2009, 07-23 Special Joint Council/Spokane City Council Meeting MinutesAttendance:
City of Spokane Valley
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Absent:
Mayor Munson
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
MINUTES
Joint Spokane Valley City Council/
Spokane City Council Meeting
Thursday, July 23, 2009
3:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
Spokane City Council Briefing Center, 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd.
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council President Shogan welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Spokane City
Others Present:
Judge Delaney
Judge Logan
Frank Tombari
Mary Verner, Mayor
Joe Shogan, Council President
Mike Allen, Councilmember
Bob Apple, Councilmember
Steve Corker, Councilmember
Al French, Councilmember
Absent:
Nancy McLaughlin, Councilmember
Richard Rush, Councilmember
Spokane City Staff
Ted Danek, City Administrator
James Richman, Attorney
Michael Taylor, City Engineer
1) Topics of Interest:
a. Municipal Courts. Objective: Discuss City of Spokane's Municipal Courts System including whether
it is possible to expand that system to include the City of Spokane Valley
Deputy City Mayor Denenny said the purpose of this topic is to discuss how the system is working for
Spokane, if there are any plans for expansion, and if so, would those plans include Spokane Valley; and
he asked Spokane Valley's Deputy City Attorney Driskell and Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka
to give some background on the topic; adding that we are not seeking any action on any item today, but
are here for the information and discussion. Mr. Driskell explained that in December 2008, Spokane
Valley had an opportunity to do some alternative planning on some contracts, and we looked at applicable
timeframes and determined there was an immediate need to address district court, that we had to give the
district court notice of termination by the end of January 2009 for it to be applicable two years ahead of
time; that staff started work to secure an agreement with Spokane County for district court and the two
entities agreed that if we gave notice to terminate, we could withdraw such notice by December 2009,
which would allow time to do the alternative analysis; that some of the work was done in- house, and we
contracted with a consultant from CTED to most of the work as they had background in working on
similar analysis; and he said that one option from our standpoint was contracting with another entity, and
logically that would be the City of Spokane. Regarding the original agreement with Spokane County, Mr.
Driskell explained that we did a rolling, one -year agreement with automatic renewals unless one were to
give the other six month's notice; but he said Spokane Valley staff felt that the one -year agreement runs
afoul of the statutory provisions regarding election of judges cycles, so it was determined we had to give
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
notice by January 31, 2009. Mr. Koudelka said that we asked CTED to explore all options, and added
that CTED's research division has preformed many studies for other jurisdictions; he said that the City of
Spokane staff has also been very cooperative as CTED identified the City of Spokane and in -house
service provisions as the alternative options to Spokane Valley's existing service with Spokane County
District Court; and he said this study will be completed this September and given to our council for their
review so that decisions can be reached regarding long -term service provision, which will be made prior
to December 1 of this year. In response to Mr. Shogan's question about a facility, Mr. Koudelka said there
is a courtroom in the Valley Precinct which mainly deals with traffic infractions, and said most
misdemeanors are handled at the County Courthouse.
Mr. Shogan asked Judge Delaney, Judge Logan and City Administrator Danek to explain how the present
system is functioning. Judge Delaney said in 1962 as part of the then revised court's Eliminated
Jurisdiction Act, the City elected to become part of Spokane City District Court, that they operated that
way until 1993 when there was a substantial change in the statute regarding election of judges, which
statute become effective in 1995, that had required judges to be elected for the municipal department by
city residents only and that wasn't done; that this was ultimately raised in a case and the City of Spokane
began looking at alternatives if we were not properly electing judges. He explained that they reviewed
various options for a court formation, or acquisition of court services, that there were a few differences
with Spokane County over the reading of a few statutes, and the Supreme Court validated Spokane
County's interpretation of the statutes; so a task force was formed but the ultimate decision was that the
municipal department was eliminated by the legislature; so he said they elected to form their own Court
as per RCW 3.50, which court became effective January 1, 2009; he said judges were appointed on that
day and stood for election in November; that they are now functioning as an autonomous municipal court;
that they have some inter - regional relationships with Spokane County; but other than that, they function
completely autonomously; and said they are functioning well and met the early case resolution goals; that
they are researching various alternatives to incarceration including working on an agreement with the
Department of Corrections for a work crew - oriented public service contract. Judge Delaney mentioned
that their first jury trial was within ten days of operation. Judge Logan said their facility needs help as
they are jammed in; that they are working with the Garner Street Building, but she said they need space.
