Loading...
2009, 01-05 Special Retreat MinutesJanuary 05, 2009 Attendance: Councilmembers Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Others: Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald MINUTES SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL Spokane Valley City Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room Spokane Valley, Washington Staff Mayor Munson opened the meeting at approximately 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Kathy McClung, Community Develop. Dir. Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Roads/Weather Update: Mayor Munson suggested having a discussion and an update of the road /snow situation, and he mentioned that the decision was made last night to close schools today based on impending snow, lack of visibility, and that the students would be forced to wait in the street for their bus, and /or would be walking to school in the streets since the sidewalks were thoroughly obscured. Chief VanLeuven added that the Sheriff did a live broadcast today and mentioned that the decision for school opening tomorrow would be left to the superintendent' discretion; but that East Valley, Cheney, and others said they would not re- open; and he said many people are hard at work today to open the sidewalks in front of the schools. Chief VanLeuven also mentioned that work would be done tonight to remove a berm off the sidewalk from North Pines Junior High School. City Manager Mercier explained that meanwhile the National Weather Service indicated rain will be spread out over the next three to four days, but that there is no concern about the River cresting its banks, and he said the emphasis has been to deploy as much equipment as necessary to get the roadways open. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that he has copies of "FEMA Snow Emergency Assistance Policy" and "US Small Business Administration Disaster Assistance Loans" handouts which will be kept with the City Clerk should anyone wish a copy. Mr. Mercier reported that we are more likely to see urban flooding as the snow melts and runs down the road, and there will not be easy access, if access at all, to the drywells; and the melting will result in pockets of pooling, and we will have equipment to deal with those on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Mercier said there was also discussion about removing the snow from the sidewalks, although that has never been attempted in the past and at this point would not be practical as it would result in an astronomical cost; but we have turned our focus on the more sensitive points for schools and what can be done to reduce the concern there, aside from bringing in a $70,000 a day grader to widen the roadways, which Mr. Mercier said he opposes doing unless there are problems with getting emergency crews throng , and said that widening the roadways would also re -clog all the driveways; and said he feels it will be several weeks before we see the sidewalks again; but that we will try to address problems on a case -by -case basis. Speaking to non - transportation weather issues, Deputy City Manager Jackson said the other concern of businesses and homeowners is the snow loading on roofs; and said that especially flat roofs are getting marginal and that likely even another inch could cause failures. Mr. Jackson said the police precinct roof Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 has been shoveled, and the CenterPlace roof is in good condition; as is the Western Dance Hall, and that it is his understanding it costs approximately $3,000 to get this building's roof shoveled. Mayor Munson said that an estimated 75 roofs have caved in throughout the County. 1. Review 2009 Council budget goals — Dave Mercier/Mike Jackson Goal #1: Continue monitoring wastewater issues, including governance of wastewater facilities and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharge licenses. City Manager Mercier explained that we generally begin each retreat with a re -visit of the council goals; and he asked if there were any suggestions for goal #1. Although no changes were suggested to the goal., there was brief discussion on the topic of wastewater with mention of the County voting tomorrow to build the facility, and the TMDL (total maximum daily load) process which everyone wants solved. Mayor Munson voiced his opinion that this issue could end up in court which might result in forcing a building moratorium; that Attorney Connelly mentioned his department has begun research on related issues and what rights we would have if faced with a moratorium decision. Mayor Munson said he has started preliminary discussions with the City of Spokane for a Plan B as they possibility have the capacity to assist us, but even if that is the case, the building pipe cost associated with it is a concern; and he said that in 2003 the estimated cost to build a plant was $100 million. Goal #2: Seek funding sources for City Center that builds upon the City's initial investment in a City Hall to spur further private investment in the development of a mixed use City Center. Mr. Mercier said that this is likely the most challenging goal to deal with as when this goal was constructed last June, it was hoped that our SARP would be complete by now and we would be focusing on the plan's implementation, but he said we still hope to get there and adopt the Plan in February or March; however, there are questions about what to do about City Hall, when you pull the trigger on that, and the basic question of how to go about blending that with other needs and financing in the City Center, and he asked Council if they would like to modify this language to reflect the current day sense of reality. Council discussion included the idea of removing this goal for this year; analyzing design alternatives once the design has been