2004, 11-02 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Absent:
Councilmember Taylor (excused)
MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director
Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone
that this is a study session, and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of
the meeting.
Mayor DeVleming announced there will be an addition to the agenda, an item 2a: Hotel Motel Fund Set
Aside, and that he will give opportunity for public comment. Mayor DeVleming also mentioned that
Councilmember Steve Taylor has asked to be excused from tonight's meeting. It was moved, seconded,
and unanimously agreed upon to excuse Councilmember Taylor from tonight's meeting.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Proposed Utility Tax Ordinance 04 -045
Finance Director Thompson gave a brief overview of the proposed tax ordinance, explaining that the
matter was tabled at the last council meeting in order to give additional opportunity to receive public
input; and that this matter is now scheduled for a first reading at the November 9, 2004 Council meeting.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment:
Eldonna Gossett, President and CEO of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, 9507 E Sprague
Avenue: stated she was speaking on behalf of the Chamber Of Commerce and stated opposition to the
proposed tax; she suggests Council seriously investigate efficiencies in existing contracts and that a
thorough study of potential service cuts is desired (see her accompanying letter to Council).
Mike Baker, General Manager, Modern Electric Water Co. N 904 N Pines Road: said he appreciates that
the City is looking ahead in upcoming years to determine needs; but he opposes the tax; said he would
pass it through to his customers; that it is a regressive tax; about 25 -30% of the households are near or at
the poverty level and this will hit them the most; and if Vera is exempt that will create an unfair shift to
the other 75% of electric rate payers; and that it might be in violation of state law in assessing taxes in an
equitable and fair manner; that he hasn't seen anything on possible budget cuts, and feels a 5 -10% across
the board budget cut would be prudent now, and to bring up in the spring levies for those services for
streets and police and let the citizens vote on what services and what level they want.
Study Session Minutes of 11 -02 -04 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council: 11 -09 -04
Doug Kelly, Avista, 1411 E Mission, Spokane: said he knows this tax is common among many
communities but feels there should be an equitable way to administer the tax; that there are four electric
service providers which serve the city and the boundaries are not clearly defined; that pending Vera's
exemption from this, he feels adoption of a tax that creates unfair competition from one provider to
another is wrong; and said we need to resolve the issue of equity before taking action.
Wayne Frost, 3320 N Argonne, said he is here representing Centennial Property as their General
Manager; that Centennial is a major land owner here; that he opposes the tax; that he is also an active
member of the Chamber of Commerce and agrees with the Chamber's viewpoint; said as a major
landowner he is active in attempts to attract new quality businesses to this area and is concerned about
being put at a competitive disadvantage; that this tax will hurt low and fixed income and the large users of
the utilities; that he recommends Council use due diligence to look at alternatives and examine necessary
cuts; and suggests looking at the expense side first.
Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague: said he is also a property owner of Modern Electric; that he endorses
everything said thus far and urges Council to consider putting the issue on the ballot; or failing that, the
citizens of Spokane Valley have the right of initiative to put it on the ballot.
John Miller, Viacom Inc. Pinecroft Business Park: stated that he has about 100 acres they are developing
at Mirabeau Point and his concern is that the tax would hurt their ultimate tenants; that they're trying to
attract businesses in the locality mostly from the outside; that he gets calls from the outside and one thing
that comes up is the utilities and other taxes and whether they are steady or increasing; he suggests that
the worst thing to do is to start new taxes; said that there are possibly other ways to reduce expenditures;
that they compete with Liberty Lake and they chose Mirabeau Point and are adding to this tax base; and
that he doesn't want to lose customers to Liberty Lake anymore.
Jim Scott, S 2312 Bolivar Road: spoke in opposition to the tax; said he is a resident and business owner
and the tax is unfair; that it is not what the people expected when they incorporated; prior to incorporation
it was stated that there would never be a need for a utility tax; that the City is in debt and has borrowed to
the maximum; that he'd ask Council to put the matter of incorporation back on the ballot; or do we want
to go back to the way it was; that Council should do what the people want, that is the direction to take and
give the community the opportunity to say yes we want to continue or no we don't and this was a failed
experiment and we don't want to do it anymore.
Bill Gothmann, 10010 East 48 said it would be nice if we could develop the philosophy that says let
them pay, but "them" turns out to be me; that we can't go back to the way it was because we are under the
1% limitation; and when the license tab was reduced it had a great affect; that the reality is someone
needs to pay and we pay; we can't go back to the 1900's and cut service; the problem is cities and
counties need money in order to function; and that if we do not raise a utility tax, that Council relate
exactly what we will lose and list what service we intend to cut so everyone knows what we are buying
with a utility tax.
