2004, 12-07 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director
Courtney Moore, Accountant Budget Analyst
Bing (Greg) Bingaman, IT Specialist
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded
everyone that this is a study session although some items would be open for public comment, and
requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of the meeting.
Mayor Wilhite presented a plaque to Councilmember DeVleming thanking him and commemorating his
tenure as first Mayor of Spokane Valley. Councilmember DeVleming received a standing ovation for his
work.
Mayor Wilhite also announced that the Regional Sports Commission, in their efforts to bring various
activities to this city, is pleased to announce that the 2006 National Junior Olympics for the Cross -
Country Championships will be held at the Plantes Ferry Complex December 9, 2006, and that our City
was chosen over other cities of Salt Lake City, Reno, and Portland; and that this event is expected to bring
an estimated $2 million in economic impact to this community, with an estimated 6,000 visitors for this
event scheduled to be held over three to four days; and she also thanked the efforts of the Inland
Northwest Track and Field Association.
1. Student Advisory Council Bylaws — Councilmember DeVleming
Councilmember DeVleming explained that after many months of work, the student advisory council was
formed, they began to meet, elected a Chair, Vice -Chair and Historian; and began work on a draft Student
Advisory Council bylaws; and in keeping with Resolution 04 -018, those bylaws are to be approved by the
Spokane Valley City Council. Councilmember DeVleming introduced the members of the S.A.C., and
Chair Michael Green, Vice -Chair Katie Osterback, and Historian Randee Berg and those students went
through their PowerPoint presentation and explained their draft by -laws. After brief Council discussion
concerning the need to amend the current resolution (04 -018, section 2C) to conform with the term limits
outlined in the by -laws, it was Council consensus to place the by -laws as well as the proposed amended
resolution on the next council consent agenda. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments
were offered.
2. First Reading, Proposed Utility Tax Ordinance — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, Finance Director Thompson gave his PowerPoint
presentation, highlighting the three financial problems of the General Fund (problem statement #1), the
Street Fund (problem statement #2), and the Capital Project Shortfall (problem statement #3). Director
Thompson stated that it is staff's recommendation to impose the 6% tax on the five utilities shown on
Study Session Minutes of 12 -07 -04 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council: 12 -14 -04
page three of his accompanying documents. He also mentioned some minor changes in the ordinance,
such as the effective date of March 1, 2005 instead of January 1, 2005, and adding a section that would
provide relief for those on low incomes, including senior citizens. Mr. Thompson said that this 6% utility
tax recommendation includes electricity, and assumes an 8% increase for City expenditures. Director
Thompson stated that staff seeks further direction on this proposed ordinance.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson to move ordinance 04 -045 to a second reading based on
changing page three to change the rate of the tax to 4 %; and to delete paragraph d of section 2, which
includes light and power electricity. There was no second and the motion was not considered.
Councilmember Flanigan said he would consider such a motion with the changes only and not moving the
ordinance forward to a second reading.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to change the rate to
4% and delete paragraph d of section 2. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Munson, Councilmembers Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: Councilmember
Schimmels. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Deputy Mayor Munson explained that there are uncertainties of what will actually occur between now
and 2007; and that this motion is based on the hope that things will be financially better than currently
forecasted; and that as part of the budget process each year, this tax will be evaluated and adjusted if
needed.
Councilmember DeVleming asked in reference to the delinquency noted on page five, of who would pay
the utility tax and Mr. Thompson said the payment would be made by the utility company.
Councilmember DeVleming also asked concerning rate changes in section 11, why were telephone and
natural gas specifically mentioned and nothing about refuse collection or the other utilities to be taxed.
Director Thompson said he would check on that and report at the next reading. It was also noted that
there is no sunset clause in this ordinance, but council always has the option of changing ordinances when
they so desire. In response to Councilmember Schimmel's question concerning how the low income and
senior relief would apply, Director Thompson said the specifics were not included in the ordinance, but
the plan would be to come back to Council to gather those specifics of income levels to consider, who it
would apply to, etc. and then to contract with a firm that does that type of work in this area, and provide
the funds and using council set guidelines, they would decide who would have that relief thereby not
directly involving staff in that operation, but providing the funds from the tax to take care of that work.
Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned regarding electricity assistance, that staff has had contact with
SNAP and Valley Center and they are ready to work with us regarding assistance to seniors.
Councilmember Denenny asked if an analysis was done on what percentage of our community are natural
gas customers, and what percentage of the projected revenues come from natural gas. Director Thompson
said that the electricity portion represented about 42 %; and that he is not sure staff has information
concerning the natural gas portion. Budget Analyst Courtney Moore stated that the original estimate for
the 6% utility tax on the five utilities mentioned, that the natural gas portion of that was only
approximately one -half million dollars of tax revenue; and if that 6% changes to 4 %, the resulting natural
gas revenue would reduce to approximately $300,000 or $400,000; and that the largest component of
those funds would come from telephone.
Deputy Mayor Munson stated that there have been some questions in the community of the legality of
levying this tax against electricity of certain providers, and that although we have received legal opinion
issued from our City and from Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), because of the amount of
money involved, Deputy Mayor Munson would like us to ask an outside agency, another law firm which
specializes in this kind of law, to give us a legal opinion if electricity can be included from what we feel
are now, exempt providers, and added that if we address this now, we could authorize finding a firm and
Study Session Minutes of 12 -07 -04 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council: 12 -14 -04
getting a cost to come back to Council for a decision, and later to make any changes necessary in the
ordinance.
City Manager Mercier said we had that question examined by then acting interim City Attorney Stanley
Schwartz, and by Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell, and by consultation with the attorney group at
MRSC; and all feel that Vera Power did qualify as a special purpose district and therefore would not be
subject to this taxation. In Council's conversations about this matter, Mr. Mercier said Council weighed
the philosophical points of view as to whether one of the electrical providers may not be subject to the
taxation and if council would want to apply taxes to the other.
Councilmember Taylor added that there is an opinion that this specific issue has not been addressed in
court and we are therefore dealing with opposing interpretations of the law, and that he feels it is
important to get through this without taxing electricity at this point, but wants to have full range of
options in the future; and that he does not see how a tax can be placed on electricity at any time in the
future if not applied evenly; and that he is not convinced that the opinions received are the correct
opinions and that it needs to be tested in court.
City Manager Mercier said that if Council wants another legal firm to review that subject, that he suggests
we select a firm at the far side of the state that specializes in those types of utility services. It was council
consensus to have Mr. Mercier examine what it would cost to acquire such an opinion.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to advance ordinance
04 -045 to a second reading to be announced at a later date; and that ordinance to be advanced is as
amended in the earlier vote.
Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
Steve Schultz, 310 S Greenacres Road: said that he has had a business here since 1975; that running a
business is a struggle especially with expenses and property taxes going up; that natural gas and
electricity almost doubled since 2000; and that this tax will be discriminatory and be against people who
heat by gas and not by electricity; that all will be hurt with any tax; and that he has to live within his
budget and has had to cut expenses; and hopes we don't create a new business tax.
Bill Gothmann, 10010 E 48 Ave: has a request before this tax is passed; that he would like to see what it
would cost him, or the average taxpayer, per month or how it would affects him should this be passed.
Don Swanson, 312 S Farr Road: stated that he was assured from people he talked to that there would be
no new taxes, so he bought a house here; had he known he would not have done that; that he would rather
have his money; and is appalled that some salary ranges for staff are between $7,000 and $9,000 per
month; that he is looking at a high budget staff; and that he would qualify as a senior citizen but does not
want to be subsidized by his children or his grandchildren; and that Council needs to look at the hard
choices; and suggests perhaps throwing out the budget and starting over again.
Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered.
