Loading...
2007, 06-02 Special Retreat MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING /RETREAT SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL June 2, 2007 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. Staff Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Mgr Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wilhite opened the workshop at approximately 9:15 a.m., and thanked Dick and Kathy Denenny for allowing use of their cabin for the retreat. 1. Council Budget Goals for 2008 City Manager Mercier explained that this list is staff's attempt to identify major work products to bring forward for Council's consideration. Proposed 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. Mr. Mercier explained that last Thursday he met with Bruce Rawls who explained that the Spokane City/ Board of County Commissioners joint meeting was unsettling as conversations with the Department of Ecology (DOE) included discussion about recalibrating the model upon which the TMDL (total maximum daily load) studies were founded. Mr. Mercier added that Mr. Rawls had concerns about this as it could affect the proposed timetable to have the plant operational by late 2011; that the "fundamental concepts" we signed might be active enough to provide for the first ten years of agreement, but all bets might be off for handling phosphorus control; that the Board of County Commissioners has discussed with the owner of the Saltese Flats the opportunity to recharge the aquifer without direct discharge in the River. Public Works Director Kersten said that he attended other meetings concerning DOE, but the meeting discussions were very vague; that the TMDL has not been finalized, there is no draft, there is a new person running the TMDL process for ecology who is working to get more familiar with the process; and that another meeting is planned for the week of June 11. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that Mr. Rawls said that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) said there will be no discharge permit until EPA signs off on the TMDL; so anything that affects the data could result in additional delays. Councilmember Denenny said that with the signed agreement, the dischargers have a right to immediately go to a UAA (Use Attainability Analysis) if they choose; but it would slow the process. Mr. Kersten said that he feels the chances of something not slowing down the process are slim; that re- modeling is a lengthy process and we won't know what we have until it's completed. Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 Mr. Mercier said that another element of discussion is governance issues; that an initiative was implemented about two years ago, and Spokane City Councilmember Al French suggested we return to that initiative, that the reason we stopped was to get everything done to get the discharge permit; but that now other jurisdictions want to refocus on that plan and bring the notion of regional governance off the back burner and onto the forefront. There was no objection to including this item as a 2008 goal. Proposed Goal #2: Refine initial departmental six -year business plans in order to identify and incorporate fiscal impacts into a strategic financial plan. Mr. Mercier said he refers to this initial business plan as the business plan "light" as there will be a need to continue refinement of the Plan; that the Finance Committee and Council expressed interest in the long -term additional personnel needs, and in an attempt not to have those personnel issues feel "episodic," this topic has been included into the strategic financial plan, which is goal #3. Proposed Goal #3: Formulate a Six -Year Strategic Financial Plan by July 2008 that forecasts expected revenues and expenses; incorporates the cost elements of departmental business plans; identifies fiscal constraints; and proposes formulas for Council consideration that institute sustainable budget- balancing approaches and itemizes necessary service reductions or revenue increases or combinations thereof. Mr. Mercier said it is very important to develop a strategic plan to identify trends both pro and con concerning the financial forecast; to develop the business plan that includes the city's demands; and to come up with a strategy to close the identified budget gaps. Mr. Mercier continued by explaining that the Governance Finance Office Association identifies four stages to a strategic plan: (1) mobilization; (2) gather and analyze data; (3) make decisions about what to do about the information received; and (4) develop and execute a plan. Mr. Mercier said the purpose is to get to the last two elements of that plan; and in getting there, that will call into question the topic of revenue options, or program curtailments, or some combination. Mr. Mercier said he is aware this is politically sensitive, and that July of next year will be a prime window of opportunity to get something accomplished; and that as we examine the data for four years from now, this will provide opportunity to move on to avoid further difficulties in the future; and that Finance Director Thompson will go into details later today about the projects of the plan; and that Council can later make a commitment to figure out how to close that gap and initiate the necessary steps to accomplish that goal. Proposed Goal #4: Initiate implementation of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. Mr. Mercier explained that elements of the Six -Year Strategic Financial Plan includes the subarea plan work product from Freedman, Tung & Bottomley (FTB). Councilmember DeVleming said that without the Appleway piece, how much public dollars do we invest without total control; and Mr. Mercier responded that as a result of last Thursday's litigation decision, Council will hold an executive session concerning this topic. Further discussion included the comment that even without that piece, we can still have a city center and the accompanying components; that other options need to be explored, including the idea of shifting from the east to the west side where we have Appleway built as it may be easier to go where we have control; and the need to keep the Library's timeframe in mind. Mr. Mercier said that Bob Gibbs (principal with Gibbs Planning Group, Inc.) was in town and is working to complete his report, and that Mr. Gibbs expressed confidence we can get a national developer to come in and do the project. Attorney Connelly remarked that we need to draft a short list of decisions which must be made before we determine the site. Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 Proposed Goal #5: Adopt area -wide rezoning proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that reflect appropriate adjustments in zoning designations. Mr. Mercier explained that as we work through the process to update our comp plan, we will have other proposals come forward concerning rezoning proposals, and this is to have awareness that these issues will involve staff and council time. Proposed Goal #6: Perform an analysis of a landowner - initiated request for annexation. Mr. Mercier mentioned the idea of performing an analysis for annexation as there will be a need to have our annexation operational policies sharpened as some potential areas are developing on our peripherals. Attorney Connelly added that prior to annexation policies, the Comp Plan must be amended as the current Plan does not allow for annexation, as it was determined at the time that first Plan was adopted, that we would "live within our boundaries "; and he added that anything designated as a UGA (urban growth area) is eligible for annexation. Proposed Goal #7: Develop a Shoreline Master Plan and draft implementing regulations. Mr. Mercier said that we will need to address the sequencing of events for the shoreline masterplan as part of the UDC (Uniform Development Code); that there have been some rule changes on shoreline regulations, but we want to be prepared to move forward on this goal next year. The question arose of whether there is a need for this goal since we have such a limited amount of shoreline, e.g. Spokane River and Shelley Lake, and that whatever we do will have to be done according to State Statute anyway; but Mr. Mercier said he wanted this item recognized as a workforce item and that goals are also used to measure performance; hence why a "no- choice item" is a goal, adding that a series of "no- choice" items command a great deal of time and attention. Mr. McCormick added that we are operating under a current shoreline plan that is over thirty years old which is not functional nor easy to administer. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that there are residents with land use interest along the River, so such an item will catch many stakeholder's interest; with Mr. McCormick adding that this will also likely attract those user groups of that resource (water) who want to be involved, which include a diverse group; and that the gravel pits are in excess of the twenty-acre minimum so they will have to be added to the inventory. There was council consensus to leave this as a 2008 goal. Brief discussion followed concerning whether to add any other goals; impact fees, the street masterplan, and financial obligations relative to the city center were mentioned; at which point Mr. Mercier responded that impact fees and the street masterplan will be part of the January 2008 retreat conversation; and that a schedule for the city center plan will likely occur in November, including whether Council would like any ballot issues considered; but that those are 2008 issues and nothing is ready for any of those topics to commence in 2007. 2. Review 2007 Council Budget Goals In reviewing the 2007 Council goals, Mr. Mercier said there remains some question about goal #2 (Explore the available telecommunications infrastructure that may be accessed by public institutions, residents, and businesses within Spokane Valley), as there were a variety of tasks we thought finance might undertake, but due to limited resources and time, have not undertaken; that we are still getting some resistance from some franchisees who voiced concern about being placed at a competitive disadvantage if they were to divulge where all the telecommunications infrastructure is located; that there are a few legal issues to research; and Mr. Mercier asked Council how important is this goal compared to other items. Councilmember Munson said he feels we need to get serious about the City Center and Sprague redevelopment and the timing of such plan; but that infrastructure is also extremely important as we bring businesses into a city center, infrastructure would be important to those potential businesses. Mr. Mercier said we might want to narrow the goal to talk about the Sprague /Appleway corridor, in order to make the Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 goal more manageable as it stands now, it is not very specific. Mayor Wilhite and Councilmember DeVleming said they feel it would be good to narrow that goal. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he would like to have a report by the end of the year detailing what we know about telecommunications infrastructure, such as the areas where we know it exists. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said they have maps that show the infrastructure for Columbia Fiber; that we are in the process of negotiations with Comcast and infrastructure location is one of the issues, but they are reluctant to divulge that information. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if it is possible to have a public meeting or summit before the end of the year, to discuss how to put together a "hot zone" and how to tie that in with Sprague Appleway; and that perhaps the Site Selector could be used in terms of trying to create an economic toolbox. Mr. Mercier said he will recompose that goal and bring back to Council for review; and can schedule for a future council meeting, an agenda item on hot zones. In wrap -up discussion of this agenda item, Mr. Driskell said that the franchisees may be amicable to a route map showing where they have fiber without giving away capacity. It was suggested asking them to perhaps state the percentage of capacity currently being used; or currently not being used. 3. Financial Forecast Beginning with the first page under Tab #1: Problem Statement #1, Finance Director Thompson said that the good news is the deficit has been reduced in 2012 from what it was, and that will be the general trend except for the street fund; that now is the time to take action to build for the future as we have been surviving mostly on sales and property taxes, even though sales taxes are way up from previous years. Discussion ensued regarding property tax assessment rate and tax rate increases from us and the County; service level stabilization reserves; and that the law enforcement sales tax ends after 2009. He also mentioned that the first page does not yet include the Business Plan. Mr. Mercier mentioned that Problem Statement #2 includes budgeting approximately four million dollars annually for snow removal and other street maintenance; and that is separate from what might be a major investment in order to maintain the deterioration curve; and he emphasized that this fund is for operations only and not building of new streets. Mr. Kersten said that the street maintenance has been short approximately two million every year; and that we have not factored in the preservation of repaving streets, which would mean another six or seven million dollar shortage. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that after this year's transfer of $900,000 from the general fund to the street fund, that subsidy will no longer take place. Councilmembers Munson and Denenny expressed their view that they want assurance that in our attempt to enhance revenue sources, we will not under fund this category and look at cutting other services; e.g. they do not want to cut basic services for roads. Closing the deficit gap was discussed including council manic authority; other bond issue and bond issue voting history; and the need for a public educational process to show how these issues affect the entire community. Mr. Mercier commented that when we identified these problem statements, top priorities for stabilizing funds were identified, along with a focusing device to see when problems happen in which time frame; that we don't have to do anything overly heroic next year, but the looming problem is the street fund. He also mentioned we will have the J -U -B Street MasterPlan final presentation mid -July; that we will have opportunities to focus community attention on the problem of maintaining the street system, which will all help in the community education process. Mr. Thompson stated that the street fund does not yet include the street masterplan, and that there will be a yearly amount needed to maintain that plan. In reviewing Problem Statement #3, page 3, Mr. Thompson pointed out the added fund for the Universal Park, mentioned that the parks line item tracks with the comprehensive plan; mentioned that we can't hire engineers fast enough to get the projects done on the list and private consultants don't have enough engineers either; and that there's not enough time to get all the projects completed so public works has Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 backed off the list and that has helped on the funding in the early years. There was some discussion on the REET (Real Estate Excise Tax) fund, and Mr. Thompson mentioned that these funds are placed into the street projects primarily, and occasionally into the parks fund. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked for a breakdown of what goes into each fund, and Mr. Thompson said he will gather that information. Mr. Mercier added that there are many non - developed associated transactions that bring in money not just the sales of new homes but existing homes as well, and that staff can look at that and give a better breakdown. Page four of the financial handouts, Mr. Thompson explained, is a summary showing what year the deficits occur; and the following page states some assumptions used in putting these figures together; and if he were to highlight just one area, it would be the street operation fund showing the deficit in 2009 or 2010, which he estimates to be the most pressing need. Mr. Mercier stated that with 2009 a deficit year for the street fund, Council could assist staff by providing feedback during the August budget process, and whether Council prefers to push the deficit back another year, or prefers to see a plan for the 2008 budget that preserves some dollars into the following year, which would mean a need to downscale some services. Councilmember DeVleming said that public safety and roads are the two primary responsibilities of this government, and he'd rather see the service level drop elsewhere then roads or public safety. Further discussion on this topic continued including possible drop in development; that we could, as a worst case scenario, examine the statutes to see what is mandatory or discretionary services; the idea of not scaling down parks and recreation but not propose any new expenditure items; being cautious on any new facility commitment; other sources of funding such as grants or HUD funds; that the depreciation fund account for CenterPlace will likely have less carryover next budget cycle which will necessitate proposing an annualized depreciation fund; and the idea that there may be ample revenues to fund the depreciation fund through food and beverage services. 