Ray Perry, 2020 N Eli; said he was one of the self - starters of this thing; that he read in the Spokesman
Review that some will have to pay this and some not; if some should pay all should pay.
Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. Mayor
DeVleming announced that this issue will continue to be discussed and there will be other opportunities
for the public to comment.
Study Session Minutes of 11 -02 -04 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council: 11 -09 -04
Council discussion then turned to the issue of equity and if ample research has been performed
concerning what revenues would be available if this tax were not applied to electricity companies. City
manager Mercier stated that staff tried to calculate what the revenue impact would be should the utility
tax not be placed against any electrical use; and that it is estimated receipts would be reduced by 42 %;
that of the entities considered to be taxed, that the electric utility group is the largest contributor. City
Manager Mercier then showed the options 4, 5 and 6 on his PowerPoint presentation, each option being
shown did not include electrical companies' contributions; and he stated that the deficit would still occur
but it would occur in later years (depending on the option). He also mentioned that with a 1 % growth
limitation in all services, council would be looking at the elimination of approximately six police officers;
that at council direction, he has examined a number of nonpersonnel cuts and those cuts have already
been incorporated into the 2005 budget. He added that it takes at least 60 days for the utility companies
to prepare to implement the tax, then apply the tax, and then more time after that before collections are
realized; that if the decision was delayed until December to impose any utility tax, that receipts of that tax
would not be seen until the end of first quarter of 2005 or later; so the deficit numbers would be larger
then the scenarios shown in the various options.
Mr. Mercier reiterated that expenses are accumulating more than a few percentages per year; and that we
have been given notice that the State's retirement system, which is mandatory participation for
employees, will show an employer - contribution increase of 8% or more over the next three or four years;
that the CPI index for goods and services increases between two and 2.5% a year; and that wage
increases will be forthcoming for employees based on longevity and service; and that the cumulative
affect is a rise between six and eight percent. Mr. Mercier explained that we sought efficiency in
operation through service operators, but those operators have experienced cost increases and passed those
increases to us; that law enforcement personnel has binding arbitration and we anticipate that settlement
will be about 3% retroactive, but that the figure in 2005 will have the 3% retroactive plus 3% in the
contract and that alone will be a 6% increase. Mr. Mercier also explained about the street fund which is
separate from the general fund; that staff continues to look at sales tax and as reported, projections are
less than forecasted by the pre - incorporation study; that staff has worked diligently to make sure that the
appropriate GEO code is applied to all who report to the Valley.
Councilmember Munson stated that the last thing council has turned to is a tax; and that all
Councilmembers are very uncomfortable with the concept of tax; but they are more uncomfortable with
disincorporation; that we do not want to go back to the problems of junk cars and other enforcement
issues; and that we are the only municipality in the County to look forward more than few years to see
what cost and revenue picture looks like.
Councilmember Denenny said he realizes what it has cost the citizens to form this city and what we have
gained in the process; that we have a say in local government; and that Council participates on 27
different committees and boards; and if there were no city, the County would be in the exact same
position if not worse.
Deputy Mayor Wilhite said imposing an additional tax fairly should be spread across to all citizens; but if
the community wants us to live within certain dollars, then they need to show us where and what cuts
should be made; that it is a difficult process as we don't have very many staff; that if the public feels we
can do with less police officers we need to know; or perhaps we should delay park maintenance and /or
close down a park or two. She stated there needs to be frank decisions with the public; if the answer is
not to raise taxes, then we must look elsewhere and one place to look is the police department.
Councilmember Schimmels mentioned RCW 54.28.070, which gives a description of permitted uses in
the area of electricity sold within city and town limits; and asked that staff explore that issue. He also
Study Session Minutes of 11 -02 -04 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council: 11 -09 -04
asked if we could start at 1% and review the situation annually or every two years; and said that we can
cut the dollars but the service would have to go with it.
Councilmember Flanigan said this situation is not unique in any governing agency in this area and even
across the state and the country; but that we are the only governing entity willing to put out to the public
future revenue projections; that the City of Spokane staff were told for several years that they were "a
train wreck waiting to happen" and that has now occurred; and that we are trying to avoid that from
happening. He added that the County has been burning down their reserve fund consistently for the last
several years, and only has one or two years left to drawn on and then the County will also be looking at
serious cuts. Councilmember Flanigan said they represent the people; and he hopes people will come
forward with solid recommendations to avoid this tax; that council needs to know what people are willing
to pay for; and if you don't want the tax, to tell us what services you don't want.
Mayor DeVleming reiterated that this is just one opportunity for public input, and there will be others.