completed; with the current economy, funding is not likely to be approved by the public this year; the idea of including some aspect of this project in with the economic stimulus package and thereby receive federal funding versus public funding; continue investigating alternative funding mechanisms; waiting until June to address this goal further; or remove as a goal but keep planning and researching. Mr. Mercier said regarding possible 2009 accomplishments with this project in 2009 includes negotiating a sales purchase agreement for the property and given the opportunity, perhaps purchasing the property in 2009; and doing the next phase of architectural planning and design. Councilmembers expressed their desire to keep this a live goal and to continue to investigate funding sources, realizing Council will be adopting the Plan which will leave a lot of administrative and code related components to address, likely by fall or next winter. There was Council consensus to move this goal to the bottom of the list, and to change it to read "Seel - Explore future funding sources for City Center that builds upon the City's initial investment in a City Hall to spur further private investment in the development of a mixed use City Center. Goal #3: Identify performance measures for the Police Department and monitor progress in their attainment. Mr. Mercier said that through the ICMA Consulting and our evaluation of that report, we are addressing this goal; and he is not sure we need to do anything else in that regard, as the original wording best describes the underlying intent of the study. There was some discussion on the idea of changing some of the wording, or to have a new goal to continue to monitor and assess all or some contracts, or to address having a separate goal later. Mr. Mercier said we are already initiating alternate analysis for services we derive under contract; and regarding a performance measure, he recommended trying out the one we have in the business plan, get the citizen's survey results, get the ICMA results, then test drive this for a while, so this would be phase one of a multi -phase endeavor. No changes were suggested to this goal. Goal #4: Implement and evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by the City Council. There were no suggested changes for this goal, and it was Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 mentioned that the schedule is to adopt the SARP in March following a final public hearing; and to also allow for thirty day's of "digestion" time between the last deliberation and the adoption of the plan. Mayor Munson said there was agreement today to add a special meeting for Monday January 12 to further discuss the SARP, and there is still the possibility of adding a meeting for Monday, January 26 if needed. Goal #5: Evaluate the availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City. Discussion included mention that the County accelerated our movement to this goal, and originally Council felt this would be an initial attempt to do an appropriate alternate analysis while not under duress; that there are serious concerns with this goal, and a more rational way would have been to have more than eight or nine months' notice; mention was made that if we go to the private sector and ask them to make a long term investment decision, they would need to have a sense that this will be more than one fiscal period. The conversation included mention of the current winter /road conditions, and Mr. Mercier said that no community in this State could afford to handle events like these last few weeks, and there has never been an attempt to haul snow off sidewalks, and we have never had to contend with this amount of snow. Speculation concerning whether the current County contract provisions were sufficient; and mention that any private contractor would assess the situation differently; however, when we told Senske of our park expectations, it was easier to determine how to meet expectations rather than try to regulate precisely how much grass should be allowed before mowing; and thus should be the same with a winter road contract. Mr. Mercier said that he and Neil Kersten mentioned that to order and have new trucks would take significant time and there is always the possibility of having another winter next year, like this year's. Additional discussion included mention of performing this task in- house, the need for the same amount of equipment, that we don't have summer offset work for these same people; that such a transition would be better over a three to five -year period; but dealing with the reality of short notice complicates the matter but does not lessen the need to have rational, affordable responses. There were no suggested changes for this goal. Goal #6: Complete records indexing and phase in a document imaging system City department by City department with the goal of achieving city -wide implementation in 2010. As the document imaging system has now begun and the indexing occurs in tandem with the document imaging, it was suggested to change this goal to read: Eemletc implement records indexing and phase in a document imaging system City department by City department with the goal of achieving city -wide implementation in 2010. There was brief budget/goal discussion with Councilmember Taylor asking if there is a priority surrounding any budget need, or a need to streamline the budget, and Mr. Mercier said that it is a little too early to tell and we don't know yet about the economy, but that we are fortunate to have some financial strength, and at the half -year retreat, we will address what we know about revenue receipts and the stimulus package; and will also likely discuss the 2010 budget at that point. Mr. Mercier said there are no big initiatives in the 2009 budget, and we will simply continue funding the year TIP identified projects, with Mr. Jackson adding that the past goal was to develop a six -year financial plan and integrate that into the business plan, which continues on an on -going basis. 