4. Draft Business Plan Deputy City Manager Regor explained that this process involved all employees and that they participated in a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats) analysis specific to their department; except law enforcement was not included as that department comes from an established organization and they have more items in place, although they will be included in future updates starting next year. Ms. Regor further explained that the department employees used the SWOT analysis and Council goals as the basis for development of the six -year plan, while keeping in mind the City's financial situation, staff strove to be prudent in what they put forward; and that some proposals have not yet risen to legislative consideration. The proposals are divided into two pieces, Ms. Regor explained; things which went in like capacity work loads or where they had enough legislative direction to put something in the proposal; and other ideas were included in a pending ideas list. She said the initial proposal includes thirteen positions over six years; but some financial considerations yet to be included are any community surveys, celebrations for perhaps a fifth and /or tenth year City anniversary; it assumes new positions will be hired at the middle of the position salary range, and COLAs (cost of living adjustments) are also factored in, which could change over time. Ms. Regor added that step increases are generally 4 %; and that the proposed FTE increases is staff's best estimate toward the minimum. Discussion on the business plan ensued concerning flexibility of the plan and that things can change depending on various factors, including some decisions the County might make concerning contract services; work load increases; how aggressive the City wants to pursue and be involved with the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan; that the two proposed in -house janitors are not new costs as we have been paying for two temporary positions; and mention that the pending ideas list is not far enough along to address cost recovery. Mr. Mercier brought attention to the included blue sheet, which is the multiyear financial plan general fund (Problem Statement #1) combined with the added line showing the initial business plans. Ms. Regor Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 said this carries forward the numbers earlier in the proposal; that the point of deficit is still 2012, but it jumps to $5.2 million; and that the initial proposals have a net impact of $353,000 in 2008; and if all pending ideas were included, that figure would jump to $1.3 million in 2008; with the added result of moving into the deficit in 2011 instead of 2012. Ms. Regor added that a city hall facility has not been factored into any of these figures. Mr. Mercier said that the reason for the pending ideas list, is that staff wants to be responsive to the Finance Committee's desire that staff research things that one might find in communities of similar size, and to put those items on a list; that we start from that sense of looking at the whole picture, and can refine the list and make legislative decisions later; and that he has a high degree of confidence in the trend lines but not the exact figures; and if the desire is to protect roads and the general fund, we need to have a sense of what is expected of the general fund. Mayor Wilhite asked if staff will give them a sense of what is considered important, or what not to consider; and Mr. Mercier responded that that will be dealt with next January when we come back; as some of the decisions may have already been made, like those associated with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); and he suggested Council not focus on the pending ideas list as that will be a topic at the January retreat, but he asks Council to instead focus on the initial list as it will impact the 2008 budget. After brief discussion on the CDBG process and STEP (septic tank elimination program), Councilmember Munson brought up the topic of public information dissemination. Mr. Mercier mentioned that staff seeks the most effective way to get the word out to the public about what we are doing, and that one idea is to find an intern to come in and do some of the PIO (public information officer) work; but that there is more ground to gain before having an additional PIO assistant. Further discussion included the topic of working on revenue enhancement measures such as bonding issues for a new city hall and that we would be competing with funds for STA (Spokane Transit Authority) and/or for the wastewater treatment plant; and issues associated with any bond such as dealing with the media for information dissemination. The pending ideas list was discussed further, with Ms. Regor explaining the rationale for some of the proposed FTEs; and of the need to have some cross - training in areas such as the Finance Department. Getting pertinent information on the City's website was also mentioned, including the idea of members of the public having the ability to track developments and check project status; which also touched off a discussion of customer service and timely return of phone calls; and Mr. Mercier mentioned that many of those concerns will be addressed as the recently approved personnel positions are filled; that he is pleased with the work staff has done, and that he is only aware of one other community in Washington that has a five -year financial forecast, and is not aware of any community in Washington that has a multi -year business plan. Council expressed that they are pleased with this initial start of the business plan. As it was noon, Mayor Wilhite suggested the group break for lunch. The meeting resumed at 12:50 p.m. 5. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Planning Manager McCormick said that the Inland APA Association held a conference and Bob Gibbs and representatives from C1earPath were presenters there; that Mr. Gibbs gave a great deal of information on why retail centers work or don't work; and he mentioned several projects he is involved with; that afterwards Scott Kuhta showed Mr. Gibbs our area at which time Mr. Gibbs expressed a high level of confidence that he can get a developer who would be interested in participating in this project. Mr. McCormick said that retail is more science -based than he thought especially for the larger retail establishments; and that Mr. Gibbs knows the details on how to make a project successful; that Mr. Gibbs formerly worked for the largest shopping mall in the country before opening his own business; and that he has a very specific recipe for success, which he feels can be applied to our situation. Mr. McCormick said that the two of them did not get into options, but it was more generally what makes a center successful; and that we should have his report next week, which will likely be more of an expanded pro forma or analysis of the retail without the specifics; just what is necessary to build a successful site. Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 Mr. Kersten added that his observations of construction of malls is that fifteen to twenty years ago, they were all being built similar to the Valley Mall; but that is changing and the trend is moving to a city center or downtown shopping center. Mr. McCormick said that during Mr. Gibbs' presentation, Gibbs said he is only aware of one new mall being proposed in the entire country in 2008 which is similar to our mall; and that all new malls are focused in a town center /city center; that Gibbs looked at Michael Freedman's concept and was very complimentary and felt he is "right on" with the design; and said that if we are going to have on- street retail, we should also have on- street parking. Mr. McCormick said he asked about getting a copy of Mr. Gibbs' PowerPoint, but as Gibbs is publishing a book, everything is copyrighted; and he added that ClearPath is looking at Gibb's report for what to take into consideration when looking at the kind of real estate we have. Further discussion ensued regarding Mr. Gibbs, and whether to hire him to be the closer on the assembly of land phase, or focus on him bringing in the developer and coordinate with Clearpath; that costs are unknown but staff will pursue that question; and Attorney Connelly mentioned that our acquisition of property might be an introduction of a property owner to a developer, but that we need to identify the alternatives. Mr. McCormick mentioned that when a developer does come in, there will be expectations and the developer will want to know what the City is willing to put into the mix. Mr. Mercier said that the challenge question is if Mr. Gibbs says there is high confidence in the project, and the library wants to make a strategic investment by September, Mr. Gibbs will need to know if the City will be the other anchor with a City Hall. Although several Councilmembers expressed they would be willing to have the City Hall as the anchor, the questions remained concerning timing and financing, including the question of use of council manic bonds, what we have in reserve, what we will be saving by not paying the current rent, how soon the information can be supplemented to determine what is needed to wrap financial issues into a possibly larger bond issue; and of the need to see if the public is willing to invest in this vision. Educating the public on the issues and options was discussed, including the mention that television is a good way to get the plan before the public; that perhaps the Convention Visitor's Bureau can assist, and that a communication plan is needed to get the word our efficiently to maximize the communication effort prior to placing a bond on the ballot. This lead to further discussion on public outreach concerning the corridor plan; whether to map out a schedule; how to pay off a bond issue; to tell taxpayers that a bond will cost a certain amount of tax dollars (x amount per $1000 assessed valuation), or have a range rather than specific dollar amount, ballot history, ballot legal constraints for Council regarding promoting issues; and the idea of including a non - binding advisory vote and to include specific language on the ballot that we know we're going to build city hall; that we need an advisory vote on a city center; and what information is needed to disseminate prior to the ballot and what to put on a ballot. The idea of involving auto row was also mentioned, along with the possibility that the Chamber of Commerce might assist with information dissemination, and that this may be a good topic to bring before the business district. Mr. Mercier summarized that concerning the city center, there is building consensus that a developer will want a quick response and a plan of action; that to have the public approve of this concept, it is important the City weigh in on the question; that an advisory vote is an