2. Unfinished Business: Proposed Fee Resolution # 04 -025 — Nina Regor /Neil Kersten
It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Mayor DeVleming to remove the tabled
motion from table. Vote by acclamation to take the issue from the table: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming invited John Hohman to discuss
the issue of stormwater. Engineer Hohman explained the background of stormwater issues as shown on
his PowerPoint presentation; after which he explained it is anticipated that a stormwater ordinance will be
brought before council before the end of this year. Discussion included flooding areas, the County's
program, rate increases, and various ways to calculate the fee (as shown on the slide presentation).
Deputy City Manager Regor added that this topic has been discussed numerous times; and that the intent
of the forecast is to provide predictability of costs; and the recommendation is to increase the fee from
$10 to $24 and remain there over a five -year period; she mentioned that the Resolution includes the $24
ERU fee, but that Council of course, can implement that or adjust as appropriate, such as make an
adjustment to change that to $17.00 effective 2005; and then perhaps to $20 effective January 2006.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague: said he noticed in the newspaper that Spokane County's stormwater
ordinance was declared invalid by the Supreme Court and that they'll vote on a new one next week; he
suggests Attorney Driskell look into that to see what we have to do comply; that SCAPA requires all
cities to sweep streets six months out of the year; and said that we would have to charge ourselves
stormwater fees the same as would apply to private properties; that some things proposed don't belong to
stormwater, and he urges we do research.
City Manager Mercier said that staff met with representatives of the State Auditor's Department to review
the proposal to make sure cost attributions were appropriate and rightful under law; and that has occurred
and staff received approval from the State Auditor's Office to move ahead; also that a high percentage of
sweeping can legitimately be allocated to stormwater as it is primarily debris that clutters the wells.
Eldonna Gossett, representing the Chamber of Commerce: she stated she wanted to go on record that the
Chamber opposes the $24 fee and is pleased to see there are other alternatives being discussed to bring
that fee down (see her accompanying letter to Council).
Wayne Frost, Centennial Properties: on behalf of them; and Pinecroft business at Mirabeau point; stated
that the equity issue is his problem, and he appreciates Councilmember Schimmel's suggestion to find
means to soften the blow.
Study Session Minutes of 11 -02 -04 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council: 11 -09 -04
Discussion turned to staggering fees, reducing fees, remaining business friendly, the residential
community's share of this fee; taking over a problem from the County that was not fully addressed, and
methods used in deriving the fee formula.
As the current motion on the floor is the motion to approve Resolution 04 -025; it was moved by Deputy
Mayor Wilhite, and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, to amend that motion to approve Resolution
04 -025 with an amended fee for $17.00 for stormwater. Vote by Acclamation to amend the motion: In
Favor: Mayor Devleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Munson, and
Flanigan. Opposed: Councilmember Denenny. Abstentions: None. Motion to amend approved.
Vote by Acclamation on the amended motion: In Favor: Mayor Devleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, and
Councilmembers Schimmels, Munson, and Flanigan. Opposed: Councilmember Denenny. Abstentions:
None. Amended motion approved. It was also noted that this does not change the business registration
fee, and that these fees will be effective January 1, 2005.
2a Hotel Motel Fund Set -aside
It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve $40, 000 to
be set aside for the marketing of CenterPlace, with funds to come out of the hotel motel tax returns.
Parks and Recreation Director Jackson discussed the issue of marketing the facility on a city -wide and
regional basis, and to add to the grand opening celebration in conjunction with Valleyfest next year; and
that staff recently learned that it is possible for a community to set aside a portion of the lodging tax
proceeds to be used internally for their own city.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; no comments were offered. City Manager Mercier said that
there is an allocation of funds process that will be ongoing November and December, and that such a set -
aside of funds would be applied in 2005 for its actual uses as we would only incur expenses associated
with that set -aside which has been provided. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:50 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
3. Valleyfest Presentation — Jeff Wright
Jeff Wright and Valleyfest Chair Peggy Doering gave a PowerPoint presentation showing how the funds
the City granted them, were used in marketing this year's Valleyfest; and Chair Doering expressed thanks
to the City of Spokane Valley for its assistance and for attending; and to the Parks Department and to
Director Jackson for their help; and to many others who assisted with the celebration.
4. Ad Hoc Library Committee Presentation — Julie Rosenoff
Julie Rosenoff, Ad Hoc Committee chair, thanked Council on behalf of those who participated on this
committee; and said the opportunity gave them an appreciation for what Council is facing. She explained
that the committee examined the two proposals, one with SCLD and one with LSSI. During her
PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Rosenoff said that the committee took the challenge and read everything
very carefully and asked questions and got more information; that they did their own research and got
even more information; and that the committee worked hard to compare the two proposals. Ms. Rosenoff
stated that the committee recommends a contract with SCLD for up to five years; and within the next few
years to look at annexing the SCLD as they feel that is the only way to proceed. Council thanked Ms.
