Loading...
2009, 02-23 Special Joint Council/BOCC Meeting MinutesAttendance: City of Spokane Valley Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Absent: Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Staff: MINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners • Monday, February 23, 2009 1:30 p.m. — 4:30 p.m. Spokane County Human Resources Department Training Room 1229 W Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager John Hohman, Senior Engineer, Development Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Ian Whitney, Legal Intern Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Spokane County Todd Mielke, Chair Mark Richard, Vice -Chair Bonnie Mager, Commissioner Spokane County Staff Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Jim Emacio, DPA, Prosecutor's Office Bruce Rawls, Director Division of Utilities Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board At 1:37 p.m., Commissioner Chair Mielke called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone, and asked Mayor Munson if he had a preference for the order of agenda items. Mayor Munson said Council would like to discuss wastewater first. [Note: The following agenda items are in the order discussed.] #1. (3) Wastewater issues: Update, Capacity Projection; Moratorium, Target Rates — Bruce Rawls With the aid of his PowerPoint, Mr. Rawls explained the plant schedule and history: that a DBO (design - build option) contract and limited notice to proceed was accomplished January 13, 2009; with a full notice to proceed for construction issued February 20, 2009. Mr. Rawls said that during spring 2010 we will need TMDL (total maximum daily load) for SRF (state revolving funding); that summer 2011 we will need a TMDL/NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for startup testing of the plant; with an early start date for operations anticipated January 2012; and that the completion deadline is June 30, 2012. Mr. Rawls also reviewed effluent options of discharging to Spokane River; water reclamation to the wetlands, to industrial use, or to aquifer recharge; and briefly discussed the delta elimination plan to get a discharge permit into the River, and said he feels we will get the permit; and mentioned the STEP (sewer tank elimination program) might be able to be used as a credit. Mr. Rawls said that he met with representatives from the Department of Ecology (DOE) and that he is optimist that the TMDL river clean -up plan is going in the right direction; that if it gets appealed, it would make Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 scheduling questionable, but that he still feels the outcome would be better then it would have been before. Mr. Rawls mentioned we will be looking at the total water quality picture instead of the water quality right next to the dam; and added that with the industrial use option, which would be Inland Empire Paper, that they use about four million gallons a day, so our effluent may be suitable for their process; but that option will need further evaluation of all the chemicals to make sure it will work; and that the Paper company's seasonal shut downs would also need to be addressed. Regarding an aquifer recharge, Mr. Rawls said that would be a pilot project and if there are no other options available, we would apply for a permit and operate on a five -year interval pilot permit to determine if any technical issues arise; and that there could be some opposition to that option. Concerning the wetlands, he explained that the area in mind is the Saltese area, but he said we need to determine how much water would be put on flats and run down stream into the aquifer; adding that every option has issues, and would be expensive and challenging. Mr. Rawl's slides three and four consisted of a chart showing the sewer connection data for the past three years with a breakdown of new construction and the STEP program; and a graph showing the flow in gallons per day. An additional slide on flow projections showed that our contractual capacity is ten million gallons per day, with current unused capacity of 1.5 million gallons daily (mgd); but he said by spring 2015 the projection is to hit 10 mgd; adding that the remaining STEP customers would equal about 1.7 mgd; and he stated that we don't want to get to the point where there is no capacity forcing us not to allow new development. Concerning a sewer moratorium, Mr. Rawls said the County does not have a plan, but moratorium issues are complicated and would have to take into consideration the STEP versus new development, and that the new development would need to take into consideration commercial versus residential, and vested plats versus new plats; adding that once you use the capacity, you can't give it back. Mr. Rawls said that the estimate for remaining capacity is potentially three years past the plant opening. As a side note, Mr. Rawls mentioned that the State Health Department threatened a moratorium in 1993, which was what triggered the STEP program. Chair Mielke said that he feels we will know a lot more by the end of this year; that Jay Manning (of the DOE) wants to issue permits in the first quarter next year and if not; we would need to get together and discuss the issues further. Mr. Rawls mentioned there has been no legal discussion on vesting over the last few years; and Commissioner Richard said it would be important to review vesting and the associated elements concerning providing sewer to vested plats; with Mr. Rawls mentioning that it becomes more complicated as not every vested plat is built on, and things to consider would be ready to build or already built. Mayor Munson asked how long it might take to look at these legal issues, and Attorney Emacio responded that staff would examine these issues over the next few weeks and come back with some preliminary idea. City Manager Mercier asked where is the balance on trying to accelerate connections after STEP versus holding them off, and which would more profit the overall enterprises, taking it off the system versus not accelerating connections and thereby affecting capacity? Mr. Rawls responded that there are many variables including an aggressive water conservation program launching now with rebates, and that time will tell if the 10% overall could mean more available gallons, but that we just don't know how effective it might be, or how many people might implement it; but said that we will spend a substantial amount of funds on this and it will be beneficial in terms of wastewater. Concerning projected monthly rates, Mr. Rawls said that the current single family rate is $35.34; that a previous projection for 2012 with SFR was $38.44; but new estimates are $45 to $50 with discharge into the River; and $50 to $55 with discharge into wetlands; that revenue bond financing in lieu of LTGO (limited tax general obligation) bonds (versus revenue utility bonds which require additional reserves and sometimes have higher rates), adds $0.75 to $1.50 per month; and said there would be numerous policy decisions which would affect the rates. Mr. Rawls said a sensitivity analysis was conducted before the new rates for 2009 were determined; and said that staff will do a new rate study over the next three to four months. Items to take into consideration for rates, Mr. Rawls explained, are placing more of the charge on the connection and less on the monthly rate, or vice - versa, and how fast to ramp in the rate structure. Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 Discussion ensued regarding how to incorporate such rates into the Valley; the rate analysis; mention from Mayor Munson and Deputy Mayor Denenny that Council would like to contribute more regarding the rate format and the rate analysis and any policy decisions; that the County Commissioners would like Council's input on such; mention by Mr. Rawls that he would bring a consultant to Council to discuss key processes and that there would be another joint session before the rates are taken to a public hearing; with further comment from Mr. Rawls that other communities' rates, such as Airway Heights, would likely be at or above $50.00. Mr. Mercier asked if any financial decisions have been made yet, and Mr. Rawls responded that so far, the idea is to borrow money from the reserves until June, then sell bonds, that they are waiting until June to receive the 2007 annual report in order to get the best possible rating, and that they hope the bond market will be more conducive over the next four to five months; that the hope is to have a rate study completed, if not adopted, before June; although he mentioned that schedule might be too aggressive; but said an idea on how to pay back the indebtedness must be formulated prior to going to the bond companies. Mr. Rawls also stated that all customers would be treated the same regardless of what area they reside in; as developers don't like the different rates for different areas as it leads to selective placement of projects. Chair Mielke mentioned that the DOE is working on legislation to give greater flexibility on how to implement the timelines; that the DOE recognizes they have some inconsistencies and they are looking for flexibility to align more with federal standards to address downstream standards versus state sovereign standards; but added that he is uncertain how such legislation is progressing. City Manager Mercier mentioned the City would appreciate knowing when that final conversation would take place regarding a financing decision; and Mr. Farnell mentioned it should occur prior to June; that they are waiting for Mr. Rawls to complete the rate analysis, and feels it could be more likely in May so that financing can be addressed in June. Mr. Rawls said he hopes to have some options on sewer rates mid to late March; then make those modifications and come back in April with the results; then in May wrap -up the discussion about bonds and financing as it amounts to rates; that they are budgeted for ten or twelve different rate scenarios and will direct their consultant to do perhaps and said the City may want their staff to sit with County staff as the different scenarios are explained. Mayor Munson agreed that would be a good approach and asked to be kept appraised. Commissioner Richard said none of the Board members are excited about proposing rate increases to the citizens, that Spokane Valley citizens are also Spokane County citizens, and he would hope to work carefully and cautiously, realizing an increase will be a struggle for many; that no dollar amount has been set yet, but they are committed to make sure the system is as cost effective as possible; that they are building a sufficient plant with technology driving the costs, adding that care needs to be taken not to send conflicting statements to citizens. Commissioner Mager said everyone needs to be assured we are all in this together, and that Spokane Valley is supportive of the Board moving forward with this plan, realizing that Spokane Valley has a large stake in this as well. Mayor Munson said that Spokane Valley took the position last year to support this plant and that hasn't changed; that Spokane Valley is looking at alternatives just in case this doesn't work, but that Spokane Valley is committed to this plan. Commissioner Mielke said that the new treatment plant really does make a difference in cleaning up the River; and he acknowledged they are trying to meet standards while protecting the River and aquifer and said he feels they are still on target to do that; to which Mayor Munson agreed and said that at this point it makes sense for Spokane Valley to look at a Plan B even just to re- confirm that perhaps there is no Plan B; and that he hopes to move smoothly and keep the cost down as much as possible. Mr. Rawls mentioned that he is not aware of any other jurisdiction that has done a delta elimination plan; that Liberty Lake was looking at golf courses, but a delta elimination is a big problem for this region and he said without a STEP, we'd have more serious problems; and Commissioner Mielke added that we are uniquely situated because of the work done on delta elimination; that we have conditional approval for a facilities plan. Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 Commissioner Richard voiced his concern about comments that Spokane Valley is looking at alternatives, and he asked if Spokane Valley would like County staff to be engaged in that process, also asking when such analysis is expected to be completed; and stated that prior to the County using bonds or engaging in debt service, he wants to make sure Spokane Valley is with them; as he explained that it appears Spokane Valley is saying they're with the County, but reserve the right not to be; that the County is moving on an expensive and extensive process, and he said he does not want to hear that Spokane Valley has changed its mind in June, as that would be a significant blow. Mayor Munson said Spokane Valley is very aware of the hard work the County has done and will continue to do; and that Spokane Valley had not received any alternative to date, but that it makes sense to look at an alternative if one exists; he asked if there is any possibility of avoiding a building moratorium; that it doesn't appear that a moratorium would occur at this point, but he said that would be the trigger to have Spokane Valley state it has another plan, adding that the City has an obligation to be ready for the worst case scenario; stressing once again that it is becoming more apparent there is only one choice, but Spokane Valley must do due diligence. City Manager Mercier stated that if after the first quarter there is no permit, Spokane Valley would be amenable to come back; that the "A Plan" is with the County, but we want something on the shelf if things don't work out; adding that we need to manage remaining capacity. Conversation moved to rates and alternatives, and Chair Mielke mentioned the idea of prioritizing remaining capacity should the County not be where desired by the first quarter. Mr. Mercier asked if there is a working group looking at utilities, and asked if it would make sense to have Spokane Valley employees part of that meeting. Mr. Rawls said the Saltese Project is an ongoing project and staff meets about every quarter or so to discuss industrial re -use and recharge; that there is no "working group" but he will do everything possible to make sure Mr. Mercier and Spokane Valley Public Works Director