Loading...
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