Rosenoff and the committee for their work on this task.
5. Update on Library Services Proposals — Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that one of the 2005 goals was to engage in managed competition;
that the pilot projects were the library and parks maintenance, and that tonight the focus is on the library.
Study Session Minutes of 11 -02 -04 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council: 11 -09 -04
She gave a summary of the process to date, thanked the committee for their work and thanked Julie for
her work as chair of the committee. Ms. Regor also mentioned that she and staff members Mike Jackson
and Morgan Koudelka analyzed the proposals. After her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Regor said that
staff recommends we continue contracting with the District for two years with the potential for up to three
years, with one -year extensions. Ms. Regor stated that there is always a risk in change, but that a major
reason to change is community dissatisfaction with current services; and that we have a large percentage
of the community residents who are very satisfied with the current service. After brief council discussion,
it was Council consensus for staff to work to bring formal recommendation to the November 9 meeting.
6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mike DeVleming
Mayor DeVleming mentioned he would like to explore the possibility of having a presentation from law
enforcement similar to the previous presentation given by Code Enforcement. Council stated it has no
objection.
7. Council Check in — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier said that in the managed competition process, they have attempted to do due
diligence on looking at alternatives, and he hopes the community will appreciate that this is what due
diligence is all about.
8. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier. No comments.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
A -ES
istine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Study Session Minutes of 11 -02 -04 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council: 11 -09 -04
NAME.
PLEASE PRINT
5�,r�e .., 1 rod
CL.,..�,
ADDRESS
y So 7 E S
s _
TELEPHONE
6-09) 9.2c1- `1 �yy
C idoLt Ito, `. 55t //
4/l //
e 6 c ?/�.
1 5- s lt- 9 /nc L r
, '. le f Pf fr/es dye //
S *- ! ° l /- 77
C!f /</
IV/ 4 CSi In
6 y t /95
9 - /7(/
l ��
i38 0 At /4 );.:,n c,
3‘-: c - Wifirt), 0 -
--_-;./c k
ii-6,'E2Tgi)
I,A `/ :,3 ?? L
/ '
-.,... n IN.,.....co- VA : I )1
td 102-2-ot Q,,,
►„R ,3 k/ N-' ✓ice
J 1 n1 Scoe
i
(111 If 40
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET
TOPIC: PROPOSED
UTILITY TAX
ORDINANCE 04 -045
SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 941/ St -CS
DATE: November 2, 2004
All persons wishing to speak at a PUBLIC COMMENT must sign in with your
name and address for the record. There may be a time limit for your comments.
A copy of any written comments relating to the public hearing subject must be
p rovided to the City Clerk.
November q VAEY o
The Honorable Mike DeVleming, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE Proposed Utility Tax - Ordinance #04 -045
Dear Mayor DeVleming and City Council:
By submittal of this letter, the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce wishes to
document its opposition to the proposed utility tax
The City of Spokane Valley is now in a position to set the tone of local government in
our region That tone must include the due diligence necessary to ensure efficiencies in
the city's programs We do not feel that the appropriate due diligence has been
performed. We are concerned about the potential for inequity among service providers
and how this proposed tax would be administered in a fair manner
Rather than proposing a new tax upon the residents and businesses of the city as the first
answer to confront a budget shortfall, the City Council should seriously investigate
efficiencies in its existing contracts_ This investigation should also include alternative
service providers A thorough study of potential service cuts and service outsourcing is
an integral component of this due diligence
It is our strong desire that the City of Spokane Valley remain a low cost provider of
government services relative to comparable cities in our state Such a position is vitally
important in both keeping our existing businesses competitive and in attracting new
business to the city
Respectfully submitted,
Eldonna Gossett
President & CEO
SPOKA_JE
BUSINESS CENTER
9507 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Volley, WA 99206
(509) 924-4994. (509) 924 -4992 FAX
www.spokancvalleychamber_org info'iispokancvallcychamber.org
November 2, 2004
The Honorable Mike DcVleming, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Respectfully submitted.
Eldonna Gossett
President & CEO
S P O K A N E
VALLEY
� � o CHAN.BER
RE Proposed Storm Water Fee — Ordinance #04 -024
Dear Mayor DeVleming and City Council
By submittal of this letter, the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce wishes to
document its opposition to the proposed storni water fee of $24.
As proposed, the fee would be unfairly applied to businesses required by the city to
install onsite storm water facilities. In other words. businesses that do not negatively
impact storm water are exactly the ones that will pay this new fee
We do not feel the City Council has appropriately investic ated storm water fee
alternatives before making this proposal.