The issue of dealing with in- custody court cases and transportation to the courthouse was discussed and
Police Chief VanLeuven said that the holding portion of Spokane Valley's precinct was closed but they
have a functional holding cell, which is not for long term but rather used in the initial portion until people
can be transported downtown; that there are seven cells there for storage, and the only operational portion
is processing DUI suspects, not housing anyone. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that Spokane Valley
purchased the building from Spokane County. Mr. Shogan asked if Spokane Valley wants to get into the
transportation of prisoners and Judge Delaney mentioned that jail transport issues are a driving factor in
all their cases. In response to question, Judge Logan mentioned they have a forty-five member staff.
Councilmember Gothmann asked if Spokane Valley is also required to have elected judges in its own
municipal court system, and Judge Delaney responded no, that under the current operation, Spokane
Valley has the option to contract or have their own, and Spokane Valley City Attorney Connelly added
that Spokane Valley's current system is lawful. Mr. Shogan extended his thanks to the judges and
Dorothy Webster and Cindy Marshall and said they have a well run functioning municipal court, and if
this issue needs to be further pursued, the more likely process would be on a department -to- department
level. Deputy Mayor Denenny asked about the benefit of having another municipality participate in the
cost and if Spokane is willing to pursue this in the next year or so, and Mayor Verner said they have the
capacity to contract with other jurisdictions, that they are not soliciting contracts, but as a professional
courtesy they will open their offices and staff to answer questions of Spokane Valley's consultant and
would entertain, if needed, the idea of negotiating a contract.
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
b. Regional Transportation /Transportation Benefit District (TBD). Objective: Discuss possible changes
to the TBD. (See Mayor Munson's attached "white paper ")
Mr. Shogan brought attention to Mayor Munson's "white paper" which contains issues for discussion.
Mr. Shogan said Spokane City has an approximate $7 million deficit in their upcoming budget, about half
of which is for street maintenance; he said those expenses would have been covered by REET, but as in
other communities, those revenues are about depleted; that pursuit for support of the street utility fee
came close but it didn't pass; that they have problems in the debt now to deal with even though in the
long term a street utility would be better; and he said he'd like to hear comments on the idea of a county-
wide TBD as opposed to several cities working independently. Deputy Mayor Denenny said that the
white paper re- states Spokane Valley's Council's discussions; that the TBD creates a false sense of
security and gives the impression we are fixing a problem, but it lacks flexibility and doesn't address
ongoing maintenance and operation costs (M &O) and he said that needs to be fixed before going to the
public; as he feels if the public were to vote on it, it would be difficult to bring it back again later as
presently, escalation costs are not included, there are no mechanisms to increase cost factors, and that
combined with the sunset provision are factors why Spokane Valley Council did not support it at this
time.
Discussion turned to the ability of the County to impose a $20 per vehicle fee, and Mr. Shogan said if the
Board of County Commissioners imposed such $20 fee if could do so without a vote; but it would not be
a long term solution; he said the timeframe for a TBD is 10 years; so within that lifespan we should know
if there would be a street utility fee or not; and Mr. Shogan added that he does not think voters would vote
for anything now, and said he is concerned about a two -year gap in getting a street utility through the
legislature and the $20 fee; that he understands the County Commissioners won't do anything unless a
large majority would support the action for an annual $20 vehicle fee. Mr. Shogan said he read Mayor
Munson's concerns, and added that he is hopeful Senator Brown might be able to clean up some of the
language; that he'd prefer some discussion on the annual $20 fee which might bring maybe $4 -5 million;
and said there'd have to be some agreement about allocation of funds before moving it just on registered
vehicles.
Mayor Verner distributed copies of the Senate Transportation Committee's September 24, 2008 "Spokane
County Local Option Tax Yields" supplied by Frank Tombari; she said she spoke to the House delegate
about sponsoring an amendment to the legislation and what it would take for our jurisdictions to support
an imposition of those; and said this sheet answers basic questions of how much revenue would be
generated. Mr. Tombari said these figures represent about the maximum per category county -wide; that
they are not broken down but are more of a gross number across the county; he said he asked Glenn Miles
if we could get closer on how much sales and use tax from Spokane Valley versus the unincorporated
area, and learned that would be very problematic and said they are trying to come up with mechanisms
that would allocate dollars in those categories by jurisdictions; that this is what we have to deal with now
regardless of what legislation may come up with later; and he said they are trying to determine equitable
distribution of those numbers and also deal with M &O and capital projects; and when this was drafted,
the philosophy was for funds from capital projects; that from a business standpoint they would like to see
50/50 for capital and M &O; adding that the $20 is the only thing allowed to be enacted now. Mr. Tombari
said that members of the business community have asked that we consider this countywide as employees
and employers cross boundaries; and said they are trying to come up with a reasonable and fair way to
divide the funds by jurisdiction. Mr. Shogan said that a city utility would likely be supported, but the
concern is the need for something in the interim, and added that there is nothing to say this utility fee
would be permanent.
