More than 200 people crowded the City Council Chamber on Monday night to argue against a City plan to contract out Auburn’s court services to King County District Court.

No, said opponents, mingling humor with cool arguments, exasperation, anger and even applause, they didn’t want it. They preferred to keep local control over the court. More was at stake than saving money, they said.

A refrain of sorts even developed. Why?

“The Auburn Municipal Court can provide (a minimal services court). It can provide that service for $255,000 less than what the County can provide,” said Municipal Court Judge Patrick Burns. “The reality is that if you adopt this, it’s going to cost you $255,000 to build up the county’s proposal.

“The fact is,” Burns added, “we can provide those services more efficiently, for less money and maintain local control. … The citizens of this community very clearly do not want to lose local control. You do represent those citizens. You know in your heart of hearts that that’s what the people of this community want.”

But more than an hour of pleadings from all sorts of people couldn’t sway the Council. By a vote of six-to-one, council members decided to dump the City’s 16-year-old municipal court and its locally-elected judge in favor of the less expensive alternative.

Councilmember John Partridge, moments before voting against contracting out services, asked his peers for a year to study the issue. No, said Councilman Rich Wagner, after many meetings on the subject, “we have enough information to make a decision.”

The only ones to speak in favor of the contract were King County District Court representatives and council members explaining what they were about to do before they did it.

Councilmember John Holman said the current system is too expensive, and that in lean times, contracting with the King County District Court would save the City money that it could use to keep other services going.

Holman also rejected an argument that the court was responsible for a decline in the crime rate in recent years, noting that the crime rate has dipped in other Puget Sound cities as well.

‘Not an easy decision’

Councilwoman Nancy Backus joined other council members in asserting that the decision had not been made on the fly but only after hard study.

“This was not an easy decision,” Backus said.

“We have reviewed reams and reams of information,” said Councilman Bill Peloza. “This has been a difficult task.”

Opponents said all along that contracting with the King County District Court would mean living with a less effective court, a machine-like system tooled to process offenders quickly and return them to the streets without much thought to giving them the help they need to change.

Auburn resident Robert Hamilton asked the Council to delay any decision for two weeks so residents could learn more about what was going on.

“The plan will cost the City of Auburn and its residents $250,000 more dollars per year and result in the layoffs of 18 to 21 employees,” Hamilton said. “I have just one question. Since we know the plan obviously isn’t going to save money, what’s really going on here? Please explain to all of us the real reasons you are supporting the county proposal. Produce the facts to support your position.”

Auburn business owner Marc Silberling wondered about a baffling “rush to judgement.”

“This Council spent more time talking about a farmer’s market than it has deciding the fate of a situation that will effect every member of the community,” Silberling said. “You’ve managed to fund your annex next door, the Promenade, the golf course, the theater, but you can’t find a way to fund the court?”

Auburn Attorney Kim Hunter, who in her practice has had extensive dealings with the Auburn Municipal Court, praised the probation department for its work with offenders.

“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: you can’t put a price on public safety,” Hunter said. “The community has to come first. The accountability in the Auburn Municipal Court is exceptional. I’ve had numerous defendants, too many to count, who have been monitored by probation and are thus held accountable for their actions and receive the valuable help that they need.”

Locksmith Frank Lonergan asked the Council to consider the outcomes of its various dealings with King County.

“It may look good up front, but in the long run it’s going to hurt the City,” Lonergan said. “Think about it: do you want to feel good when you go to bed tonight because you saved us a nickel (and) in two weeks you wake up and find that now it’s going to cost us $5,000, $10,000, $20,000? The price is not always what you look at. You look at what you get for your money. We have a good product. Keep it in town, please.”

Burns also had asked the Council to consider some of his own less costly alternatives, including a “minimal services” court.

“Frankly, it doesn’t make sense to me,” Burns said. “I’ve been a part of City government for 26 years. I’ve worked to make things better for our community. I’ve always been cooperative with the executive and legislative branches, and I don’t see anything here that we can’t sit down and talk about and reach a satisfactory resolution.”

Judges who work in Auburn spoke against the decision too.

“I think you’re going to lose 18-to-21 court employees who have been very dedicated to the city. This system is known for its accountability,” said Judge Robert Milton.

King County will have to set up its court system in Auburn, but the City has not yet determined an exact timetable for that.