2. Financial Forecast — Ken Thompson Mr. Thompson mentioned the general carryover from the prior year should be $16 million instead of the stated $14 million, which will add $2 million to the other figures; he said we have not included the two street loans into these figures; that we will likely be fine on our revenues and have a potential increase in income; that the "x" shown on the sales tax goes away which amounts to $700,000 or $800,000 annually; as that was the 1 /10 of 1% for public safety. Mr. Thompson mentioned the sales tax top line of $18,750, and said we collected $19,600 in 2007; that property tax went up a little; we have backed away on the gambling tax, and lost one casino and a few others are not paying timely as it appears the big casinos might be taking business away from the smaller ones; he said our sales tax is down substantially, but the carryover from the prior year budget helps as we normally don't spend everything budgeted. Mr. Mercier said we are in the third and final year of the collective bargaining agreement, and will likely re- negotiate in about six months; and the cost -of- living will be the same for represented and non - represented employees. Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 Mr. Thompson said that the street fund, line #1 would be down around $1 million or less; that we likely spent a large amount of that $1.5 million in December; that the phone tax will start in January but it is difficult to get all the telephone utility companies lined up and reporting, so while we don't expect any resistance, we can't get all the phone companies to respond, even though three letters have been sent out. Mr. Thompson further explained that the motor fuel tax continues to shrink a little and the $2 million is probably a little high; and we also don't have included in the figures what we might decide to do about snow plowing next winter, and he said it is likely to cost more. In looking at "Problem Statement #3" Mr. Thompson explained that we had to back off a little from the revenue, and said these figures don't include state and federal funds; that we will use about $300,000 for storm drainage projects whether as part of street projects or stand alone storm program; that we expect some funds from the State for our Universal Park; and he mentioned the $85,000 insurance settlement figure from when the stables caught fire, and the subsequent shut off of the fire hydrants led to floor damage to the old senior building, and that figure is what is left from about $109,000. Mr. Thompson said the cost of projects is increasing dramatically, there are extra costs on the swimming pools, and bridges, all of which moves the deficit up a couple years and we are probably not at the point where we need to prioritize projects; and in summary he said revenues are down, expenses are up, and we won't be able to do every project that comes along. 3. Funding Options Bond Issues — Ken Thompson Mr. Thompson explained that capital needs and parks were included when deciding what projects to do; and that possible funding decisions /sources include vehicle registration fees, or some kind of voter approved bond sale which would general income via a property tax increase, but he said that is not likely to occur this year; that there is another general election in November so the numbers are likely to be smaller, but when Council is ready to explore that possibility, discussion will need to be held concerning what election date, and whether a committee would be needed. Mayor Munson said in his discussions with AWC, there is still resistance from the business community for a street utility tax with opposition to the number of trips and lack of caps; but that he heard from our lobbyist that businesses would be willing to discuss caps, but that the lobbyist does not expect to see a lot of progress in that regard; and major cities on the west side are enthusiastic and supportive of this idea as they see this as a larger generator of income then B &O tax, with Seattle, Olympia, Tacoma, and Bellevue in favor; but he said AWC feels the issue won't get through without voter approval; and the State legislators don't want to impose a new tax this year, adding that there has been serious discussion on the state income tax idea, which would have to be over the Governor's veto. 4. Impact Fee Study At Council's request, City Attorney Connelly explained what is allowed by law regarding impact fees; that it may be used for parks, streets, transportation, schools and fire; that the tax must be based on improvements anticipated within a set period; and the improvements must be cost out and an assessment done on those costs on a per unit basis for new development, not for old development; that the money must be used to do the improvements set forth in the plan; that most cities divide their city into regional districts, then identify those districts for transportation plans; this procedure is common in northern Idaho and on the west side of Washington, but it doesn't exist here; he further explained that Spokane City passed an impact fee ordinance for transportation but did not implement it; so they have an ordinance that can't yet be enforced and we (and others) are waiting to see if there will be some other type of funding mechanism proposed by the state, such as a utility tax. There is an alternative, Mr. Connelly said, to designate the entire city as a district. City Manager Mercier said that one also needs an engineer study, for transportation in particular, and a determination must be made on what fee in lieu of actual construction will be assessed; and that concurrency must still be