Further discussion included comment from Councilmember Allen that there needs to be more
conversation about the issue of no escalation in the TBD, as it is a critical flaw not to consider that $10
million today would likely be half of that in the future; and Mayor Verner agreed that there are three
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
major flaws: (1) the sunset provision of ten years; (2) inflation; and (3) the lack of flexibility on the
project list, including whether M &O projects can be added. Councilmember Gothmann said that Spokane
Valley's study showed we had a $4 million gap between what we are doing and should be doing, and the
projected $2 million from this won't take care of that; so we would have to go to the voters again, and
said the idea of listing projects, even with an orderly plan, that $2 million would not do it as we'd have to
spend some of that on capital projects; and said the pavement preservation program is one of Spokane
Valley's highest priority, and said we are reluctant to support something that won't solve our problem.
Mr. Tombari responded that they asked jurisdictions to give them a rollout of the pavement, maintenance
and reconstruction annual cost and it appears the countywide issue is $44 million. Mr. Shogan said at an
immediate level, the $20 would help, but if this goes to the voters for a TBD or street utility, we would
have to decide if the $20 hurts or not as he said the County Commissioners said unless Spokane Valley
and the City of Spokane back the $20 vehicle fee, they wont' do it; which puts him in a quandary on how
to solve their shortfall now with a short -term measure, yet keep an eye on the long term. Councilmember
Allen said his concern with the $20 is it won't fix the problem, it creates voter confusion, and the County
Commissioners will get a small chunk and take the biggest hit; and said he prefers a street utility and
prefers working to get the legislative fix; adding that he doesn't like some aspects of the TBD and said it
will be harder on businesses; and both Councilmember Gothmann and Deputy Mayor Denenny said the
prefer to go to the voters with something that will solve the problem.
Mayor Verner stated that they are getting feedback from their delegation in Olympia and from members
of the Transportation Committee who will work on the street utility, that they don't know how long it will
take, there is a sense the TBD legislation has been on the books and we haven't been using the tools given
to us; and questioned if we are approaching the state and federal funding the way we should, that perhaps
we are trying to use it for everything like M &O and capital, and maybe we should go to the state and
federals for capital projects, and forget the 50/50 split, and instead try for 100% for state capital projects;
then alter 100% of local funding for local needs. Councilmember Allen remarked that if the tool is the
wrong tool, we need the right one, and so we pass it to the voters to decide which tool is right and break
down the barrier. Councilmember Apple said he supports the imposing a on vehicles only if it is regional;
that he prefers going to voters; that this has been languishing for two years with no action; and that the
street bond will run out soon; that we won't ever get the backlog for the deficit; but he would like to put
on the ballot. Mr. Shogan said he agrees, adding that the EMS measure and the mail measure will be
corning up in 2010, so perhaps a spring 2011 election would be preferred; and if the street utility does not
make it through the legislature, we need an Plan B and should keep the TBD as an option.
Mayor Verner said there are numerous options and tools; and she would request the city councils to
advocate for the County to have a county -wide street utility as we need a regional solution; and to keep
working with Glenn Miles to see about the possible formulas to distribute the funds money, whether by
population or by number of registered vehicles registered or assessed valuation; and to ask Mr. Miles to
use the $44 million in revenue as an assumption, and to try to think of which formula would be most fair
county -wide. Mr. Tombari said if everyone could come to agreement as to a revenue distribution formula,
then we would have that as the crux of the interlocal; then find a way to put the TBD together and put it to
a vote; adding that he does not share optimism on the State's ability to pass a street utility fee and until
that occurs, he recommends moving ahead with what we have to chip away some of the backlog, and said
that everyone has the same issue dealing with backlog, and wondered how much construction can we take
in our six months' time period before we shut down businesses due to lack of access or difficulty in
accessing businesses. Councilmember Corker said the election next year will make it harder for the
legislature to move, and the general economy makes it difficult; that we need to look locally and said he
can't image anything happening at the state level to give us resources within the next three to four years.