Kersten are made aware of data concerning this; and he would appreciate City Management advising of who would want to be part of a rate study; adding that he is going on vacation for a few weeks and plans to "hit it hard" upon his return. Mr. Mercier said he would let Mr. Rawls know of which staff to involve. Mayor Munson ended by stating that Spokane Valley needs to be part of the process, and wants to work with the Board of County Commissioners on this issue. #2. (1) Contractual Relations: Objective: Discuss Pros and Cons of Contractual Relationship in the Future Attorney Emacio distributed a two -page handout showing (1) general fund - payments from the City. of Spokane Valley, (2) ISD payments from City of Spokane Valley, (3) Road Fund 110 Billings to City of Spokane Valley; and page two "Concerns Relative to Contracting." City Manager Mercier distributed a one -page copy of "Valley /County Contract Details Draft." Mr. Emacio explained that his document figures represent what Spokane Valley paid the County since the contracting process, that the figures are broken down into three categories with footnotes identifying why some of the numbers are smaller. Mr. Mercier explained that his handout uses the 2009 budget numbers and is submitted to identify the array of services for which we have interlocal agreements. Mr. Emacio explained that page two of his handout addresses the pros and cons of a contracting relationship, that some aspects are technical and some philosophical; and said the document speaks for itself. Regarding methodologies, Mr. Emacio said the issues are dealing with an indirect rate application and an inability to adopt a methodology which ensures full cost recovery; he said that while many contracts have been revised, the Sheriffs contract is still working under the 2003 methodology; that the first issue is, from a County's technical perspective, the need for constant review and revision of methodologies, and to recognize that such works both ways; and unless there are agreements to review and revise, the only way to gain attention is to terminate a contract, much like the City did with the District Court contract; and that the second issue, Mr. Emacio explained, is the indirect cost analysis; he said that Morgan Koudelka and the County's Administrative Services Department recognized that the administrative cost and indirect costs of the County issuing under the Sheriff's Office and Jail contract are not properly allocating indirect costs, and that the parties are moving to resolve that. Further, Mr. Emacio stated, as a result of the indirect rate issues, Spokane Valley opted to continue to pay the Sheriffs Office and the Jail Contracts under the 2007 rate; and he added that Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 maintenance and operation expenses and salaries have increased; and that increased rate is the new rate; but since Spokane Valley has not resolved that, there is now a shortfall in revenue, and the only option, Mr. Emacio said, is to charge interest on the payments they see as owing and due; adding that this all creates cash flow problems, and puts both parties in awkward positions. The third issue, Mr. Emacio explained is that sometimes it is impossible to re -coup all costs unless people keep exact track of time spent working on every contract; so the figures captured in indirect cost analysis don't really account for actual staff time. Regarding the road maintenance agreement, Mr. Emacio said that the contract specifies the County will receive pay only when rendering those winter snow removal services; so when there is no snow, there are no services; and that there are not a lot of other duties and responsibilities under those circumstances; but that the County still pays the staff when they are really not being as effective as they should be; summarizing that sometimes it is impossible to recapture all costs in providing services to the Valley; that some costs are negligible and some are not. Chair Mielke added that the County is in a unique circumstance, as the statutes only allow recovering costs; and said that he doesn't want to get penalized by the State Auditor for not having sound methodology; that he did not intend to go into specific contract elements today; he said regarding the law enforcement contract, there was a stipulated level of service rather than having the contract expressed in "x" number of officers per 1,000 population; that the population changes over time but that the County is still locked into a hard number; that law enforcement is concerned about appropriate backup and other issues specific to that department, and perhaps in terms of the original contract, it is not flexible; yet the terms state it can be amended by mutual agreement, and without that, the only option is to terminate and take chances to come back and negotiate terms. Chair Mielke added that a lot of time is spent in contract oversight and number checking on both sides. City Manager Mercier said that the interlocal initiated in 2003 was a new venture for both sides; and a valiant effort was made to capture as much as relevant, but that it is an evolutionary process; that Spokane Valley agrees methodologies need to be reviewed and updated and some has occurred and Spokane Valley now has about ten or eleven model contracts with unified language such as in the indemnification clause; but said he feels constrained in asking for alternatives in payment status without contractual changes; that he appreciates that the County is recapturing some expenses through indirect costs such as in the road maintenance contract, all supplies being used were purchased through the County Public Works with a 20% charge for overhead used on the supply side; and a 24% charge for an administrative provision; and said that the settle and adjust is a very serious matter and the respective staffs work diligently on that issue. Mr. Mercier continued by explaining that in August 2008, he received a letter from Mr. Farnell regarding cash flow and about the City not paying the 2008 rates; and said we accept that there might be some disagreements that might require time to resolve; that the County should not be liable for the funds and he sees no problem in making payments on it; that the County did not receive the amount cited for 2008 because of the inability to go through the settle and adjust; and stated that Spokane Valley's work suggested that in 2006, Spokane Valley was owed $609,000; so the worries for the two entities are about the same. Mr. Mercier said he indicated to Mr. Farnell last August of preferring not to go into mediation, so the City hired a forensic accountant to have "fresh eyes" to examine this and issue a report; which was issued in December; and that likewise the County contacted the State Auditor's office for additional review, and said he realizes we are waiting for that outcome. Mr. Mercier said the point is, that this is a serious amount of money, and he is concerned that it has the potential serious compounding affect; so it is important to get a mechanism for 2006 so it doesn't perpetuate in adverse ways in the future; that Spokane Valley does not seek direct subsidy from the County, and if we can identify and agree on relative