Loading...
2007, 06-18 Special Joint Council/BOCC Meeting MinutesMINUTES Joint City Council/ Spokane County Commission Meeting Monday, June 18, 2007 1:30 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. Spokane County Human Resources Training Room, Main Floor 1229 W. Mallon Avenue, Spokane, WA . Attendance. City of Spokane Valley Mayor Diana Wilhite Councilmember Mike DeVleming Councilmember Bill Gothmann Councilmember Rich Munson Councilmember Gary Schimmels (arrived 2:02 p.m.) Guests. City Manager Dave Mercier Deputy City Manager Nina Regor Police Chief Rick VanLeuven Deputy City Clerk Carrie Acosta Planning Commission Chair Gail Kogle Absent. Deputy Mayor Steve Taylor Councilmember Dick Denenny Spokane County Commissioner Bonnie Mager Commissioner Todd Miekle Chairman Mark Richard Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Ross Kelley, Director of Engineering & Roads Bruce Rawls, Director of Utilities Jim Emacio, Deputy Prosecutor Undersheriff Tower Bob Brueggeman, County Engineer Gerry Gemmill, County Operations Bruce Hunt, Building & Planning Pam Knutsen, Building & Planning Ian Horlacher, Building & Planning Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board The meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m. by Chairman Richard. He asked if there were any comments or additions to the agenda; there were none. Joint Council /Commissioners Agenda Item: 1. Sales Tax for Public Safety and Infrastructure Spokane Valley Deputy City Manager Regor commented that she was at a meeting where this issue was discussed. During strategic planning they discussed the options primarily around transportation and financial challenges with rising material costs and inflation, and lack of federal funding and grants. Staff was asked to come up with funding alternatives. This began the conversation relating to transportation, although it looks like it may also be a public safety issue. They also had a preliminary discussion about the Valley's challenges and how they might partner with Spokane County to share strategies. Mayor Wilhite asked if the County is looking at an increase in sales tax and a separate fee. Commissioner Mielke explained a $20 tab surcharge authorized by the legislature takes effect July 21 and requests that within the first six months, they have a plan for collecting funds from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and other interlocal agreements. It does not go to a public vote. Councilmember Munson asked if Spokane County will lead the TBD with municipalities legislating. Commissioner Mielke responded yes. Chairman Richard indicated they are not leaning toward anything yet, but it has tight timeframe. He would like to discuss the shortfalls. Commissioner Mielke explained that they want to take a regional approach to transportation. For the first six months they want municipalities to get together to regionalize the program. Spokane County could opt out, the City of Spokane Valley could opt out, or both could opt in and move forward. Councilmember DeVleming asked if there are funds for building new roads. Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 Commissioner Mielke explained that the County has a road fund but it has a number of strings attached. For example, if they have a project that crosses boundaries, Spokane County into Spokane Valley, it is hard to get the project through. This other funding option would provide more flexibility across boundaries. The sales tax increase is time sensitive as far as putting something on the ballot. One -third of the increase is to be used for criminal justice, with 60% going to Spokane County and 40% to be divided up among other jurisdictions; 2/10 is still available to be used for any purpose but does go to a public vote. There used to be a 45 day notice requirement; however, with the change of the primary elections it is now 82 days. This means by August 14, 2007 we need to decide the ballot issues for the coming year. Infrastructure is one of the primary issues and goals for Spokane County and they need to look at the challenges. Commissioner Mielke wants to look at the broader issues such as stormwater rather than just roads. He said there may be more flexibility for the City and County to work together on joint ventures. Spokane Valley City Manager Mercier inquired as to how the $700,000 per year is divided. Commissioner Mielke stated it is divided to the jurisdictions based on population. Councilmember DeVleming asked if this increase takes place, would the distribution of funds still be based on population and not miles of road in each jurisdiction. Commissioner Mielke responded yes, and Deputy Prosecutor Emacio confirmed that the allocation model is based on population. Councilmember Munson agreed that both Spokane Valley and Spokane County face problems and challenges. Spokane Valley has been working on its Master Plan and has inventoried the condition of roads in Spokane Valley. Once that has been quantified, we will know what the City's needs for funds will be. First, data is needed as to what the annual investment would be in order to maintain the current condition of the roads, maintenance