Deputy Mayor Denenny said he now has a sense of what Spokane needs and hopefully Spokane realizes
why Spokane Valley takes the position they are taking, as we try to avoid that huge million problem and
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
said if we maintain the roads now, we save eight dollars for every one dollar spent, and said he would
rather not go to the voters _multiple times, yet he hesitates implementing a tax which would create the
need to go back for a unfunded situation over years. Council President Shogan said the language of the
TBD needs refining, and concerning the street utility, we'll see what we're looking at after the legislature
is finished, and said at least we have options, adding that he doesn't see the County Commissioners
implementing a vehicle fee. Councilmember Gothmann said the needs in Spokane seem to hover on street
reconstruction, but the Spokane Valley's emphasis is on preservation, to extend life not reconstruct, and
asked would one tool work for Spokane City and another tool for Spokane Valley? Mr. Shogan said that
perhaps some of that would be inserted in the flexibility of the language of the TBD. Mr. Corker
reiterated about the concern of the legislature telling municipalities they are not taking advantage of
taxing resources; that we got into the current position because we constantly postponed issues and waited
for other to come up with solutions; and said part of the issue is taking some ownership and actions
independent f what we would expect from Olympia. Councilmember Allen agreed and said by the time
we meet in the spring, a Plan B should be mapped out; Councilmember Apple said he prefers putting the
$20 on the ballot sooner then later, and to sit down and figure out how to distribute the revenues; as
whether for maintenance or reconstruction, it still benefits the public. Councilmember French said the
City is committed to press to get the issue through the legislature, that we need to carry the ball, and he
thanked Spokane Valley for their assistance. Council President Shogan said he projects in the future that
next spring we'll know what is the strongest proposal to come out of the legislature; that we can't ask
there twice do one or the other. Mr. Tombari expressed his thanks to all the elected officials for
participating in this process, as well as to staff . City Engineer Taylor asked if there was consideration
concerning the recent issue of the split of gas tax urban and rural and said he hasn't been adjusted for a
long time; and said that urbanization happens every time there is a recession; that there has been no
reallocation of the split dollars; that he would propose asking for proper allocation and not asking for
more; and said it might be easier to work with the legislature on that topic and he'd lobby for doing
something in that regard.
c. Growth Management Act (GMA} point Planning Policies and Implementation. Objective: Discuss
how to work together inthe future
Council President Shogan said Spokane has no issues concerning this now; and Deputy Mayor Denenny
said Spokane Valley was seeking information on the background of Spokane's process in dealing with
Airway Heights, and of conversations and working with the County Commissioners in doing re-
distribution; and maybe something that Spokane has done to allow Spokane Valley to use as a template
for ongoing ventures with the County, or inputs for a process. Mayor Verner said she many of us have
been to the meetings with Susan Winchell and are familiar with the CTED funded process they have
come up with for a regional approach to annexation; she said it is important to build communication with
the County Commissioners, that the issue is the money and not the land use or the jurisdiction; that we
need to ensure the County doesn't loose all those funding streams, that we need the County's Auditor and
Assessor, but we have our own budget needs, and we suffer on urban development just outside our
borders; and that we need to receive acknowledgment that we are trying for equitable distribution of
funding; that annexation on the West Plains is complicated and the County is a major partner in this issue;
that al three parties could spend a lot on litigation, or we could sit down with the knowledge that we all
need to make money and remain whole; that revenue sharing is complex; that a better solution is time
instead of money, so if we get all the agreement in place so we all have an understanding of what land
uses will look like, who will provide what services; and suggested postponing the effective date so the
County will know that deadline is coming; and in the interim period, the county retains the responsibility
and the authority, and proposed to the county that they include them during that two -year period; to
choose a subjective date two years out which seems reasonable for all jurisdictions to make the necessary
preparation. City Planning Manager McCormick said they have been monitoring the interlocal process
and are keeping up to date on what's going on.
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
Mayor Verner said the legislature gave us a new tool, the interlocal method of annexation, and said they
are striving toward mutually agreed solutions; but said it is new law and will be tested; so they need to be
prepared to fall back on the standard petition method. Mr. Danek said working on this issue once a week
builds relationships, that this process has completely laid open some of the problems in regional funding;
adding that it is a transparent process which lends to more mutual trust. Deputy Mayor Denenny said he
would appreciate it if Spokane finds ways to give us input and interaction; and if anything Spokane does
that can help mitigate any of the misunderstandings, it would be helpful; and mentioned that Mayor
Verner came to the SWAC meeting yesterday which was very beneficial; and said we will be wanting to
talk about that in the not - too - distant future, as regarding the solid waste interlocal, Spokane Valley's
interlocal expires in 2011 before anyone else's; and said there is concern on our part regarding which
direction to go; and said perhaps we could just have an extension in the interim if needed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4 :15 p.m.