costs, such as communication and maintenance, we could come to agreement with a demonstrated ability to attack issues and try to come to common understanding. Further, Mr. Mercier explained that Spokane Valley recognizes the ongoing question is whether to continue a contracting relationship, and if not, if sufficient notice could be made so we can make rational efforts to do something different. Additionally, Mr. Mercier said that after Spokane Valley's incorporation, the County had about Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 - 23 - 09 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 two million in road funds without sufficient staff to deploy; and both parties agreed we would phase out summer road services and that a transition plan was articulated to move without disadvantaging our mutual constituents. Realizing the County at any time can make a decision on whether to continue a contractual arrangement, Mr. Mercier said it is important that if the County is contemplating termination, that Spokane Valley be part of that prior to a final decision; that he acknowledges there have been some bumps along the way, and several issues have been discussed and identified, along with ways to solve those; and that at each conversation, Spokane Valley raised the issue if the County wants to do something different, we would require a three -year transition, as capital is involved in ordering equipment, which takes considerable time; and although the agreement stipulates six month's notice, and the County extended that, Mr. Mercier said it doesn't give ample time to deal with all that is required; that he respects the County's desire to do something different, but would appreciate phasing this to make it more rational. Mr. Emacio said that regarding the law enforcement contract, that Spokane Valley is in breach of that contract, as payment is based upon a template with a budget divided by twelve monthly payments with an end of the year settle and adjust; that he asked Spokane Valley to examine the contract; and said that this is why the County is upset as Spokane Valley has not been paying what it should and if there is disagreement on that amount, the monthly amount should not be changed until the matter has been reconciled; that Spokane County decided to charge interest, but said he had hoped Spokane Valley would pay the monthly amount and the settle and adjust at the appropriate time. Mr. Emacio said he has been with the County for thirty -five years, and never had so many disagreements with so many contracts, as the County has with Spokane Valley; that the County has a lot of agreements with other cities and he said he is not sure what the issue is as others' contracts can be resolved by a phone call. Mr. Emacio further explained that issues between the two entities have been more contentious perhaps because of the amount of the contract; and said he believes we should work closer regarding notification; and added that he was shocked to learn about Spokane Valley terminating the district court contract; and that the County could have been given six month's notice or the issue could have been started earlier so that the County would not have to go to the legislature to reduce the number of judges; and said the entities both need to communicate better. Chair Mielke said that in full disclosure, he and Mayor Munson discussed this about thirty day's prior to termination. City Manager Mercier said that today is the first time he heard about a "breach of contract" and will be looking into that. Mr. Mercier said that notification for termination of court services was an out throw of some shock and surprise that our Council experienced when the road services contract was suddenly terminated; a consequence of that action was to put Council on alert that there may be other contracts with the County where the County might want to do something else; that this highlighted the importance of having a "Plan B" so Council ordered an alternatives analysis for the contracts. Mayor Munson added that he sent e-mails to all three Commissioners before the decision, to advise that it was coming and why; and that for all the contracts, an extra effort would be made well in advance of any debate. Sudden termination of the road maintenance contract, Mr. Mercier continued, put the City in a defensive posture and necessitated having another plan if anything else were not to continue. Regarding the District Court contract, Mr. Mercier said the statutory requirement was that the City had to give notice by February 1 or would not have another opportunity to do so until 2015; and he explained that Deputy City Attorney Driskell talked to members of the bench about this prior to the issue coming before Council for decision, and to the Board of County Commissioners, explaining that a very short time span was in operation. Mayor Munson said the City would like an extension of the snow removal contract; that when the original contract was formulated, it allowed for three to four months for a transition plan; but that he wants to make sure our mutual citizens have snow removal that will get the job done; and again asked the Board to reconsider to negotiate on how to work this out. Chair Mielke said that the Board had originally engaged in those contracts and may have sent mixed messages; that perhaps it was discussed as being a transition issue or a long term basis, but provided there is mutual sharing, there wasn't a problem; but for whatever Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 reason, the summer road piece went away, and an issue for him is the no payment unless the snow falls and the plows are out in the City limits; that the last two years are not good examples as there has been plenty of work; but prior to that, they went through a number of years where there were lower amounts or no snow; and it still cost to have crews ready to go; that there are full -time employees and in reviewing the County's financial issues, the Board must look at the revenue streams and where we are "hanging out a little;" that if you don't get the winter you think you will, the revenue stream is affected; and said it costs to have a crew ready to go on standby; and there are costs to being ready without compensation. Mr. Mercier said he understands the concern and would be happy to discuss this; but said his understanding was, there would not be layoffs as a result of the County not having the summer road piece; adding that he would like an opportunity to better understand. Mayor Munson agreed and said that the City is asking to open negotiations in order to accommodate all needs; and said he does not expect an answer now. Chair Mielke said he felt the employee change would occur over time through attrition. Employees were on the County clock on standby, explained Commissioner Richard, who said that County Engineer Bob Brueggeman had indicated it was a net zero gain; but would likely have a slight increase in impact to the budget; that percentage -wise, the inability to perform is greater than the loss; that regarding the transition and who initiated it, he said he still doesn't know all the answers, but recalls having this conversation when he was a candidate in 2005 and 2006; that there