only, with no new roadways. He indicated he expects this report will give thorough and accurate data and should drive the strategic plan; however, that data is not available at this point. He is looking for something that targets maintenance specifically once we get the Street Master Plan. Commissioner Mielke mentioned the ability of jurisdictions to use the funds in more flexible ways, not just for roads, but for infrastructure. He explained where one jurisdiction may need roads, another may need stormwater. Councilmember Munson asked if there is an advantage to Spokane Valley going with the County rather than going on its own for additional transportation funding. Commissioner Mielke said the financial implications are not clear at this point. He explained the 1 /10 of 1% is distributed County -wide but with regard to the $20 surcharge the issue with interlocal legislation provides the option to each entity to opt in or opt out. Vehicles are licensed in each jurisdiction. Rough estimation of revenue to the unincorporated area is $1.2 million; they are still waiting on those answers from the Department of Revenue. Councilmember Gothmann asked if it would be logical to tax vehicles and have those dollars go directly toward streets, indicating that is easily identifiable for the public. He pointed out that the disadvantage is that folks don't like to pay for things they can't see and it doesn't generate much revenue either. Mayor Wilhite indicated that another reason she would like the report back before going to the public and asking for money is so the Valley can show the citizens how much funding it needs and where they will spend the funds. Local communities are being asked to fund their own community needs. People want to know what their benefit will be. In this case, this is a user fee that needs to stay in the community. Chairman Richard stated that whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, the Governor has made the message clear: more and more local municipalities need to partner with each other in maintaining infrastructure. They have talked about tolling and looked at other alternatives, but the reduction in federal dollars that help fund construction and maintenance combined with increasing costs make it challenging to keep up with the community demands. County Engineer Brueggeman stated that most of the granting agencies are financed through gas taxes at the state or federal level. Funding sources stagnate with the level of gas tax Joint County /City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 and with inflation. Grants have less impact on construction and do not go as far as they used to. Local agencies need to pick up a larger share of matching funds. Chairman Richard asked if this is caused by a reduction in the flow of dollars or stagnation. Engineer Brueggeman indicated it is largely stagnation and the fact that more local jurisdictions are competing for funds. Liberty Lake and Airway Heights are also competing for the same stagnant amounts of grants available. Spokane County has had the most aggressive Road Improvement District (RID) in the state. The County currently has a backlog of about 50 neighborhoods that have interest in RIDs; they can only do three or four a year, so that means they have a couple decades of backlog for improvement. Councilmember Gothmann asked what the formula is for paying for the RIDs. The County pays approximately 15% and the neighborhood pays the balance. If the roadway is a through- street, the County picks up more. City Manager Mercier stated Spokane Valley has the ability to create Local Improvement Districts (LIDs), but they have not actively pursued that yet. Councilmember Gothmann commented the County passed along a great roadway system to Spokane Valley. Councilmember Munson stated the bottom line is we need to get more information. The August 14 date is the deadline to get things onto the ballot. Councilmember DeVleming said he doesn't want to go to the voters until we know what we will be paying for and where we will get the dollars. He stated Council will need to hear the presentation for its Street master plan. That first discussion will be during one of the July meetings. Chairman Richard asked that Council have discussions about alternative financial options and that they realize them in terms of revenue and the pros and cons so that when they are presented with the different needs they will have already discussed other financing options. The item they are looking to get on the August ballot is the 1 /10 of 1% sales tax increase. Chief Executive Officer Marshall Farnell stated there are various options for the jail facility. He indicated they need to get a plan that addresses location, expansion, and rehabilitation. Their goal is to put something on the fall 2008 ballot, and likely a bond issue for some of the funding. He said they are talking about a large dollar amount and they would likely need a special levy, requiring 60% voter approval for the bond issue. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the 9 -1 -1 system, the City's plans for the Spokane Valley City Center, capital expenses along with developing the Sprague /Appleway corridor and the City's need to have a long -term plan. He suggested we state each region's capital needs to show the taxpayers the overall vision and how it will be paid for. Councilmember Munson stated we need to provide good information to the public to justify asking for funds. Chairman Richard asked if there should be regional legislation for sales tax or a greater percentage of what currently goes to the state, whether we should ask for a greater return on the amount of dollars paying in. Where can we create more efficiency? Councilmember Munson stated the initial reaction from the state is what can be cut if you want more funding? Councilmember DeVleming stated if a larger percentage of sales tax is going back to the state, that could be a potential place to fill in some of the gap. There has been some discussion on impact fees for transportation as another part of the solution. He would like to see more exploration in those areas before going to the taxpayers and asking them for money. Chairman Richard said he strongly understands why voters retracted the motor vehicle excise tax; they felt they were paying for very expensive government services out of the vehicle licensing. He suggested giving the voters a menu of what the fees will pay for so they can see where their dollars are being directed. City Manager Mercier asked as a point of clarification whether the commissioners are asking Council to add 1 /10 or 2/10. Answer: 1 /10. Councilmember Munson explained the Valley's projections show us Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 going negative in road funds in 2010, so these issues needs to be addressed. Every capital need has a dollar amount on it and it is not cheap; jail services, wastewater treatment, roads, public safety. Commissioner Richard suggested the group move on to discuss Regional Transportation Concurrency, agenda item 5, and get together again in July to discuss each municipality's top capital needs and the anticipated dollars required to meet those needs. Mayor Wilhite stated she would like to see the County's list of capital needs in writing, and Spokane Valley would provide the same type of list to the County, prior to that meeting so they can better address them. Mr. Horlacher, County Building & Planning, stressed the need to establish a long term capital facilities plan. He stated the money generated from the 1 /10 of 1% can be used to operate facilities. We are obligated to have statements "For" and "Against" if something is placed on the ballot to be included in the voters pamphlets. It could be there is not sufficient time to get something on this year's ballot. 5. Regional Transportation Concurrency Chairman Richard mentioned the Regional Transportation Concurrency Plan as a means to mitigate growth management on a regional level. The City of Spokane is working on an impact fee ordinance. He said the County has been approached and folks indicate they want the fees to be regional rather than by jurisdiction. They took the issue to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) who put together an analysis which looks at greater participation from the business and development community. Transportation mitigation fees will play a part in interlocals. When development moves into the County that has an impact on the City, there is a model in place to calculate the distribution of the impact fees. Chairman Richard stated the study is a methodology for determining a fee. It is not necessarily looking at concurrency, and the possibility of traffic count system inaccuracies should not affect the study. He stated there needs to be open dialogue on this topic because he thinks it will be a very big issue. Councilmember Munson mentioned the concurrency issues are different among different jurisdictions. For example, the concurrency issues between Spokane County and the City of Spokane are going to be different from the concurrency issues between Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake. Chairman Richard explained that if the methodology for calculation of the fees can be consistent, those differences shouldn't be a factor. Councilmember Gothmann indicated he is open to a parameter and discussing solutions to regionalizing concurrency. Mayor Wilhite said she will put this issue on a July Council agenda to discuss further. 2. Wastewater Treatment Facility Governance Commissioner Mielke reminded the group of previous attempts at establishing a single sewer system. There are a number of moving pieces that either create or limit the opportunity. Over the last two and one - half years, regulators and legislators have been looking at the watershed approaches and areas are either in compliance or they are not. To take a regional approach, the best entities positioned to take the lead are Spokane Valley and Spokane County. Because Liberty Lake wanted to expand, their decision was made prior to negotiations and they now need to bring their new facility into compliance. The City of Spokane has financial and technical challenges. Airway Heights has unique challenges regarding re -use, concern with the water table on the west