considered when considering improvements; and that this all has to fit somewhere into the multi -year program. Mr. Connelly added that the impact fee takes away the direct impact requirement; for example, you could build up to the level of service F, and the next development has the problem; and he said that we are running up against a number of failing street intersections, probably this year or next such intersections as the Sullivan corridor, or some part of Pines will reach the Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 point where of not obtaining currency; then we would be in a position of telling companies they cannot build; so the impact fee gives a long term method of getting past that, but you have to have a plan; or you could lower the level of service; or tell them no more building; but just saying "no" he explained, is not a solution as cities must come up with a plan to say "yes." Mr. Mercier said that for other impact fees like for schools, they have a plan; they say they need "x" amount of money so any new development will have a pro -rata share to pay, including new homes, multi- family dwellings, etc. Mr. Connelly added that the schools and fire district are separate and are not a burden on the city's general fund, and said that schools cannot implement impact fees as that would be a decision of the City. After brief discussion on the process Liberty Lake followed, there was comment concerning the procedure for LIDs (local improvement district), and TBDs (transportation benefit district), and Mr. Mercier said the LID is a complicated 128 -step procedure which is easily challengeable; that it takes a long time to implement, and can be used but is best used if there are only a few property owners involved. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that a TBD is a smaller zone where you identify a hot spot where you know there will be specific transportation impacts. Mayor Munson said he would like to re -focus discussion on a limited type of fee position, or examine a city -wide impact fee. Councilmember Gothmann added that he would like to find out all he can about impact fees, and he understands a cost to have a transportation study could be very expensive, and with a tight budget year, perhaps that could be better spent elsewhere; but that he would still like to find out about it, and if the economy turns around, this could be something to consider then. Councilmember Taylor remarked about Sullivan and Sprague, or Barker and the freeway, and said most impacts are not coming from within the city but are from without, and he speculated about having a structure in place to make SEPA mitigation more uniform, commenting that perhaps the JPA (joint planning area) might help that process; and Bigelow Gulch was given as an example of an area outside our jurisdiction that impacts our city by "dumping" traffic on Sullivan. Mr. Connelly said that Council will be briefed later this year or next about not meeting concurrency, and if that occurs, whether we would deny service or re- define the level of service; that our comp plan defines level of service by wait time at intersections, or it could be defined by corridor passage time, or by a type of screening method by drawing a line from a project outwards, and then count the number of arterials that line crosses, and if one line meets the appropriate level of service, then we would be ok; but other than at intersections, counting traffic is very expensive; adding that we could define the level of service at Sprague and Sullivan as F, but there would need to be a basis for doing so. Mayor Munson commented that there is a finite amount of developable land, and perhaps Sprague could be a major source of funds once the Plan starts to mature. Other points of discussion included other areas good for establishing impact fees; types of impact fees; examples of what could or couldn't be done; time to absorb developable areas; costs; importance of doing the study prior to implementing an impact fee; that there are examples such as Spokane and Pierce County which might prove beneficial to explore; the need to identify the pros and cons of doing any particular impact fee; that it amounts to someone having to pay, whether it be developers, homeowners, or others and that everyone would benefit from the improvements; that there must be some literature available to study this topic; that an impact fee is not a full problem solver and whatever method might be used, we would need to bring an educational process to the public so there would be an understanding of how this would work. Mr. Mercier mentioned the more immediate pressing problem concerns basic maintenance and replacement, which Council will hear when the J -U -B presentation is made in a few weeks; and that while impact fees are a legitimate line of inquiry, there are a sequencing of challenging events within our community, and other things with a greater priority, and that a whole new infrastructure stimulus plan could introduce an entirely new opportunity for us, and said that perhaps now it is better to focus on pavement management then on impact fees. Mayor Munson called for a short break at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 5. Legislative Agenda Mr. Mercier mentioned Council's legislative agenda which council adopted last September; and said that for the upcoming state legislative session, there will likely be between 3,000 and 4,000 bills introduced; and that as the process continues, there will be a base element of legislative concerns; and said that staff and council are scheduled to attend this session this year; that our lobbyist is working on perfecting appointments for us February 17, and said we want to get the most individual meetings possible before the conference actually begins, as once the committees are established and do their