We strongly encourage you to table this action until you have had the appropriate time to
hear from the community. We would be very pleased to meet with you and staff to find a
solution the business community can suppon
BUSINESS CENTER
9507 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 924 -4994, (509) 924 -4992 FAX
www.spokanevallcychamber.org info(alpokanevallcychunhcr.org
City of Spokane Valley
2005 Preliminary Budget
Stormwater Utility Fee
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
November 2, 2004
Stormwater Utility:
Background Information
Stormwater utility established to develop and
maintain storm drainage systems, which
protect the aquifer
el City currently charges $10 annual fee per
ERU; generates approx. $750,000
e City Council approved a six-year stormwater
utility plan, targeting necessary maintenance
and prevention activities
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2/04 2
Reasons for Enhanced Program
• City must comply with State and Federal
stormwater requirements related to the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act
If we must meet the requirements of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, costs would increase
2005 Preliminary Budget 1112104 3
1
Reasons, continued
Dept. of Ecology is adopting revisions to the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program,
and drywell owners are required to comply
(June 2005)
City owns approximately 5,600 drywells
UIC permit will require compliance with the
Stormwater Mgmt Manual for Eastern WA, or
an approved equivalent document
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2/04 4
The Six -Year Plan will allow the City to:
Address current failures
Become proactive in avoiding future failures
Provide needed improvements
This will be done by:
Increased monitoring /inspections
Cleaning and maintenance schedule for drywells to
prevent flooding
Replacement of failed drywells
Solutions for 43 known problem areas
2005 Preliminary Budget 1112104 5
Examples of Flooding Resulting from
Lack of Adequate Stormwater Facilities
Examples of Flooding Resulting from
Lack of Adequate Stormwater Facilities
Examples of Flooding Resulting from Lack of
Maintenance /Failure of Drywell
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2/04 8
Examples of Completed Standard
Drywells
Proposed 2004/05
Stormwater Work Plan (8/24/04)
Finalize Swale Design Method Study
Revise and finalize proposed stormwater ordinance
• Continue involvement with Ecology's UIC revisions
• Develop 2005 Stormwater Management Program
• Hire consultants to help set up the program
a Determine staffing model for the program
• Develop six year construction plan, including funding
IP Continue development of regional standards to
comply with the UIC program
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2104 12
Spokane County Service Area
2005
2006
2007
Glenrose
$49
$58
$63
North Spokane
31
37
40
West Plains
38
45
48
Remainder of service area
17
20
21
Systemwide Average
$23
$27
$29
1
Spokane County Stormwater Program
Newly approved fee schedule charges a base fee to the whole
unincorporated area, plus a surcharge in certain basin areas
Fee is graduated over a three year period
Stormwater projects are planned for the special basin areas, not
for the total service area
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2104
Evaluation of Alternative Rate Structures
Spokane Valley approach: base equivalent
service unit for residential, and parcel- specific
measurements based on impervious surface
data for all others
ID Impervious surface as the basis for a fee
structure is national standard
� Evaluate other methodologies in 2005
workplan
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2104 14
Salanes. Wages and Benefits
3151,112
5160,179
$169,789
$179,977
S190,775
5202.222
City Overhead
S52,458
$55.605
$58,942
362,478
$66,227
$70,201
Public Works
555,140
$58,448
561,955
$65,673
$69,613
573,790
Supplies
322.700
524.970
527,467
530.214
$33,235
536,559
Stormwater Project
$200,000
$400.000
$400.000
S400.000
$400,000
$400,000
Transfer to Street Capital Fund
5150,000
5150.000
$150,000
$150.000
5150.000
5150.000
IT Support
$2,000
S2,020
52,040
$2,061
$2,081
$2,102
Consulting Services
530,000
$30.300
$30,603
530.909
331.218
$31.530
Stormwater Maintenance Contract
5738,922
5775,868
$814,662
5855.395
$898,165
$943.073
Engineering Services
355,680
$66,816
580,179
$96,215
$115.458
5138.550
Legal
$2,500
52.500
32,500
$2.500
32,500
32,500
Contract Services
522,500
522,725
$22.952
$23.182
523,414
323,648
TrarnrngfTravel/Mileage
57,500