Councilmember Taylor stated his concern about having to raise taxes; and that he'd like to see some cuts
made in some of the contract services, and that a discussion should take place in terms of how the utility
tax is framed within the entire financial plan; that by raising taxes without looking at possible cuts would
be a disservice; that he would like to see the impact if we were to cut five positions from the police force
as that would likely cover the general fund needs, street fund needs and capital needs until the end of
2008, and would recognize an approximate $500,000 yearly savings.
Councilmember DeVleming asked about examining the law enforcement contract to see if any flexibility
exists. Deputy City Manager Regor stated that there is a one -year notification period for the law
Study Session Minutes of 12 -07 -04 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council: 12 -14 -04
enforcement contract; and that it is possible to modify the agreement through a negotiation process, but
that primarily for cancellation, there is a one -year notification clause; and unless there is a mutually
agreed upon negotiated solution, any reduction in the law enforcement contract would not be effective
until 2006.
After further council discussion concerning any change in the law enforcement contract, it was Council
consensus to wait to take any action until after Cal Walker's December 21 presentation; but that those
conversations and discussions concerning changes in the law enforcement contract should definitely take
place, including discussions on the efficiency of service and analyzing law enforcement service levels in
general. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers
Schimmels, Taylor, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: Councilmember Flanigan. Abstentions: None.
Motion carried.
Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:25 p.m.; and reconvened the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
3. Council Guidance on Filling Vacancy of City Attorney — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier explained that there are two options to fill the vacancy of City Attorney: either
contract with another law firm or fill the position in- house; and that he recommends we fill the position
in- house, and some of the advantages of doing so include having 100% of that person's attention; that the
turn- around time on work products is quicker; there would be institutional memory and knowledge; there
would be a holistic understanding of the entire organization and the opportunity to use fixed assets in
personnel to expand their attention beyond reacting to issues and could move to problem avoidance. Mr.
Mercier added that there is sufficient legal work that needs attention to have this position in- house; and
that he is hoping to determine from Council if resources can be allocated to hire in -house or contract
outside. Mr. Mercier also brought Council attention to the December 7 memo from Nina Regor,
addressing city attorney recruitment, which discusses AWC's data on salary range, and also recruitment
costs. Councilmember Flanigan stated he would like a listing of all reporting communities if possible;
and Councilmember Schimmels said he would prefer not to spend funds to seek out an attorney and feels
such a fee would be excessive.
Discussion continued concerning advantages of contracting such as having a broader range of expertise
by contracting with a firm; other disadvantages such as the issue of conflict of interest, the benefits of
using recruiting firms, such as they follow the careers of individuals, they have fairly good sense of
success of folks elsewhere; they develop a good sense of client community and most maintain mailing
lists of those they deal with; and they provide background checking and screening services.
Councilmember Flanigan asked about hiring another deputy city attorney or someone to work under our
current Deputy City Attorney.
While Councilmember Schimmels said he would support hiring in- house, Councilmember DeVleming
said he would like more information on available community resources. Councilmember Flanigan stated
his has no objection in gathering additional information and wants to explore the possibility of having
someone under our current Deputy City Attorney, and /or the possibility of using contract specialists
where necessary. Deputy Mayor Munson stated his support with use of a search agency to see what the
market might hold. Councilmember Taylor stated his opinion that the cost benefits are in favor of
contracting with an attorney rather than bringing someone in -house at this time.
Further discussion continued on cost for a true search, and cost of hiring in -house including salary,
benefits, and other overhead; and on determining conflicts of interest. At the end of the discussion, it was
noted that four Councilmembers prefer to contract with another law firm, and three Councilmembers
prefer hiring in- house. City Manager Mercier stated that he will announce the position and request
proposals be submitted from firms; that he would ask for their qualifications and of their notice of pricing
strategies, and will likely issue a RFP some time next week or so; then allow a few weeks for responses;
Study Session Minutes of 12 -07 -04 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council: 12 -14 -04
and then examine those responses. Deputy Mayor Munson added that technically it is up to the City
Manager to make the hiring decision, and that there will not be a vote on which firm will be chosen.
