders is elected to draft a proposed charter, which is then submitted to a vote of all the people for adoption or rejection. In 1998, the legislature considered, but did not pass, a joint resolution (Senate Joint Resolution 8204) calling for an amendment to the state constitution providing for a simplified alternative method of framing a county charter.

Initiation by County Commissoinsers

Under the first method, the county commissioners can initiate the charter adoption process by calling for an election of fifteen to twenty-five freeholders, the number to be determined by the commissioners. The freeholders must have been residents of the county for at least five years and must be qualified electors of the county.

These electors must meet within thirty days of their election to begin preparing a charter for the county. The charter must then be submitted to the voters at a special or regular election. If a majority of the voters approve, the charter is adopted and becomes the form of government for the county.

Initiation by Petition

Under the second method, registered voters equal in number to ten percent of the voters of the county voting at the last preceding general election may petition for an election of freeholders. This petition must be filed with the county auditor of the county at least three months before any general election. If this is done, the proposal that a board of freeholders be elected for the purpose of framing a county charter is submitted to a vote at the general election. At the same election, a board of freeholders is elected to draft the new charter. Assuming a majority of the people vote to elect a board of freeholders, the freeholders who are elected meet to frame a charter which is then submitted to the voters for adoption.

Under either procedure, if the charter is approved by the voters, the county government is to be established as provided in the charter within six months of the election.

In addition to the five Washington counties which have adopted charters, several other counties have taken various steps in the process of electing freeholders, drafting proposed charters, and submitting charter proposals to the voters. For example, in 1997, Clark County voters rejected a proposal to create a board of freeholders to draft a charter in an advisory ballot on the issue. Also in 1997, Cowlitz County voters approved a proposal to begin the charter adoption process , but rejected the resulting proposed home rule charter the following year. In 1998, Skamania County voters also approved a proposal to begin the charter adoption process but subsequently rejected the resulting charter.

Back to Contents

Consolidated City-County Government

At the same time the state constitution was amended in 1948 to allow counties to adopt "home rule" charters, another amendment was adopted to allow counties with a "home rule" charter to provide for the formation and government of a combined city and county municipal corporation known as a "city-county." The same procedures applicable to the adoption of a county charter alsovgovern the adoption of a city-county charter, except that the only method of beginning the combined city-county charter process is through a voter petition. There is no minimum population requirement.

In additon to providing for an alternative form of county government, a city-county charter may also merge the county with cities and other municipal corporations within its boundaries. Consolidated city-county governments have been proposed as a way to improve local government service provision by eliminating conflicts between competing levels of local government. Although a few Washington counties have explored this option, no combined city-county governments have yet been formed.

Reference Sources

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

    Art. XI, § 16 Wash. Const. ("Combined City-County") (as amended by Amendments 23 (1948) and 58 (1972)) - Provides for home rule charters for the formation and government of combined city and county municipal corporations

Attorney General Opinions

Back to Contents

Related Resources