$7,575
57,651
$7,727
$7.805
57,883
Transfer to GF
589,700
591.494
593.324
$95,190
$97,094
599,036
Capital Outlay
320,000
$0
SO
$0
SO
$0
Total Expenditure
$1,600,21
51,848,501
51,922,065
$2,001,520
52,087,585
52,181,092
ERU's
74.750
76.245
77,770
79,325
80,912
82,530
Rate
524
524
524
524
524
524
Revenue
51.794.000
51,829,880
$1,866,478
$1,903,807
$1.941.883
51.980,721
Stormwater Utility
6 -Year Plan
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
•
Stormwater Utility: Six Year Forecast
(9/21/04)
Fund Balanance
$978,7881 5960.167 5904.580 $806,867 5661,1651 $460,794
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2/04 15
Fee Assumptions and Methodology
• Fee increases from $10 to $24 per ERU per
year for operations and maintenance
• Fee is calculated to fund the estimated cost of
operations for five years
•l Fee is normalized over a five year period to
avoid fluctuations in rates
The ERU rate applies systemwide
Fee schedule is effective January 1, 2005
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2/04 16
Salaries. Wages and Benefits
S151.112
5160.179
5169,789
5179,977
$190,775
$202,222
City Overhead
552.458
555,605
$58,942
$62.478
566,227
570,201
Public Works
555,140
$58,448
$61.955
$65.673
569.613
S73,790
Supplies
$22.700
$24,970
527.467
530.214
$33,235
536.559
Stormwater Project
50
5350.000
5400.000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
Transfer to Street Capital Fund
5150.000
5150,000
$150,000
5150.000
$150,000
5150,000
IT Support
52.000
$2,020
52,040
52.061
52,081
52,102
Consulting Services
$30,000
530,300
$30,603
$30,909
$31,218
$31.530
Stormwater Maintenance Contract
5738.922
$775,868
$814,662
5855,395
$898.165
5943,073
Engineering Services
$55,680
566,816
$80,179
$96,215
$115,458
5138.550
Legal
52,500
52.500
52,500
$2,500
$2.500
$2,500
Contract Services
522,500
$22,725
522.952
523,182
$23.414
523.648
Training/Travel /Mileage
57.500
57,575
$7,651
$7.727
$7,805
57,883
Transfer to GF
S63,538
S76.245
$81,658
5103.123
5105,185
5111,416
Capital Outlay
520,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
Total Expenditure
51,374,050
$1,783,252
51,910,399
$2,009,453
52,095,676
$2,193,472
ERU's
74,750
76.245
77,770
79.325
80.912
82,530
Rate
517
520
521
526
526
$27
Revenue
51.270.750
$1,524,900
51,633.168
$2,062,458
$2.103.707
$2,228,311
Stormwater Utility
6 -Year Plan
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Six -Year Forecast based upon a Variable Rate
Fund Balanance
1 $681,7001 5423.3481 $146,1171 5199.1221 $207.1531 $241.993
2005 Preliminary Budget 11/2/04 17
Recommendation
Continue with fee methodology based upon
ERU for 2005
Increase rate to $17 per ERU for 2005, $20
per ERU for 2006
Identify capital needs and develop six -year
construction plan
Propose multi -year rate model incorporating
operating and capital needs for 2006 and
beyond
2005 Preliminary Budget 1112/04 18
Odafrv
Ad Hoc Committee Members
Julie Rosenoff
Donna Connell
- Barbara Dunham
Joni Driscoll
Jennie Willardson
Diana Wilhite
Mike Flannigan
We took on the challenge of carefully reading the materials provided
us, and then doing further research on our own
We worked very hard to evaluate LSSI's proposed contract in order to
compare it to SCLD.
We all were familiar with the SCLD but learned a lot more about it in
order to objectively compare the two.
Contracting for Library
SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
Werving Spokane County outside the City of Spokane
Services
Library Systems i Services, LLC
20250 Century Blvd., Suite 200
Germantown, MD 20874 -1114
800-638-8725
Presented by Julie Rosenoff for the Ad Hoc Library
Committee
November 2, 2004
1
Ad Hoc Committee Members
Julie Rosenoff
Donna Connel
Barbara Dunh
Joni Driscoll
Jennie Willard
Diana Wilhite
Mike Flannigan
•
{ai1aI Investent
Fiscal Record
1 no I � Amic
GER7I PC
lailligitg and impuleg
Mean INUNIVIS
ii7sneiLin iievnavnrc
'4.: "eqt
ISttinut
Employees
w
w
w
6•4111:1;ik,4b
R
Past and Present
What have they done in the past
and what are they doing currently
Experience directly related to our
situation
Lots of concrete
information on SCLD
LSSI information
is scarce, uneven,
and circular
MIII
NI
Published
Articles
News
Peledies
Presentations
4 Iknir �t
0 MNidtt "Ms/ tact.
Library Systems S. Services. LLC
20250 Century blvd., Sutte 200
Germantown, MO 20874 -1114
r
800-638-8725
T c-r Rode
sotema° / FAQ / Search / Horne
The unique services LSSI provides, the innovative solutions we
develop to address a library's needs and the cutting edge
technology we stay in step with create a constant buzz
within the library world.