4. Ordinance Adopting Framework for Development Code — Marina Sukup
Community Development Director Sukup explained that the goal is to eventually consolidate and
integrate all regulations in a single document, including subdivision, zoning and development standards,
and that in so doing, it will provide well- organized, concise, clear and readable regulations to ensure
informed, consistent interpretation and enforcement of City policies which affect land development and
the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. She also mentioned that sections for which no ordinance
or regulations have been adopted are shown as "reserved" for possible future action. It was Council
consensus to move forward with this proposal.
5. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Grant Recommendations Report — Councilmember Flanigan
Councilmember Flanigan introduced Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members Jeff Fiman and Liz
Beck; and explained that the committee came to an agreement on the grant allocations, as shown in the
attached documentation; and that the $9,000/$9,000 match for the Fairgrounds was because the
Fairgrounds wanted to fund an economic impact study or analysis with projected expenses of $18,000
with us providing $15,000 and $3,000 from county; but that the committee came up with $9,000 matching
or for every $1,000 the County puts forward, they can recoup an equal amount from us. Councilmember
Flanigan also explained that funds for the Museum would be used for production and brochure
distribution; that the YMCA sought funds for marketing for their skate park; the Sports Commission
recommendation is $75,000; the Visitor Convention Bureau allocation recommendation is $136,000; and
there is also the previously approved $40,000 for CenterPlace. Councilmember Flanigan also explained
that he feels the committee is looking for more accountability from each entity and specifics on how each
proposal would benefit Spokane Valley; adding that the committee will meet next Monday to look at
contract language to include good ways to provide that accountability.
Committee member Jeff Fiman then expressed his concern on the process of fund allocation; and stated
his opposition to the recommendations that other members agreed upon, that he feels there is an injustice
in the decision process; that the Valleyfest and the Museum will not generate increased tourism and
additional tax dollars; that he is concerned that two members of the committee are also applying for
funds; that other vendors were not notified of this process; and that the CVB does the most but we are
giving them far less than their original request. Councilmember Flanigan explained the process and
added that the City of Spokane also recommendation allocations of $25,000 for the CVB, $25,000 to the
Sports Commission, $10,000 to Sister Cities Association, $10,000 to the Symphony, $7,500 each to the
International Film Festival and to the Spokane Arts, $5,000 each to Inland NW Dance and to the MAC;
$3,000 to Assistive Listening and $2,000 to Neighborhood Business. Liz Beck mentioned that Mr.
Fiman's views come as a surprise as during the committee meeting, he did not voice any opposition to
what was agreed upon at the meeting. Councilmember Flanigan added that although Valleyfest might not
generate heads in beds, the Valley Mall indicated they had large sales during that event; and also that the
intent of these funds is to promote this community as an entity of its own. In response to Deputy Mayor
Munson's question about having questionnaires in hotel /motel rooms as a way to measure allocation of
funds, Mr. Fiman said to his knowledge that has not been done, but he can include that in the rooms and it
would not be a problem. It was Council consensus to put this item on the next Council agenda.
6. Official Newspaper Proposals — Chris Bainbridge
City Clerk Bainbridge explained the background of choosing the official newspaper, and concluded by
stating that the Valley News Herald is staff's recommendation due to cost savings. It was council
consensus to stay with the Valley News Herald and review this issue again next year.
7. Declaration of Easement Report (ChrisLinc Properties, LLC) — Cary Driskell
Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained precious council action with adoption of Ordinance 04 -043,
vacating a portion of David Road; and that Marshall Clark, owner of the remaining property comprising
Study Session Minutes of 12 -07 -04 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council: 12 -14 -04
the triangular piece of land bordered by Sprague, Appleway and Tierman, requests an easement for the
purpose of placing draining facilities; that Council declared this properly surplus for public use, and this
intended use fits within that declaration yet maintains city fee ownership in the event the City determines
a substantial future need. It was Council consensus to move forward with this proposal and place this
matter for Council consideration on the January 4, 2005 agenda.