were a couple constrains then and there were some decisions based on an inability to serve some summer contract elements; that Spokane Valley felt they were not adequately serving the interest and in 2005 or 2006, it may have been mutually felt that Spokane Valley was making the effort to prioritize some elements. Commissioner Richard said this has to be a mutually beneficial relationship, and for the County to remain committed, he doesn't want to compromise levels of service; that he discussed this with each councilmember; and said that those are our employees and the County logo, and it is the county phone that rings; that it is important not to compromise that level of service; that there must be communication and dialogue; and decisions made about the number of inches of snow before deploying plows should be communicated to the Board prior to incorporating such decisions. Regarding the "all or nothing" concept, Commissioner Richard said the Board began to feel it was the desire of Spokane Valley to take on the sweeping, and it was the engineer's opinion it was the beginning of the phasing out; which contemplated all except the snow removal. Further, Commissioner Richard said comments at the City's retreat could have been handled better; that he never heard there may have been some mutual culpability, but continues to hear that Spokane County is not addressing trust; and said we have to address how to talk about our employees in the newspapers; and mentioned criticism about County employees taking off for Christmas Day; he said this is not good and employees don't feel respected; adding that the City has to recognize that what is said has a ripple affect of County employees' morale; and he asked for Spokane Valley's commitment to be careful what they say and do before making a comment in the media about the level of service from County employees. City Manager Mercier said that neither City of Spokane Valley employees nor City officials made derogatory comments about the County crew; that he had heard there were such comments, but performed a media search and found none; so there is some myth in operation; and added that he could not think of anyone saying anything other then compliments about the County's road work; but said that he recognizes that the county will be contacted by the public when they are disgruntled about snow removal; and said that the City has added a hot line for such calls; and said that the City would be willing to put magnetic signs on the equipment when the service is done by Spokane Valley; but there is a difference between pre- and post - incorporation, in that the deployment trigger in the past was when the valley floor had four or more inches; and in the first three years, the valley floor was plowed only once; but the change discussed was when traffic is functionally impaired, the plows should be deployed, and said staff talked with County staff well in advance of council hearing that, and Mr. Mercier said he apologizes if the word did not reach the Board of County Commissioners, and he urged the County, that when they think there is an incident, to contact the City and the City would try to get to the facts. Commissioner Richard said there Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 were a series of newspaper articles about the decision not to go into residential streets in 2008, but staff telling them to go there; and there are issues such as hiring, letting go, and hiring again independent contractors and of some challenges in the first year of their use; and likewise asked the City if they recognize a potentially damaging issue, to call. Commissioner Richard said he talked about magnetic signs a few years ago, and said that while that may have been more tongue -in- check; perhaps it is something to consider. Regarding the law enforcement services, Councilmember Schimmels said he is ashamed of both entities; that this has been going on for three years; and he suggests the County and Spokane Valley staff invoke mediation; and get this issue behind us and move forward. Attorney Emacio said the issue is very complex; and mentioned a need to reduce the methodology to writing; but that the County is waiting to get a response from the State Examiner; and then staff can sit down with Spokane Valley's expert and discuss the issue; adding that he feels this needs to be resolved at staff level. Mr. Farnell said that should be coming soon, and that they would share that information with Spokane Valley; that there are many frustrating issues like jail costs, pre -trial issues, how to recover costs; fractionalization of felonies and misdemeanors and how costs are recovered. To clarify, City Attorney Driskell mentioned that the timeline has not been three years, as the 2006 billing period reconciliation didn't start until late 2007. Mr. Mercier added that there is no known purposeful drag time; and Mayor Munson mentioned that fractionalization is a state -wide issue and the Washington Association of Cities is working on coming up with a formula for the good of all entities; and as an aid to communication and to staying informed on the issues, Mr. Mercier said he attends the Board's Tuesday meetings. There was further discussion on the mutual benefits of open communication and cooperation on various issues and practices; sharing the same economic system; sharing the same constituents; how hearing rumors without explanations causes frustration on both sides; about providing ongoing services; the use of public record requests between entities; and of possible councilmanic actions. #3. (2) Metro Road Standards: Objective: Obtain Commitment of jurisdictions to prioritize project completion It was mentioned that this topic can be placed on a future agenda, but briefly the issue concerns private roads inside the urban growth boundary; and connectivity; and of looking at unified standards. Mayor Munson said he sent Commissioner Mager a position paper last week concerning road standards and connectivity. Mr. Mercier mentioned a working group at SRTC has been addressing this and their last meeting was back in September; and that City Engineer Hohman is working on our street standards program with the hope of completing that this summer. Mr. Hohman said the City's standards were always similar to the County as they were adopted from the County's standards; and that the City is projecting to stay with those standards; but that the committee left off on the larger issues such as private streets and connectivity and that they just started to get to that last summer. Chair Mielke said if Spokane Valley adopts the road standards, and if they are substantially similar to that original spreadsheet, it would be just a matter of having dialogue on some public policy issues; and he proposed to jointly take a look at that and use the spreadsheet as a template; and work toward joint adoption; and mentioned all this goes back to the joint planning agreements and being able to reference a unified document; and Commissioner Richard added that the goal is to have one document, and if it didn't exactly fit every city, the County could come up with something uniformly acceptable to the municipalities so that the County would not have twelve different road standards. Mayor Munson said he has no problem in working to get that template. Mr. Mercier suggested that once the study is finished, to continue in a regional effort, and if the SRTC group gets re- energized, some of the work could be done in parallel. Chair Mielke said he could assign their staff to work with the City's and to pick up where SRTC left off; with Mr. Mercier saying he would be happy to share all information. Mr. Hohman stated that the draft wasn't quite ready, but that he would be interested in sharing and moving forward; much as City staff did on the regional stormwater design; a long process but it worked well. Chair Mielke mentioned that perhaps SRTC could "cue this Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 back up" and if Spokane Valley is willing, this issue can be identified on the strategic calendar for 2009; and when it comes up for discussion, it would be beneficial to have staff to help explain the issues. 