Throughout its history. LSSI has been the subject of articles In many prestigious trade
publications. Additionally. our in -house experts have also written informative articles for
Prominent publications.
LSSI strives to keep the public informed and uD- to-date about new
developments and significant changes in the company and is
committed to providing news releases in o timely manner.
Certain content requires Adobe Acrobat Reader
Copynght LSSI All rights reserved
Conferences
& Events
Unanimous recommendation:
SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
6ierving Spokane County outside the City of Spokane
Contract with the Spokane County
Library District for five years.
Explore the option of annexation as a
possibility in the next two years.
Spokane County Library District
SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
qerving Spokane County outside the City of Spokane
WEB SERVICES
Ubrary Catalog
My Library Account
Renew Books
Place Requests
Online Databases
Reference Desk
Books & Reading
Reserve a library PC
Online Book Ctub
LIBRARY SERVICES
Library Services Overview
Library Cards
Checkout Periods
Storyttmes
Outreach
Meeting Rooms
DISTRICT
INFORMATION
About the District
Friends of the Library
Board of Trustees
Policies
Employment
CATALOG ( = G1Vit
•
DATA
Ci)INt'CACT U8
BRANCHES
Airway Heights
Argonne
Cheney
Deer Park
Fairfield
Medical Lake
Moran Prairie
North Spokane
Otis Orchards
Valley
WEB PICKS
Current Topics
Kids
Teens
Homework
Seniors
Spokane (16 categories!
Subjects (38 categortesl
Search techniques
Evaluating Web sites
Unfiltered search engines
Filtered search engines
Disclaimer 1 Privacy Statement
r , 2004sv04 , a. : . l 04.11. DrOt t MRgMs Reinwao
Last Update: October 22, 2004
SPOTLIGHT
1 New Moran Prairie Library Design Unveiling'
1 Continue Contract with SCUD Unanimous
1 Comparison of Library Proposals Available
1 Serious About Getting Your Own Business OR the Ground'
1 Check Out Our After School Specials'
1 More _.
Srik% E (' ■n
I.mRARV InrTKit T
Were My •
w
w
Managed Competition
Parks Maintenance Services
Background
• The City of Spokane Valley currently
contracts with Spokane County
Request for Proposal
• Four submittals
• Three finalists
Review Team
• Morgan Koudelka- Financial Analyst
• Neil Kersten- Public Works Director
• Nina Regor- Deputy City Manager
• Mike Jackson -Parks and Recreation
Director
Process
• Based on a combination of objective and
subjective criteria including but not limited
to qualifications, experience, work
proposal and cost.
• Proposals were scored by selection team
Spokane
County
Skils'Kin
Senske
Proposal
Rating
778 pts.
778 pts.
754 pts.
Cost
$666,581
$650,350
$584,796
Continue with Current Service
Provider
• Widest diversity of skills and trades
• The RFP indicated that the range and quality of services
are intended to be equal or greater than existing levels.
• History of satisfactory performance
• Good communication
• Customer service values aligned with City values and
continually strengthening
• Potential for contract to cost Tess as cost proposal is not
a fixed cost
• Avoid potential service disruption
• Spokane County has a well established risk
management program.
Continue with Current Service
Provider (cont)
• Known commodity
• Known expectation
• Equipment and shop resources are the most
comprehensive
• Willingness to please
• Known cost. Contract cost may vary with a new provider.
Proposal cost not necessarily
• Potential for another provider to require more oversight
from staff.
• Is park maintenance just a service
• Commitment by county staff to provide a high level of
service.
Sta�f Recommendation
• Establish with City Council, the level of
cost reduction at which the City feels it is
appropriate to change service providers,
when the City is satisfied with the current
provider.
• Enter into negotiations with Spokane
County. Negotiate an estimated contract
fee within the established limitations
defined above.
Summary
• The managed competition process has
revealed that our current provider is
competitive.
• The process revealed that the current
service level is adequate and no major
component is overlooked. The City does
recognize that forestry services are
minimal under the existing contract and
likely will continue.