ST.
ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
4 / / )
hard nson, Mayor
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
White Paper describing the changes needed to the current Transportation Benefit District Legislation.
1. Remove the Sunset provision or extend the time frame for the Sunset Provision to allow for long
term bonding for capital projects.
2. Provide flexibility to fund emergency repairs that are not covered in the approval given in the
initial ballot issue. For example, damage caused during a declared state of emergency or severe
winter break up damage that could not be anticipated when the original voter approval ballot
process takes place. Wording could be introduced that would identify a specific portion of the
funding for such events or require a new voter approval process for new emergency projects or
emergency funding authorization for a specific list of general emergency situations (flooding,
winter breakup, snow removal or fire).
3. With voter approval, the ability to extend the life of a TBD that allows revisions or additions to
the project list stated in the original voter ballot issue. For example, in year 5 of a TBD the need
to add a new capital project (street rehabilitation) that was not anticipated in the original voter
approval ballot. This voter approved action would allow the TBD to issue new bonds to pay for
the capital project and automatically extend the life of the TBD to provide funding for the project.
Currently, a new TBD would have to be established to deal with this situation.
4. Enhanced funding mechanisms that provide sustainable funding. The ability to provide funding
that will be able to be increased as costs increase is essential. An example would be the Street
Utility Authority. Static measures such as the Vehicle Tab fee will only work until increasing
costs catch up with and surpass the revenue stream. It is essential we go to the voters once with a
funding mechanism that will solve the funding problem without having to go to them and ask for
more money to complete ongoing M &O and regional transportation projects.
5. Our initial ask list will be based on estimates. We all know the initial estimates for capital
projects are not necessarily what the actual costs are at the end of the process. Sometimes costs
are more and sometime they are less than the initial ask. The TBD must have some mechanism to
deal with unanticipated cost over -runs and leftover funds that were not expended because of
various cost savings successes. Even if we build in a contingency percentage to cover cost over
runs, many times it is not enough during periods of escalating inflation. Municipal Councils have
the ability to adjust their budgets to deal with these situations. The current TBD does not.
6. The ability for Municipalities to continue sustainable funding tools after the TBD period of
existence ends. The need for local M &O funding will not end with the termination of a TBD. If
we can provide for an unlimited life span of a TBD whose scope can be expanded with a series of
voter approved project lists than this provision is not necessary.
Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -23 -09 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council: 08 -11 -09
Transportation Benefit District (County -wide)
• Sales and Use Tax (0.2i, 10 yr limit)
• Property Tax Levy 61/$1000 AV)
• Vehicle Fee
— $20 per vehicle (councilmanic)
— $100 per vehicle (public vote)
Local Option Fuel Tax (3.75 cents)
Local MVET (0.1 %, not currently authorized)
Senate Transportation
Committee 9/24/2008
Spokane County Local Option Tax Yields
Source: DOR, DOL, SRTC
$16 -20 million / year
$12 -36 million/ year
$8 -9 million / year
$40 -45 million /year
$10 million / year
$3 -4 million / year
13
l i �
1 > 1 111
City of Spokane
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, Washington 99201
(509) 625 -6255
www.spokanecity.org
Meeting Notice
1) Topics of Interest:
a. Municipal Court
b. Regional Transportation Planning/TBD
c. GMA Policies /Implementations
CITY CLERK COUNCIL PRESIDENT
poka
Ualley°
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 921 -1000
www.spokancvallcy.org
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009
Time: 3:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
Location: City of Spokane Spokane /City Council Briefing Center
808 West Spokane Falls Blvd
The purpose of the special meeting will be for the City of Spokane Valley and
Spokane City Council to discuss the following items of mutual interest:
This is a workshop for the Spokane City Council and the City of Spokane Valley.
The meeting will be conducted in a study session format and will be open to the
public with the possibility of adjourning to an executive session. No public
testimony will be taken and discussion will be limited to appropriate officials, staff
and legal counsel.
TERRI PFISTER ALEXANDER J. SHOGAN, JR.
C. \Documents and Settings \cbainbridge\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKD5\2009 joint meeting valley (3).doc