8. Court Related 2005 Contract — Cary Driskell
Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that we have several contracts with the County regarding court
related services; that most of those are two -year contracts and expire the end of 2004; that staff has had
discussions with County staff on how to renew those if that is the will of Council and County, and of what
form those renewals will take; that they are discussing and want to develop model boilerplate language
for all contracts, and have consistency on scope of services and cost method for each contract; and that he
will meet with his County counterparts this Thursday to further refine the process and anticipates bringing
the specific contracts forward soon.
9. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite
It was decided to place the second reading of the utility tax on the advance agenda under "other pending
issues."
10. Council Check in — Dave Mercier
Deputy Mayor Munson mentioned the addition of an advance agenda item concerning a public
information officer, and that the first touch will be written information only; and will later schedule
discussion based on the information he will provide.
11. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier said that in polling interest of other law firms to provide consultation to the City,
that we wants to alert Council to one provision that will be included in the RFP, that such firm would
forgo representation of any city land use matters with any other clients; and that he feels this is a fair play
representation and believes the consequence of adding that provision will dampen enthusiasm for some
firms to submit their RFP (response for proposal). Mr. Mercier also mentioned that the Council now has
a draft of the agreement with SCLD and that the language in there now reflects the cautionary notes
embedded in Council's votes; and that Mike Wirt was cooperative and understanding for the issues they
were looking for control for; and that our understanding is that it is all agreeable with them. Mayor
Wilhite asked that staff send a copy of the proposed press release to all Councilmembers for their
comment. Additionally, Mr. Mercier mentioned that during a public comment two weeks ago, someone
asked about initiative /referendum, and that staff is researching that topic and anticipates having a report
ready for a January Council meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
b-t ay.0 W WAAz
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Study Session Minutes of 12 -07 -04 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council: 12 -14 -04
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
5T / c « r Z
4c7 , Tr i g)
(.3
-'
--Cr 4/< <. c .
92 6 - 4 4.2 Z
*lane
jUalley
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE ) — (J y
Citizen comments on any item. Please state your name and address for the record. Your
time will be limited to THREE MINUTES.
Proposed Utility Tax
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Spokane Valley Council Meeting
December 7, 2004
Three Financial Problems
Identified
1. General Fund Shortfall #1
2. Street Fund Shortfall #2
3. Capital Project Shortfall #3
12/3/2004 2
Alternatives & Recommendations
Several Alternatives
1. Reduce expenditures
2. New /enhanced revenues
Recommendation — 6% Utility tax
1. Electricity 4. Telephone
2. Natural Gas 5. Storm water
3. Refuse
12/3/2004 3
Revenue used for three problems
identified above
Revenues
General Fund
Problem Statement #1
c '
Street Fund
Problem Statement #2
Capital Needs 4
Problem Statement #3
Current ordinance includes
1. March 1, 2005 effective date
2. Low income /senior citizen relief
3. 6% utility tax
12/3/2004 5
Utility Tax Scenario Summary
Utility Tax Scenario Growth in Expenditures
6% 8%
5% 8%
4% 8%
6% - Not on Electric Svc. 8%
5% - Not on Electric Svc. 8%
4% - Not on Electric Svc. 8%