initial step to collect that response; that a non - binding advisory question be placed on the November ballot; Council likes the notion of a plan B that states we have a capital facility plan that identifies the need for a City Hall — we know this so what does the public think of moving beyond that so we can tell a developer we can do council manic bonds for city hall and thereby get an answer to the Library District. Council concurred that they want to ask the public on the advisory question to include the vision plus a range of costs for plan A, and staff should begin working on developing the range and a calendar for how to get something on the ballot. Mr. Mercier said that we will come to Council in July with a presentation on the initial planning for a City Hall, and that staff will create this as a working element for the city regardless of what a vote outcome may be; adding that staff is already experiencing cramped space. Attorney Connelly cautioned that we need to carefully objectify and analyze every step to make sure it will work; and Mr. Mercier added that although there is Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 excitement attached to Mr. Gibb's reference, if that doesn't work, then in all practicality the option would be option 3: zone it and hope they will come. Mr. Kersten suggested the need to explore the possibility of doing a site layout and design for both scenarios: whether the developer option or the built it and let them come alter option. Councilmember Munson said that there are revenue enhancement measures to consider, and asked how that and a City Hall civic center would work together; which lead to the next agenda item. 6. Funding Options /Bond Issues Mr. Mercier said there are a series of financial challenges coming our way, so we look at options for additional financial revenue and /or program curtailment. Finance Director Thompson displayed and explained some charts showing the financial needs for operations and capital; and possible funding sources, such as utility tax, property tax levy lift, solid waste fees, vehicle registration, bond sale with voter approval; council manic bonds; impact fees for transportation and/or parks; and of the associated issues such as cost to citizens, vote approval, priority of programs and projects; and then moved into election dates for 2008, and mentioned the idea of an election committee. Concerning impact fees, there was discussion on the inability to include Vera and therefore not wanting to segment out a portion of the population; and that other choices are electricity, natural gas, sewers, telephones, or cable; and whether to cap the rates. Mr. Thompson mentioned the 1 % tax limit and whether the fire or library district take their share now or decide to go higher than current rates; and he mentioned that Waste Management would like mandatory collection fees, but if we do that, perhaps we would tell them we want an extra tax on that fee to keep our streets working properly as their trucks create wear and tear on our streets. Another idea was that vehicle registration fees could increase up to $20.00 for vehicles registered in our city limits. Mr. Mercier mentioned that the 1 /10 of 1% tax could go up to 3/10`" but that decision filters through the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), and it might be prudent to plan collaboratively with the BOCC and sister jurisdictions to determine what percentage amount to consider as it would be a voter approval issue. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he feels we already have a high sales tax and he prefers researching other options such as an admissions tax for theaters or fairgrounds; but Mr. Thompson said that generally doesn't generate a lot of funds. Mr. Mercier said there is a range of options and part of the strategic financial plan will include those options as a means to close the gap; but that discussion will be held at a later date. Further discussion included other financial impacts the community could experience, such as funding for a new jail, and the possible regional impact fee imposed by Spokane Regional Transportation Commission. Mr. Mercier said the details will get worked out, that we're looking ahead to 2013, and a transportation impact fee won't be used to cure any current deficit; that it takes a number of years for a traffic impact fee to accumulate toward projects; and if a fee were imposed in 2009, there might be funds in 2012 to address some forward moving costs. Concurrency problems were also discussed and it was mentioned we could reach a point where we either have a new level of service analysis; or not allow some projects due to concurrency problems. Concerning REET funds, Mr. Mercier mentioned that if Council is looking for ways to gain REET money, one offset is impact fees; that we could collect them for parks but have to spend them within six years; and he added that we have not yet answered Central Valley School District's request for impact fees. He suggested since there is money in the budget, that we consider going ahead or re- allocate for next year and hire a consultant and determine what an impact fee would be for parks; and to examine this again the next time we update our capital facilities part of the comp plan; adding that he is not seeking a council vote, but suggests we think about this impact fee study or look at it next year. Councilmember Munson said he is only interested in looking at the transportation side, to which Mr. Mercier replied that he could make a budget proposal to put this back on next year as funding for an impact fee is an `08 budget issue; and it might be prudent to conduct a transportation impact fee study; and/or re- appropriate parks impact fee study funds. Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 7. BRAINSTORMING: Deputy City Mayor Taylor brought up the recently approved customer service plan, and he asked where we are in filling those positions. Deputy City Manager Regor responded that we are in the middle of recruitment for several of the positions; that they hope to schedule interviews next week for the engineer tech and building inspector, and that the two assistant planner positions have closed, staff is reviewing the applications, and we hope to set up interviews quickly. Ms. Regor also mentioned that she, Greg McCormick, MaryKate Martin, and John Hohman are working on the re- application conference process; and that it also appears we may be moving forward to amend our grading ordinance. Ms. Regor also mentioned that there appears to be some inconsistency of code interpretation which staff is addressing; that staff continues to work on timely return of phone calls or questions, and that having additional staff will be a natural way to address some of that; and that some of the delay issues are as a result of the applicant not completing their work prior to coming into the City Hall. Mr. Taylor suggested having a public forum to give all an opportunity to discuss these issues; and Mr. Mercier said that he has had discussions about having a stakeholder meeting for all involved parties; and Mr. Taylor suggested following up with that with a more exclusive group that can comment on the process; as he wants to ensure we have follow - through on this issue. Rather than have an exclusive group, Mr. Mercier mentioned the idea of maintaining an interested party list, thereby not creating a perception of favoritism. Building Official Martin mentioned that it will be most useful for the City to hear from people who work regularly in the City, while keeping in mind that bringing in ideas from other jurisdictions would also be beneficial; and it would be best to look at the process rather than point out specific incidences from the past. However, Councilmember Munson added that looking at specific problems tends to help rectify the process. Ms. Martin added that having key staff identified who will be responsible within the process will be of great benefit. Mr. Taylor stated that we can learn from doing this on a regular basis, as there are those who are not comfortable going to staff as some feel it might have a detrimental affect on their projects if they complain about staff; but there is also a need for ongoing discussions to build relationships so the public will feel comfortable dealing with these issues with staff. Mr. Mercier mentioned having a combination of meetings, with a first meeting for everyone, and then go from there, and that in developing a contact person, these efforts should produce good results. The move of development engineering into the Community Development was mentioned, and Ms. Regor said the move has not been finalized. Public perception is important as Mayor Wilhite mentioned she received a phone call from a citizen who discovered that we had the potential to keep a business here, but was told by the real estate community it would take too long to build in the Spokane Valley; and she would like to examine a process whereby some projects which meet a set criteria could be processed in an expedited manner. Mr. Mercier added that we would need rational criteria for when an expedited process would be warranted, and if we moved in that direction; we would also need a process to inform the public. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that it is important to have a plan by Council for these "spot' calls, because if the call were not answered, it could give the perception we don't care. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Munson suggested we have an elected official and a staff member and that Mr. Mercier should designate who can go or who is available. After brief discussion on this idea, there was consensus that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor should be first, then another councilmember if the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are not available; but the first point of contact should be the Mayor. Code Enforcement was mentioned, and Mr. Mercier said we take great pride in our Code Enforcement Group and that they have had terrific results in the community; but that they are operating under a re- active program and that Mr. Mercier can foresee a time when we may want to be more proactive so that as these Code Compliance Officers see something, they can take appropriate action. Councilmembers Schimmels and Munson agreed it is time to move forward, and Councilmember Denenny added to do so if the staff has time. Further discussion on this topic included adding another Compliance Officer in the Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07 future; the idea of allowing them to use their best judgment and discretion; that sight triangles are an issue; and that our staff takes the more gentle approach about noticing problems to property owners in that they engage people in conversation as they look for voluntary compliance. It was determined that Council has no objection for the pro - active stance of our code enforcement officers, but that they will do so under the guidance of Building Official Martin. There being no further business, Mayor Wilhite thanked everyone for attending, and again thanked Dick and Kathy Denenny for the use of their cabin. The meeting ended at 3:20 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, sr Clerk (IccuLoANJ ksEktL Diana Wilhite, Mayor Special Meeting, Retreat 06 -02 -2007 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -26 -07