Loading...
2021, 02-23 Special MeetingMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday, February 23, 2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in City 1-lall with Council, staff and the public participating remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Ben Wick, Mayor Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Tim Hattenburg Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Absent: Rod Higgins, Councilmember Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney John Bottelli, Parks & Rec. & Facilities Director Bill Helbig, Senior Engineer Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except for Councilmember Higgins. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Higgins from the meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: 1. Spokane River Trail Concept — John Hohman Deputy City Manager Hohman said that in 2012 while on the Economic Development ad -hoc committee, John Miller, the owner of Divcon Construction, advocated for the concept to connect (the Centennial Trail) to the trail on the north side of the river from Sullivan to Plantes Ferry Park creating a loop trail around the Mirabeau area and with our purchase of nearly 46 acres from WSDOT, staff have created a plan for this concept. He said currently the Trent bridge over the river has a walkway for pedestrians to cross the river but there is potential for a suspension bridge just south of the Trent bridge and a second suspension bridge near Flora. He said initially they were thinking of having a non -paved trail but he said this is a great opportunity to have the trail paved so that all users, regardless of mobility, can utilize the ten mile loop. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Motion Consideration: Infrastructure Priority Solicitation — John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the City Manager to submit the proposed project list in response to Senator Murray's and Representative McMorris Rodgers' Infrastructure Solicitation requests, and anticipated Infrastructure Solicitation request, from Senator Maria Cantwell. Deputy City Manager Hohman introduced our federal lobbyist, Mr. Resnik of Cardinal Infrastructure, to discuss packages of funding likely to come through in the next several months and explain potential Federal Earmarks. Mr. Hohman said the infrastructure priorities list is due this Friday and must include the City's identified priorities. Mr. Resnik said an earmark is congressionally directed spending to apply funding to a project; eligibility for earmarks are exclusive to state and local government entities and non-profit agencies that carry out quasi -governmental functions; and can range from $25,000 to $50 million depending on the project and the size of the federal program that the money would come from. Mr. Hohman discussed the projects prioritized by staff on the RCA and invited Council to make any changes to those priorities as they see fit; and Mr. Resnik recommended keeping the priorities list to five projects. With regard to the COVID- 19 bill, Mr. Resnik said that Congress is working to pass another round of COVID relief finds and the goal is to have it done before mid -March when unemployment benefits are set to expire. He said the bill includes $350 billion for state, local, tribal and territorial governments, $19 billion for rental assistance, $5 billion Council Meeting Minutes, Special: 02-23-2021 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: 03-02-2021 for homelessness, $25 billion for restaurant revitalization, $3 billion for public transit, $8 billion for airports, $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program, and $15 billion for the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. He said it is possible that the City would receive $18.5 million out of the funds provided to local governments and the City can apply the funds to a wide array of activities including capital projects and to respond to or mitigate any of the COVID-19 impacts, negative economic impacts, and revenue lost due to the pandemic. JJ Johnson, Spokane Valley, spoke in favor of adding Balfour Park to the list, moving forward with the Spokane River trail, and making the Bigelow -Sullivan Corridor Project a priority regardless of whether we receive an earmark for the project. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley, was registered to provide public comments but she was not on the line when called to comment. It was moved by Cozn7cihnen7ber Thompson and seconded to amend the motion and reprlorltlze the list and move the Spokane River Trail Project to the second priority; to 11701,e the Bigelow -Sullivan Corridor Project to the third priority; and to rename the Spokane River Trail Project to the Spokane Valley River Trail Project. Vote by acclamation 017 the amendment: in favor: Councilmembers Thompson, Hattenburg and Deputy Mayor Peetz. Opposed: Councilmembers Haley, Woodard and Mayor Wick. Motion failed. It was moved by Coz7cihnen7ber Woodard and seconded to amend the (notion and reprioritize the list and hove the Spokane River Trail Project to the second priority and move the Bigelow -Sullivan Corridor Project to the third priority. Vote by acclamation 017 the amendment: in favor: ur7a17i117o71S. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Vote by acclamation on the amended motion: in favor: 1177a77m1ouS. Opposed none. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Potential INFRA Grant Opportunity, Bigelow/Sullivan Corridor— Adam Jackson It was moved by Councilmenlber Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and submit an INFRA application for the Sullivan Road and Bigelow Gulch Improvement Project. Planning and Grants Engineer Jackson said last week the USDOT announced a program making approximately $1 billion available across the country and he said that our Bigelow -Sullivan Corridor project would qualify for the grant as a large urban project, and applications are due March 19th. There were no registered public comments. Vote by acclamation in favor: unanimous. Opposed none. Motion carried. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS In follow up to last week's discussion with regard to the City of Spokane's proposal to impose a 20% utility tax on wastewater operations, City Attorney Driskell said staff has had subsequent discussions with Spokane County and the County is not supportive of Spokane's proposal. Mr. Driskell said he drafted a letter to the Spokane mayor asking for five pieces of information pertaining to the tax. Consensus to send the letter. Mr. Calhoun said we are in the process of putting together a virtual groundbreaking program for the Barker Grade Separation Project and it will include recorded segments, one of which will include Councilmembers, the contractor and a WSDOT representative on the site; they will all be masked and spaced six feet apart. He said when the video is finished, it will be presented at a Council meeting, distributed through social media and put on our website. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. ATTEST: rti-�-2,4-r Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Ben Wick, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes, Special: 02-23-2021 Page 2 of 2 Approved by Council: 03-02-2021 February 23, 2021 Mayor Nadine Woodward City of Spokane 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201 10210 East Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 ♦ Fax: 509.720.5075 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org Re: Imposition of 20% sewer utility tax on non-residents by City of Spokane Dear Mayor Woodward: I am writing to you on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council. I previously sent a letter to the Spokane City Council on October 30, 2020 relating to this issue. At that time, the City of Spokane Valley expressed a strong objection to what was at that time being discussed by the Spokane Council of imposing a sewer utility tax on the Spokane County wastewater treatment facility on North Freya, and we assumed we would be part of any future discussions, for example in the context of the regional workgroup. Approximately 80% of any pass -through tax burden imposed by Spokane would be paid by the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Despite that, Spokane has apparently not bothered to include our Council or City Manager in these discussions. We assumed after our October letter that Spokane would seek to engage us in any discussion you may have on this issue. We are curious why that has not happened. As identified in the October 30, 2020 letter, we very strongly object to this plan. Spokane Valley has a number of its own difficult municipal issues to deal with, not the least of which is an immediate need to determine how we can close a significant funding gap in our street maintenance operation. We have also purchased several large properties for parks for the betterment of our community, and this action would move the goalposts farther away from being able to start those projects. Spokane's action would make our already difficult tasks much harder. If Spokane believes its municipal code compels it to impose this tax on wastewater services for those served by the County because of the specific wording, then there could be a simple fix of the code to clarify that the language only applies to services provided to your residents or businesses. Alternatively, as Mayor and thus executive head of the administrative functions for the City, you could decline to impose the tax on the County facility. The City of Spokane Valley respectfully requests that you dismiss this concept and find revenue for your municipal expenses within your own boundaries. The timing of this effort appears to coincide with the Spokane Council's action to adopt a 1/10th of one percent sales tax for affordable housing/homelessness purposes in the 2021 budget, with implementation delayed until April 30, 2021 to determine if any other revenue source could be identified instead. Again, please do not look to pass your tax burden onto our citizens and businesses. Spokane leaders speak often of a desire to have greater regional cooperation and collaboration, but that denotes a mutuality or agreement that clearly is not present here. In the interest of better knowing what Spokane's plans are regarding this issue, we would like to request some specific information. First, what is Spokane's projected timeframe for imposing the sewer utility tax on the County facility? Second, would the utility tax apply to the service being provided, or to the gross revenues of the sewer facility? Third, does Spokane plan to seek any amounts from the County for years prior to 2021? Fourth, if so, which years. Fifth, what would Spokane use the revenue for? Lastly, we would like to request that all communication from Spokane on this issue also be sent to City Manager Mark Calhoun. We look forward to hearing from you very soon, and thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Ben Wick, Mayor c: Spokane City Council Board of Commissioners, Spokane County Kevin Freeman, Millwood Mayor Cris Kaminskas, Liberty Lake Mayor Gerry Gemmill, Spokane County Chief Executive Officer Spokesman -Review