4. Emergency Communications Initiative Update: Objective: Discuss status of system upgrade, specifically the change in sales tax collection projections Regarding the 1 /10 of 1% sales tax to allow an interoperable system to meet FCC mandates, Spokane Police Department Planning Unit Manager Bob Lincoln explained that within two months, he will have a plan that states more precisely what is needed and what will occur, and he distributed copies of his four - page handout on the revenues in the county and historical revenue changes, along with future estimates; projected grant needs, estimated bond service expense, and an organizational chart showing aspects of regional communications; he mentioned that the funds are not needed in 2009 but the cash flow will be needed in 2010; that they have not issued a "Request for Proposals" yet but hope once drafted and released, the bids would be very competitive; that they are still looking at some site work but haven't completed the survey of sites; and he mentioned the future bond market is unknown, and regarding sales tax revenue, they actually have more questions then answers now; and he added that from January 17 to February 12, they have probably seen the worst credit for this, and that globally banking has absorbed about 12% so the financial impact and is not even close to what it could be; ending by explaining that they are trying to confirm costs. 5. Outcome Based Meetings: Objective: Discussion of future meetings It was mutually agreed that the parties should strive to meet quarterly, and will work toward a goal of having another meeting in May. 6. Discussion of Future Meeting Topics In the interest of time, this was not discussed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:37 p.m. ainbridge, C Clerk Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 02 -23 -09 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: March 10, 2009 „di 6) Discussion of Future Meeting Topics CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AGENDA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING Spokane Valley City Council Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Monday, February 23, 2009 1:30 p.m. — 4 :30 p.m. Spokane County Human Resources Department Training Room Main Floor, 1229 W Mallon Avenue, Spokane, WA DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDE (but are not limited to): ,4 2, Topic: Contractual Relationships Objective: Discuss Pros and Cons of Contractual Relationship in the Future. 2) ' opic: Metro Road Standards Objective: Obtain Commitment of jurisdictions to prioritize the completion of this project v) 1 Topic: Wastewater Issues a) Update b) Projection of Capacity c) Status of Moratorium d) Target Rates (general discussion) I /4) Topic: Emergency Communications Initiative Update Objective: Discuss status of communication system upgrade s, sales tax collection projections. • ecifically the change in 5) Topic: Outcome Based Meetings Objective: Discussion of future meeting between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County (City of Spokane Valley to lead). During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action” on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action" means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider, evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision. 02/23/2009 Joint Meeting, Council & Spokane County Board of County Commissioners NO 9_ Q /// IN THE MATTER CONCERNING A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL AND THE SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, pursuant to RCW 42.30.080, that the Board of County Commissioners will meet with the City of Spokane Valley Council at a Special Meeting The purpose of the special meeting will be for the Board of County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council to take "action," as that term is defined in RCW 42.30.020, on the following items: DATED this 20th day of February 2009. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009, AT 1:30 P.M. Human Resources Dept. Training Room, Main Floor 1229 W. Mallon Avenue, Spokane, WA 1) Topic: Contractual Relationships Objective: Discuss pros and cons of contractual relationship in the future. 2) Topic: Metro Road Standards Objective: Obtain commitment of jurisdictions to prioritize the completion of this project. 3) Topic: Wastewater Issues a) Update b) Projection of Capacity c) Status of Moratorium d) Target Rates (general discussion) 4) Topic: Emergency Communications Initiative Update Objective: Discuss status of communication system upgrade specifically the change in sales tax collection projections. 5) Topic: Outcome Based Meetings Objective: Discussion of future meeting between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County (City of Spokane Valley to lead). 6) Discussion of Future Meeting Topics The Board of County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council reserve the right to consider but not "take final action" on any other item of concern to either entity. Any person may appear at the time, place and date of the Special Meeting and observe the action(s) of the Board of County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council. No public testimony will be received. Staff may be asked to respond to questions. Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board ) ) ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON TODD MIELKE, CHAIR NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Board of County Commissioners City of Spokane Valley Council Wastewater Issues February 23, 2009 Water Reclamation Plant Schedule • January 13, 2009 -- Signed DBO Contract & Issued Limited Notice to Proceed • February 20, 2009 — Issued Full Notice to Proceed for Construction • Spring 2010 need TMDL for SRF Funding • Summer 2011 need TMDL/NPDES Permit for startup testing of Plant • January 2012 Early Start Date for Operations • June 30, 2012 Completion Deadline Effluent Options • Discharge to Spokane River • Water Reclamation to Wetlands • Water Reclamation to Industrial Use • Water Reclamation to Aquifer Recharge 1600 1400 1200 z 1000 0 1- w 800 z z 0 • 600 400 200 0 SBNER CONNECTION DATA -PAST 3 YEARS 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 New Const STEP Total ■ 2006 • 2007 0 2008 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000.000 6,000,000 6 4 1 5,000,000 w 4.000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 a .