Managed Competition:
Summary of
Library Proposals
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
November 2. 2004
Process to Date
• Request for Proposals (RFP) deadline
September 28, 2004
• Contract for up to five years
• Two responses submitted
• Spokane County Library District (SCLD)
• Library Systems and Services, LLC (LSSI)
• Ad Hoc Library Committee formed to evaluate
and provide a recommendation to Council
• Staff conducted a concurrent analysis of
proposals
Library Svc 1112'04
Summary of RFP:
Project Description
• Provide an information -rich environment that
enhances the quality of life for citizens — a center for
cultural and community activities and resources
• Provide access to information and services using
a variety of media
• Provide a balanced collection of materials that
caters to the community's cultural, reference, lifelong
learning and recreation needs
Library Svc 1112/04
3
Summary of RFP:
Scope of Work
• Provide a turn -key service
• Operations, Administration. Support
• Maintain or exceed the current service level
• Size and scope of collections and programs
• Customer service
• Hours of operation
• Reciprocal agreement(s)
• Develop appropriate performance measures
Crary Svc 11 /2J04
2
Summary of RFP:
Included in Submitted Proposal
• Description of organization and
experience
• Financial and credit reference detail
• Draft implementation, performance, and
contingency plans
• Cost proposal
Lit Se 1 t
5
What Does SCLD Proposal Offer?
• Systemwide approach
• 10 branches; 390.000 materials collection
• Known entity — high customer
satisfaction
• Existing local presence — became a
district in 1950's
Library Svc 1112104
3
Usage of SCLD Branches
Airway Heights
Argonne
Cheney
Deer Park
Fairfield
Medical Lake
Moran Prairie
North Spokane
Otis Orchards
Valley
Library Svc 1112/04
Library Svc 112'04
Branch
SV Regis.
(100 %)
.13%
13.68%
.30%
.11%
.05%
.10%
.54%
1.07%
2.38%
81.63%
SV Share of
Branch
3.890
49.36%
2.67%
1.27%
6.70%
4.11%
3 40%
1 52%
14 15%
80.50'x/
7
When is LSSI
a Good Option for a Community?
• Current contract cities had common themes:
• Financial crisis
• Poor relationship with current provider
• Upheaval in operations, e.g.. Toss of Library Director
• Consensus that LSSI brought:
• Stabilization to library services
• Higher level of service
• Increased customer satisfaction
• Innovative ideas success in grant writing
s
4
Comparison of Proposals:
Staffing Levels
Position SCLD LSSI
Librarian 4.9 6.0
Library Assoc/Clerk 11.9 8.0
Supervisor 2.0 -0-
Page/Intern 5.0 4.0
Other 0.8 2.0
Total 24.6 20.0
MLS Total 5.7 5.0
Library Svc 11+204
Cost: SCLD
J
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Proposal 52,270.000 52,338,100 52.408.243 S2,480,490 52,554,905
Usage 2.080,905 2,143,332 2.207,632 2,273.861 2,342,077
Model
Lrtf 5189,095 $194,768 5200,611 S206,629 5212,828
Library Svc 1112104
10
5
Cod kens
Yet 1
Yaw 2
Yaw 3
Yet 4
Yet 5
Opyatcni Costs
Salary ad Benefit s
S 1.093349
$ 1
51.155.728
5 1.195178
S 1236,046
Ct-earanel Eap
$ 276,300
S 255,971
$ 296.979
$ 306,339
S 317,O61
?vtittras
5 170.CL0
S 170,033
$ 170,00)
$ 17).000
$ 170.000
Total Operational
$ 1,526618
S 1,92,616
11,621,707
$ 1,672.517
$ 1,724106
C ads
g
Faoity Lame
$ 21310 0
S 200
Start()
S 435432
5 436,432
Total Capital
S 638.432
$ 636,432
Total Coat
1 S 2165,061
S 2,211,048 S 2.264136
$ 2,310949
S 2,383,610
Cost: LSSI
Library Svc 11 l21p4
11
Cost: Comparison of Proposals
Year 1 Year 2
Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
SCLD S2.270.000 S2,338,100 $2,408,243 52,480.490 $2,554,905
LSSI 2.165,081 2,211,048 2260,139 2,310,949 2,363,538
Citf 5104,919 5127,052 $148,104 $189,541 $191.367
Library Svc 11!2104
12
6
Cost: Comparison of Operating Costs
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
SCLD $2,270,000 $2.338 100 52,408,243 $2.480,490 $2,554,905
L S S I 1,526,649 1.572,616 1,621, 707 1,672,517 1,725,106
Dift $743,351 $765.484 5788.538 $807,973 5829,799
Library Svc 11 /2,04
13
Long -Term
Policy Considerations
• Role of library in community's identity
• 76% believe a community identity is
somewhat or very important
• 61% believe a downtown /city center is
somewhat or very important
• 75% somewhat or strongly support spending
public money to create a city center
• Asset ownership
• Cost of service
Ubrary Svc 1112104
14
7
Recommendation
• Continue contracting with SCLD for two
years, with the potential for up to three
one -year extensions
U racy Svc 11/2iO4
8