6% 6%
5% 6%
4% 6%
6% - Not on Electric Svc. 6%
5% - Not on Electric Svc. 6%
4% - Not on Electric Svc. 6%
12/3/2004 6
6% Utility Tax — 8% Expenditure
Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10%
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
2005 2006 2007
4,500,000 6,120, 000 6,242,400
1,200,533 5,674,552 4,066,948
1,225,000 1,250,000
1,168, 572 219,265 49,411
3, 300,817 3,520,082 3,569,493
1,685,625
General Fund Problem Statement
2008
6,367,248
2,979,808
556,671
66,267
3,635,760
3,300,817 3,520,082 3,569,493 3,635,760
Street Fund Problem Statement #2
3,291,041 1,396,756
#1
2009
6,494,593
1,440,472
50,902
3,686,662
3,686,662
(1,873,720)
1,685,625 4,976,666 6,373,422 6,373,422 4,499, 702
Capital Needs Problem Statement #3
Remaining Deficit - - (743,329) (1,300,000)
2010
6,624,485
(815, 810)
2,870,852
3,738,945
(3,675,328)
824,374
(1,400,000)
12/3/2004 7
5% Utility Tax — 8% Expenditure
Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
2005
3,750,000
525,533
1,093,572
3,225,817
Target Fund Balance 10% 3,225,817
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
1,010,625
1,010,625
General Fund
2006 2007
5,100,000 5,202,000 5,306,040 5,412,161 5,520,404
4,681, 552 3,028,588 2,477, 352 360,163 -
1,225,000 1,250,000 - - -
192,265 47,371 64,186 48,779 (1,919,891)
3,418,082 3,465,453 3,529,639 3,578,418 1,658,527
3,418,082 3,465,453 3,529,639 3,578,418 3,628,537
Street Fund
2,298,041 358,396
3,308,666 3,667,062
Capital Needs
2008 2009 2010
(502,456) (2,954,029) (3,675,328)
3,164,606 210,577 (3,464,751)
Remaining Deficit - - (1,300,000) (1,300,000) (1,400,000)
12/3/2004 8
4% Utility Tax — 8% Expenditure
Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
2005
3,000,000
869,105
3,001,350
Target Fund Balance 10% 3,150,817
485,090
485,092
General Fund
2006 2007
4,080,000
3,539,085
1,225,000
314,732
3,316,082
4,161,600
2,670,192
570,036
45,331
3,361,413
2008 2009 2010
4,244,832 4,329,729 4,416,323
1,418,225
62,105 (673,490) (3,023,971)
3,423,518 2,750,028 (273,943)
3,316,082 3,361,413 3,423,518 3,470,175 3,518,129
Street Fund
1,155, 574
1,640,666
(1,561,583) (3,314,192)
1,640,666 79,083 (3,235,109)
(3,675,328)
(6,910,437)
Capital Needs
(679,964) (1,300,000) (1,300,000) (1,400,000)
12/3/2004 9
6% Utility Tax — Not on Electric Svc.
8% Expenditure Growth
General Fund
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Revenue Generated 2,850,000 3,876,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 4,195,507
Transfer to Street Fund - 3,205,485 2,670,192 1,206,399 -
Transfer for Capital Needs - 1,225,000 362,364 - -
Annual Surplus /(Deficit) 719,105 444,332 44,923 61,689 (889,977) (3,244,788)
Ending Fund Balance 2,851,350 3,295,682 3,340,605 3,402,294 2,512,317 (732,471)
Target Fund Balance 10% 3,135,817 3,295,682 3,340,605 3,402,294 3,448,527 3,496,047
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Street Fund
485,092 821,971 (1,773,409) (3,314,192) (3,675,328)
485,092 1,307,066 1,307,066 (466,343) (3,780,535) (7,455,863)
Capital Needs
Remaining Deficit - - (887,636) (1,300,000) (1,300,000) (1,400,000)
12/3/2004 10
5% Utility Tax — Not on Electric Svc.
8% Expenditure Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10% 3,088,316
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
2005
2,374,999
244,104
2,376,349
485,092
485,092
General Fund
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
3,229,998 3,294,598 3,360,490 3,427, 700 3,496, 254
2,383,511 2,374,927 535,616 - -
990,571 - - -
854,733 43,630 60,372 (1,575,519) (3,944,041)
3,231,082 3,274,712 3,335,084 1,759,565 (2,184, 476)
3,231,082 3,274,712 3,335,084 3,379,972 3,426,122
Street Fund
- (295,265) (2,444,192) (3,314,192) (3,675,328)
485,092 189,827 (2,254,365) (5,568,557) (9,243,885)
Capital Needs
(234,429) (1,250,000) (1,300,000) (1,300,000) (1,400,000)
12/3/2004 11
4% Utility Tax — Not on Electric Svc.