► � 4. A A ,�l A. i! .. ;. A A A ♦ i. ♦ �. � has :.� :.sae. w :i �..ji� .�.r+./ +T+� s tii�iti�i� ta�a�. c!' Date L. . L a r f t r • i t J f i r i ; ` ` {.� ' l i � r � iti • ti r ti �� �� , a' a. tt o a � i L a 1 a ` ' .; f ' o m f � ' .y ti � . "r ' • • .1 . f 5 •/ '• •• 1 � .� 1 .1 1 • ? • � ,��' 1 r 4• :} :";C ka f ti • ti f cv , c� f • ; .r c v r . r ti r r ti r —4— Spokane Valley Interceptor — North VaIley Interceptor Northspokane Interceptor -- Sprague Avenue Trunk -- Carnahan Area Trunk —�- Total County Flows Linear (Total County Flows) Flow Projections • Contractual Capacity -10 million gallons per day • Current Unused Capacity -1.5 mgd • Spring 2012 Unused Capacity -0.75 mgd • Spring 2015 - Projected to hit 10 mgd • Remaining STEP customers=1 .7 mgd Sewer Moratorium? • County does not have a plan • STEP vs New Development? • New Development >Commercial vs Residential? >Vested Plats vs New Plats? Monthly Rates • 2009 - Single Family Rate = $35.34 • Previous projection -2012 SFR= $38.44 • New estimates -2012 SFR= $45 -$50 with river discharge; $50 -55 with wetlands • Revenue Bond Financing in lieu of LTGO bonds adds $0.75 -$1.50 per month • Numerous policy decisions affect the rates (1) General Fund- Payments from City of Spokane Valley* f2) ISD Payments from City Spokane Valley (3) Road Fund 110 Billings to City of Spokane Valley ** *Notes: Source: Administrative Service Department Records. Numbers are the dollars collected in that year. The numbers in a given year include the debit or credit from the prior year's settle and adjust. 2003 Sheriff is for 7 months only; the County had to provide Sheriff Services for the first 60 days. 2006 Communications includes 2005 amount. Year 2006 has not been settled and adjusted for Communications, Jail and Sheriff. Year 2007 has not been settled and adjusted for any department. Because Year 2006 Sheriff is in dispute, Valley paid 2007 Sheriff rate in 2008 and is paying same rate in 2009 * *2003 County was required to provide road maintenance services for 60 days from official date of incorporation. Page 1 of 2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Animal Control 286,663 394,455 375,137 400,811 331,518 348,865 Communications - - - 246,876 93,383 142,338 District Court 798,005 655,755 653,165 770,262 694,777 750,950 Emergency Management 36,482 56,092 65,129 96,448 79,194 86,403 Hearing Examiner 23,365 34,113 37,619 16,726 95,688 35,505 Parks 603,481 929,698 - - - - Pre -Trial 19,125 24,762 34,652 42,288 48,131 43,266 Probation 6,604 30,908 24,353 - - - Prosecutor 271,621 218,705 289,475 364,615 336,742 352,257 Public Defender 260,946 215,519 306,416 389,580 284,355 328,516 Sheriff 6,760,660 11,718,935 12,579,861 13,603,131 13,906,412 13,906,412 Jail 117,825 267,854 309,024 380,544 341,665 354,355 Prosecutor Animal Ordinance 4,449 5,099 1,594 - - - Precinct M &O 36,784 36,217 52,031 78,758 - - Jury Management 2,581 1,873 1,058 - - SUBTOTAL "1 ": 9,226,010 14,590,693 14,730,329 16,391,097 16,211,865 16,348,867 (1) General Fund- Payments from City of Spokane Valley* f2) ISD Payments from City Spokane Valley (3) Road Fund 110 Billings to City of Spokane Valley ** *Notes: Source: Administrative Service Department Records. Numbers are the dollars collected in that year. The numbers in a given year include the debit or credit from the prior year's settle and adjust. 2003 Sheriff is for 7 months only; the County had to provide Sheriff Services for the first 60 days. 2006 Communications includes 2005 amount. Year 2006 has not been settled and adjusted for Communications, Jail and Sheriff. Year 2007 has not been settled and adjusted for any department. Because Year 2006 Sheriff is in dispute, Valley paid 2007 Sheriff rate in 2008 and is paying same rate in 2009 * *2003 County was required to provide road maintenance services for 60 days from official date of incorporation. Page 1 of 2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SUBTOTAL "2" 459.39 116,434.82 171,855.09 177,789.77 184,579.53 187,060.83 (1) General Fund- Payments from City of Spokane Valley* f2) ISD Payments from City Spokane Valley (3) Road Fund 110 Billings to City of Spokane Valley ** *Notes: Source: Administrative Service Department Records. Numbers are the dollars collected in that year. The numbers in a given year include the debit or credit from the prior year's settle and adjust. 2003 Sheriff is for 7 months only; the County had to provide Sheriff Services for the first 60 days. 2006 Communications includes 2005 amount. Year 2006 has not been settled and adjusted for Communications, Jail and Sheriff. Year 2007 has not been settled and adjusted for any department. Because Year 2006 Sheriff is in dispute, Valley paid 2007 Sheriff rate in 2008 and is paying same rate in 2009 * *2003 County was required to provide road maintenance services for 60 days from official date of incorporation. Page 1 of 2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Maintenance 891,923 2,295,539 2,403,809 2,600,088 1,541,682 1,589,575 Engineering Services 440,288 948,244 205,263 269,852. 544,167. 428,436 SUBTOTAL "3 ": 1,332,211 3,243,783 2,609,072 2,869,940 2,085,849 2,018,011 TTAL~, 20 10, 58.8,5:8:03:9, 17,,915:0,9x1I0J8y2 1 ,54111 09 10,43.8,826.77 13,482 18,553,938.83 (1) General Fund- Payments from City of Spokane Valley* f2) ISD Payments from City Spokane Valley (3) Road Fund 110 Billings to City of Spokane Valley ** *Notes: Source: Administrative Service Department Records. Numbers are the dollars collected in that year. The numbers in a given year include the debit or credit from the prior year's settle and adjust. 2003 Sheriff is for 7 months only; the County had to provide Sheriff Services for the first 60 days. 2006 Communications includes 2005 amount. Year 2006 has not been settled and adjusted for Communications, Jail and Sheriff. Year 2007 has not been settled and adjusted for any department. Because Year 2006 Sheriff is in dispute, Valley paid 2007 Sheriff rate in 2008 and is paying same rate in 2009 * *2003 County was required to provide road maintenance services for 60 days from official date of incorporation. Page 1 of 2 (1) METHODOLOGIES CONCERNS RELATIVE TO CONTRACTING May not result in full cost recover to County. Methodologies need further review and refinement to ensure full cost recovery. (i.e. Sheriff Department 2002 -2003 methodology has not been formally updated, and did not reflect certain costs for: (i) Grant coordinator - City declined to reimburse the County; (ii) City of Spokane Assistant Police Chief - City declined to reimburse the County; (iii) Drug Endangered Child Detective - City declined to reimburse the County. - --> Unincorporated tax payers arguably are subsidizing the City. (2) ISSUES REGARDING INDIRECT RATE APPLICATION. County /City had concerns with regard to application of indirect costs as it applied to the Sheriff's and Jail contracts. Both parties recognize this issue and are working toward a resolve. - > Until the issue is resolved City and County cannot reconcile 2006 Sheriff's contract. Additionally City continues to pay County for Sheriff's services