reports, the pace will be fast and furious. Mr. Mercier said our lobbyist will contact him and he will copy the Mayor if there are instant decisions which must be made. Mr. Mercier asked Council to look through the items previously noted and asked if Council has anything new to add. Mayor Munson mentioned the probability of legislation concerning taping executive sessions and that we should be prepared to defend adding any such legislation; and Mr. Mercier added that last year Council's position was to maintain the attorney /client privilege as best as possible, and it would be cumbersome to accept taping executive sessions. Mayor Munson also mentioned the rumor to district the city again through legislation action, but that he is not sure who is spearheading that other than the same individual who brought it up last time. Councilmember Wilhite mentioned she spoke with Joe McKinnon last week and he said it is out of his hands and he will not be asking for that. Mayor Munson further mentioned that there will be several climate change issues this year, and that Senator Marr, who is on the Governor's Task Force, will introduce legislation that will require GMA planning to consider greenhouse gas control, which will likely be costly and time consuming; that AWC is against this, and there are indications the Governor's office feels this measure is too expensive, but there has been no press release from her office yet; adding that the state struggles to clean up Puget Sound, which will be difficult as the state's clean water standards are too demanding based on current technology to actually clean up the Sound. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned modeling, and said that is a premier point on deciding what has to be in effect and control discharges; that hitting regulations based on modeling is simply information going into the computer; and we shouldn't use modeling for regulatory purposes but could use it for planning as we don't know if any of the variables are accurate. Mayor Munson explained that GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) is developing a region -wide legislative agenda and that bothers him; in that they (GSI) are trying to fill a void in municipalities by developing their own; and Councilmember Wilhite mentioned that even more so is the aggressive stand they are taking on transportation. Further discussion was held concerning GSI's legislative agenda and the magnitude of their list, and that it might be better if they had a business interest section as it doesn't appear to be very much business focused. Discussion on this topic ended with mention of the upcoming meetings in Olympia next month; and that it might be a good idea to schedule a tour, perhaps by chartered bus, of our City and show some of the legislators our capital projects and give them an overview of our budget. 6. Information only: Workplan; Six -Year Business Plan Mr. Mercier mentioned the workplan and Six -Year Business Plan are for information only to show how the goals fit into the budget; and that the business plan in an ongoing strategic document; and that the financial presentation from Mr. Thompson includes a line on that; and it isolates the cost associated with those new variations. Council asked Mr. Jackson to include the Six -Year Business Plan on our website. 7. Brainstorming Brainstorming resulted in the following suggestions, comments and ideas: Snow/Weather: Councilmember Gothmann asked if a report could be generated on our snow response; what we did right and what could we do better; adding that putting up the snow line was a good idea, and he commended Public Information Officer Carolbelle Branch for her work in that regard, which resulted in doubling the number of people who subscribe to our e- newsletter. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned he feels there is nothing wrong in making some adjustments regarding letting people use their own equipment, but safety is a major concern especially dealing with trucks and limited visibility. Councilmember Gothmann suggested putting aside a percentage of winter funds to plan for snow Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 plowing, and he commended Mayor Munson for a job well done. Mayor Munson said when someone had to speak, he did, and there were many opportunities to do so; that he had discussions about dealing with the County and he became very dissatisfied with their level of performance; that it all became very political and it was difficult not to get involved with the discussion; that he mentioned Mr. Mercier's idea of talking to the County about extending the contract for another year, but the County did not live up to our expectations, and having one driver on Christmas was not good; and that he personally prefers not going back to the County. Councilmember Taylor mentioned that this year's snow was a huge event and there is only so much equipment; that the County has a contractual obligation with us and others and as they have their own road network, he can see conflicts there. Mr. Mercier said this event outstripped capacity of any provider; that he realizes there are some divided loyalties, but for us, if a contractor equipment is to be deployed for a certain percentage in the Valley, then that is what is expected; that we realize there are or will be equipment breakdowns, and if we don't have the equipment, we need rational explanations and when those explanations don't come, it causes lots of questions. Further discussion ensued on policies versus administrative decisions, the multiple meetings at the Emergency Operations Center, learning from mistakes, and rectifying the problem of the media not issuing our press releases; adding that we only have nine months to determine our plan for next winter. Councilmember Taylor asked about forming our own public works