8% Expenditure Growth.
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
2005
1,899,999
Target Fund Balance 10% 3,040,816
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
General Fund
2006 2007
2,583,999 2,635,679
2,317,683 1,717,299
(230, 896) 1,265,133 42,339
1,901,349 3,166,482 3,208,821
485,092
485,092
3,166,482 3,208,821
(65, 828)
419,264
Street Fund
(952,893)
(533,629)
Capital Needs
(1,225,000) (1,250,000)
2008 2009 2010
2,688,393 2,742,160 2,797,004
(76,109) (2,261,058) (4,643,291)
3,132,712 871,654 (3,771,637)
3,267,874 3,311,418 3,356,197
(2,979,808) (3,314,192) (3,675,328)
(3,513,437) (6,827,629) (10,502,957)
( 1 , 300 , 000 ) ( 1 , 300 , 000 ) ( 1 , 400 , 000 )
12/3/2004 12
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10%
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
6% Utility Tax — 6% Expenditure
Growth
2005
4,500,000
1,700,533
668,572
3,300,817
3,300,817
2,185,625
2,185,625
General Fund
2006 2007
6,120,000 6,242,400
6,492,123 5,362,459
1,225,000 1,250,000
3,800,817 4,300,817
3,520,082 3,569,493
Street Fund
4,108,612 2,692,267
6,294,237 8,986,504
Capital Needs
12/3/2004
2008 2009 2010
6,367,248 6,494, 593 6,624,485
4,276,791 2,990,199 1,494,823
1,300,000 1,300,000 1,400,000
4,800,817 5,300,817 5,800,817
3,635,760 3,686,662 3,738,945
1,296,983 (323,993) (2,180,505)
10,283,487 9,959,494 7,778,989
13
5% Utility Tax — 6% Expenditure
Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10%
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
2005
3,750,000
1,025,533
593,572
3,225,817
3,225,817
1,510,625
1,510,625
General Fund
2006 2007
5,100,000 5,202,000
5,472,123 4,322,059
1,225,000 1,250,000
3,725,817 4,225,817
3,418,082 3,465,453
Street Fund
3,088,612 1,651,867
4,599,237 6,251,104
Capital Needs
2008 2009 2010
5,306,040 5,412,161 5,520,404
3,215,583 3,314,192 1,081,597
1,300,000 1,300,000 1,400,000
(1,406,425) (690,855)
4,725,817 3,819,392 3,628,537
3,529,639 3,578,418 3,628,537
235,775 - (2,593,731)
6,486,879 6,486,879 3,893,148
12/3/2004 14
4% Utility Tax — 6% Expenditure
Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs -
Annual Surplus /(Deficit) 518,572
Ending Fund Balance 3,150,817
Target Fund Balance 10% 3,150,817
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
2005
3,000,000
350,533
835,625
835,625
General Fund
2006 2007
4,080,000 4,161,600
4,452,123 3,281,659
1,225,000 1,250,000
3,650,817 4,150,817
3,316,082 3,361,413
Street Fund
2,068,612
2,904,237
611,467
3,515,704
Capital Needs
12/3/2004
2008
4,244,832
2,154,375
1,300,000
4,650,817
3,423,518
2009
4,329,729
825,335
1,300,000
5,150,817
3,470,175
(825,433) (2,488,857)
2,690,271 201,414
2010
4,416,323
2,819,350
(2,132,688)
3,518,129
3,518,129
(855,978)
(654,564)
(1,400,000)
15
6% Utility Tax — Not on Electric Svc.