based upon 2007 rates. For 2008 the City should have paid an additional $665,806. For 2009, if the City continues to pay at the 2007 rate for entire 2009, the County will be short an additional $1.6 Million. --> City's determination to pay at the 2007 rate contributes to County cash flow problems. - > City's determination to pay at the 2007 rate precludes the County from earning interest in the Treasure's Investment Pool. (3) INABILITY TO ADOPT A METHODOLOGY WHICH ENSURES FULL COST RECOVERY. Although the parties can adopt the methodology that closely allocates costs, it is impossible to allocate costs accurately without time consuming record - keeping, which is impracticable and impossible. (i.e. Budget Analyst spends 50% of her time administering City contracts and responding to City inquiries over contracts. City does not pay 50% of her salary/benefits. They pay based upon a formula that does not capture actual cost.) Page 2 of 2 -* Unincorporated taxpayers arguably are subsidizing the City. Revenues: Spokane County Juvenile /Jail Sales Tax Accurals 2007 2008 Change % by month Jan 566,027 546,621 -3.43% 6.97% Feb 549,475 555,060 1.02% 6.72% Mar 702,483 677,901 -3.50% 8.28% Apr 629,701 598,493 -4.96% 7.84% May 664,621 662,214 -0.36% 8.02% Jun 778,138 742,122 -4.63% 9.19% Jul 682,931 676,113 -1.00% 8.65% Aug 707,884 675,924 -4.51% 8.55% Sep 766,372 722,344 -5.74% 9.09% Oct 676,818 638,059 -5.73% 8.46% Nov 634,461 584,144 -7.93% 7.86% Dec 812,180 745,314 -8.23% 10.36% 8,171,091 7,824,309 -4.24% 100.00% Historical Annual Revenue Changes 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0.52% 1.56% 7.14% 8.11% 9.26% 5.42% -4.24% June 2008 revenue estimates: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 yr. 7.7 7.93 8.17 8.41 8.66 8.93 9.19 9.47 9.75 10.05 88.27 February 2009 revenue estimates: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 yr. 7.3 7.37 7.59 7.82 8.06 8.30 8.55 8.80 9.07 9.34 82.20 -6.00% 1.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% ti 1. 1- Communications Grants Interoperable Communications Grant (ends 02/28/2010) Grant 3,000,000 Match 1,000,000 Encumbered (1,685,485) Balance 2,314,515 Public Safety Interoperable Communicatons Gratn (ends 09/30/2010) Grant 1,919,800 Match 477,500 Encumbered (333,500) Balance 2,063,800 Project Plan: Radio sites - civil work 2009 Grant funds Site improvements 2009/2010 Grant funds Detailed RF design 2009/2010 Grant funds 2010 Civil construction 2010 Tax funds vendor design 2010 Tax funds manufacture 2010 Tax funds 17 mill 2011 Installation 2011 Tax funds Portables /mobiles 2011 Tax funds 14 mill 2012 Final acceptance 2012/2013 Tax funds 13 mill 44 mill Expenses: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 yr. SRECS oper. 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.60 0.69 0.79 0.91 1.05 1.20 7.18 SRECS cap. 1.75 15.3 13.8 12.4 1 44.25 Crime check 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.37 1.44 1.51 1.59 1.67 1.75 14.21 911 shortfall 0 0.00 0.03 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.80 1.00 1.20 4.73 Reverse notif. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.00 replacement fund 1 1 1 1 1_5 1_5 7.00 total 3.43 17.06 15.67 14.53 4.37 3.73 4.11 4.40 5.32 5.76 78.38 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 yr. Revenue 7.3 7.37 7.59 7.82 8.06 8.30 8.55 8.80 9.07 9.34 82.20 Expense 3.43 17.06 15.67 14.53 4.37 3.73 4.11 4.40 5.32 5.76 78.38 3.87 -9.69 -8.08 -6.71 3.69 4.57 4.44 4.40 3.75 3.58 3.82 Estimated Bond Debt Service Expense: $44 million / 10 years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 yr. SRECS oper. 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.60 0.69 0.79 0.91 1.05 1.20 7.18 Crime check 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.37 1.44 1.51 1.59 1.67 1.75 14.21 911 shortfall 0 0.00 0.03 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 0.80 1.00 1.20 4.73 Reverse notif. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.00 replacement fund 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 7.00 Debt service 5.3 5_3 5_3 5.3 5_3 5_3 5_3 5_3 5_3 5_3 53.00 6.98 7.06 7.17 7.43 8.67 9.03 9.41 9.70 10.62 11.06 87.13 Jun -08 Feb -09 Revenue 88.27 82.2 Expense 89.43 87.13 -1.16 -4.93 A t L.E. Dispatch Board SPD • SCSO • Small LE Agency Chief LE Dispatch Manager 1 /10th of 1% Radio System County- wide Interoperability Regional Communications Infrastructure Manager Emergency Communications Systems Sub - Committee Regional Emergency Communications /IT Systems Director Board of County Commissioners Emergency Services Communications Policy Board (911) Information Technology Manager Spokane County Emergency Communications Services Director (911) Operations Manager Telephone Project/ NG911 Crime Check Radio Communications Manager I Citizen Oversight Committee Version 15.0 7/10/08 Fire Services Fire Dispatch Manager 911 Operations Committee: SPD SCSO, Cheney PD Fire CCC Base funding from SCSO /SPD Delta from 1 /10th a . Contract 2009 Preliminary Budget Total Renewal Terms Contract Termination Notice State Minimum Termination Notice Animal Control $ 333,575.00 automatic annual 180 days Communications . Maintenance $ 176,800.00 automatic annual 180 days District Court $ 787,200.00 automatic annual 180 days • 23 -71 months (RCW 3.50.810) Emergency Management Services $ 121,900.00 continuing 180 days (effective Dec 31st of any given year) Geiger Corrections $ 278,200.00 automatic annual 180 days GIS&Plus $ 200,000.00 concurrent with the ESRI software agreement 30 days Hearing Examiner $ 25,590.00 automatic annual 180 days • Jail Serivices $ 404,200.00 automatic annual 180 days 90 days (RCW 70.48.090) Jury Management Services $ • , 5,000.00 automatic annual 180 days Law Enforcement Services $ 17,054,909.00 automatic annual One year -23 months (No later than Dec 31 of the year prior to the year in which the services are to terminate -- effective Dec 31st) Pretrial Services Contract $ 47,400.00 automatic annual 180 days Probation County retains revenue automatic annual 90 days Prosecution $ 374,900.00 automatic annual . 180 days Public Defender $ 351,500.00 automatic annual 180 days Roads $ 1,512,316.00 automatic annual 180 days Notes RCW 3.50.810 RCW 70.48.090 Valley /County Contract Details Draft 1) Any city having entered into an agreement for court services with the county must provide written notice of the intent not Tess than one year prior to Feb 1st of the year in which all district court judges are subject to election. 2) Any city that terminates an agreement for court services to be provided by a district court may the agreemi 3) A county that wishes to terminate an agreement with a city for the provision of court services must provide written nc authority not less than one year prior to the expiration of the agreement 1) Contracts for jail services may be made between a county and a city, and among counties and cities. The contracts : for the operation of the jails, specify the responsibilities of each governing unit involved, and include the applicable cha adjustments in the charges. The contracts may be terminated only by ninety days written notice to the governing units i termination and the specific plans for accommodating the affected jail population. D 4 V.-( N ? El ; e (e____