department and Mr. Mercier said the operating premise from day one was to maximize contractual opportunities, or do the service in -house if those were not available; that an initial plan B would have a formula model of service to use for a private sector response; and if those were not affordable, then a plan C would be necessary, adding that is it not rational to have just winter maintenance for an independent contractor, that the RFP (request for proposal) must include an explanation of services; adding that with any new service provider, there will be a training/learning curve. There was also brief discussion on how we keep the public informed, and how the public contacts us. Tax Increment Financing: Councilmember Taylor mentioned incentives such as tax increment financing and asked what can we add on to the city center to help spur development there, realizing this is not a prime time to be in retail now as many major retailers are facing or have experienced bankruptcy. Discussion included mention of a planned action ordinance; the need to finalize a contract; how to pay for the infrastructure: the City's part versus the private developer's part; how to make this all happen and what tools are available, including state and/or federal funds; and that most state funds have been tapped but the federal economy stimulus package has not yet been finalized, and it might provide financing for interior roads to the city center, which would create further incentive to develop. Mr. Mercier added that for tax increment financing, a district must be defined, a special tax consideration made, there is a need to determine the current value of the property in those districts, and as new value is added, a percentage is added and balanced to pay for the facilities. Greater Spokane, Inc.: Mayor Munson said we are the only jurisdiction not holding them (GSI) accountable for funding from us; that other entities require a detailed explanation of how funds were spent; that he is not sure we grant them funds to develop models for the region, but more that we grant them money for economic development, and he believes our money is going into their general fund; that Spokane City and Spokane County provide a tracking utility and he would like us to do likewise. Deputy Mayor Denenny and Councilmember Wilhite agreed; and Mayor Munson said he will contact Spokane City and Spokane County to ask them their procedure. Spokane County: Mayor Munson said there is a level of trust between us and the County that needs repair; and he asked how best to do that, suggesting that perhaps he and Deputy Mayor Denenny could first speak to Commissioner Mielke about the differences; with Councilmember Taylor mentioning that people act differently when in a public setting, and that perhaps we need a meeting with ground rules; and he said we owe it to our constituents to get this figured out; and we need to take an opportunity to express the displeasure in the way this last contract was severed. Councilmember Dempsey suggested not having ground rules, as starting a meeting that way could make the meeting participants defensive; and Deputy Mayor Denenny suggested an informal meeting with them to get a sense of what they feel has occurred and how to approach these issues, or in the alternative, to have a formal meeting in open session; and Councilmember Taylor agreed with the need for a formal meeting. It was agreed that Deputy Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09 Denenny and Councilmember Gothmann should meet with Commissioner Mielke to set up an agenda. City Attorney Connelly cautioned that a series of meetings on the same topic could be a problem; and he suggested the need to move forward and talk about what we are all going to do, versus what happened in the past. Mr. Mercier stated that the major failing is the ongoing relationship and one party making a decision without consultation with the other party; that we need some confidence that our concerns will get a fair hearing before some precipitous action is undertaken. Other Contracts: Mr. Mercier mentioned that an item in the council packet for tomorrow night's meeting deals with the court system; that there are some odd calendar regulations in dealing with the municipal court system; and if we are going to develop an alternate analysis for courts, and if we want to do that within the next six years, we have to give some notice by the end of this month; that the termination notice of 180 days is inconsistent with state statutes; that we have to follow the statutes; whereas the County can go by 180 -day notice of termination; and he encouraged Council to examine that issue. Mayor Munson said he will contact the Commissioners to let them know it is on our agenda for tomorrow and he will emphasize the reasons for this agenda item. Concerning the solid waste contract, Deputy Mayor Denenny said we need to determine how much we want private concerns involved, how to set up governance for this, and he said this needs to be on a future agenda. Mr. Connelly said he is working on drafting a summary of the rules of solid waste. Panhandling: Councilmember Gothmann asked about the next steps for panhandling; that the concept was that Council would promote a regional organization to develop an education program and he suggested Ian Robertson form a regional committee. Council concurred with that suggestion. Spokane Valley: Councilmember Dempsey mentioned her objection with people referring to our city as "The Valley" or the Spokane Valley, indicating we are in the possession of Spokane. There being no further business, Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. ristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk Chard Munson, ayor Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -05 -09 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09