6% Expenditure Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10%
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
2005
2,850,000
215,533
503,572
3,135,817
3,135,817
700,625
700,625
General Fund
2006 2007
3,876,000 3,953,520
4,248,123 3,073,579
1,225,000 1,250,000
Capital Needs
3,635,817 4,135,817
3,295,682 3,340,605
Street Fund
1,864,612 403,387
2,565,237 2,968,624
2008
4,032,590
1,942,133
1,300,000
4,635,817
3,402,294
2009
4,113,242
2,296,138
1,300,000
(1,687,290)
3,448,527
3,448,527
(1,037,675) (1,018,054)
1,930,949 912,895
2010
4,195,507
918,325
(452,480)
3,496,047
3,496,047
(2,757,003)
(1,844,108)
(1,400,000)
12/3/2004 16
5% Utility Tax — Not on Electric Svc.
6% Expenditure Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10%
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
2005
2,374,999
244,104
2,876,349
3,088,316
485,092
485,092
General Fund
2006 2007
3,229,998
3,602,121
1,225,000
3,376,349
3,231,082
3,294,598
2,414,657
1,250,000
Street Fund
1,218,610 (255,535)
1,703,702 1,448,167
2008 2009 2010
3,360,490 3,427,700 3,496,254
2,311,298 1,678,418 220,442
1,300,000 - -
(1,041, 265) (455,112) (453, 850)
3,335,084 3,379,972 3,426,122
3,876,349
3,274,712 3,335,084 3,379,972 3,426,122
(668, 510) (1,635,774) (3,454,886)
779,657 (856,117) (4,311,003)
Capital Needs
Remaining Deficit - - (1,300,000) (1,400,000)
12/3/2004 17
4% Utility Tax — Not on Electric Svc.
6% Expenditure Growth
Revenue Generated
Transfer to Street Fund
Transfer for Capital Needs
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Target Fund Balance 10%
Annual Surplus /(Deficit)
Ending Fund Balance
Remaining Deficit
General Fund Problem Statement #1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1,899,999 2,583,999 2,635,679 2,688,393 2,742,160
- 2,690,989 1,955,738 2,796,544 537,767
1,225,000 1,050,000
(230,896) 265,133 (898,608)
2,401,349 3,166,482 3,666,482 3,267,874 3,767,874
3,040,816 3,166,482 3,208,821 3,267,874 3,311,418
485,092
485,092
Street Fund Problem- Statement //2
307,478 (714,454) (183,264) (3,314,192)
792,570 78,116 (105,148) (3,419, 340)
Capital Needs Problem Statement //3
- (200,000) (1,300,000) (1,300,000)
2010
2,797,004
(932,658)
3,335,216
3,356,197
(3,675,328)
(7,094,668)
(1,400,000)
12/3/2004 18
spokan�
jUailey
Memorandum
To: David Mercier, City Manager
From: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Date: December 7, 2004
Re: City Attorney Recruitment
The vacancy in the Office of the City Attorney raises the question of whether the City
should continue to contract out for legal services, or hire a City Attorney. Following is
some background information should the City decide to have an in -house City Attorney.
Salary Range
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org
•_.J_. ^CCf ?J 'STC.5.��7�1i•�`. - rc ;;.:.i _9�_ • it • A1,13C 11S F.. - ., - 1:• 1, !... S
r
�-
AWC published the Washington City and County Employee 2004 Salary & Benefit
Survey. For the Washington cities with a population of 50,000 or greater who have a
City Attorney on staff, that salary range averages $7,204 - $9,512 per month.
The survey does not include a corresponding position for Washington counties.
Recruitment Costs
T contacted three recruiting firms to get initial estimates for a City Attorney search:
• The Oldani Group
• Prothman Company
• Waldron & Company
They each offer a percent -of- salary cost; however, each also quoted a flat rate. That rate
ranges from $16,000 to $25,000 depending upon the firm. Direct expenses would be
separately charged, and range from an estimated $4,000 - $8,000. Such expenses are paid
on an actual cost basis. There may be additional costs associated with brochure
development, etc.
Each firm offers a two -year guarantee as part of this arrangement.