plains, and a trunk -line they don't know if they own or are just using. He suggested the County and Spokane Valley determine what they want to achieve through wastewater governance; dependable service at the lowest possible rates, and using enterprise funds rather than general funds. Constituents want the most reasonable rates for providing service. An advisory group would be established to set the rates. An issue to be addressed would the use of in -house employees versus contracting out, with one objective being the determination of future operating costs and employee costs. They have looked at the issue of growth in the area and have discussed how to make a decision on future growth. They also talked about devising a business model. He said the idea was to be specific with common objectives whether within interlocals or a stand -alone entity. With regard to accessing a utility tax to the system, there would be no utility tax; however, a jurisdiction could charge a utility tax to residents within their area. Rates established by the system would cover maintenance, operation and debt service. The group did not discuss a utility tax. Councilmember Munson asked if the costs are greater than Joint County /City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 originally thought, would the County take a portion of whatever utility tax another jurisdiction may have put into place for their rate payers. Chairman Richard stated that has not been discussed by the County, but doesn't think statutorily they have the ability to do so. Under bonds they will be required to raise the rates in order to pay the bonds. He stated the County doesn't have that authority so that has never discussed. Commissioner Miekle discussed the handling of interdepartmental transfers and stated enterprise funds are stand -alone entities, so the system covers its own cost or contracts with an outside entity, but would not do any interdepartmental transfers of funds. Councilmember Munson asked how to go about formalizing that type of an agreement and where we are in that process. Commissioner Mielke said our next step is to submit a technology plan and have it approved by Ecology. Ecology needs to implement the TMDL. He said we should be very close to sitting down and formalizing operational agreements. City Manager Mercier inquired as to Commissioner Mielke's best guess for an Ecology timeline. Commissioner Mielke indicated it is a moving target. It is likely the TMDL would not be approved until the beginning of 2008 — at least six months. Most of the reluctance to engage in specificity came from the City of Spokane. Some of the issue was in how to deal with utility taxes as well as how to treat Spokane's asset, their wastewater treatment plant. If Spokane were to become part of the regional plan, they would want to be compensated for their treatment plant. This is a key element in progressing with any kind of regional discussions. Mayor Wilhite stated this is an important topic to get moving on; and she suggested Spokane Valley join with the County and move forward, then ask other jurisdictions to join. She said she does not want to wait until others are ready before proceeding. Commissioner Mielke said the plan should allow for flexibility for others to join later if they choose, but he agrees the County and Valley shouldn't wait for them. Chairman Richard said they are contemplating bringing in Maxwell HDR (an engineering agency specializing in wastewater systems); he asked if they need to wait for approval of the TMDL or can they embark upon that now? Utilities Director Rawls stated the Department of Ecology isn't telling anyone when the TMDL will be released for public comment. He said once released, the public comment process can take a long time. Mayor Wilhite asked what they will do about governance. Utilities Director Rawls said the TMDL is out of their hands right now. Commissioner Mielke would like to take discussion and create a written document and initiate the process before soliciting other jurisdictions and move forward. The design - build- operate process is moving forward and they are not waiting for Ecology to approve before beginning that process. He stated they are still moving forward, seeking permits, and working on the final approval for a facilities plan; they are proceeding as though everything will be successful rather than waiting. He said the look to be on -line in 2011. Commissioner Mielke and Utilities Director Rawls said they will put these thoughts in writing and will have that prepared by July 18, 2007. They will add that to the list of topics for the July Joint County /City meeting. 3. Contract Services Mayor Wilhite inquired as to how things are going with the Valley /County contracts. She asked if everyone felt they were working well together, if there are aspects anyone would like to address, and if the County still wants to contract with the Valley. Commissioner Mager stated as she was talking with folks in their Road Department, there was concern they are taking on too much when they combine the services provided to Spokane Valley through contract as well as providing services to the County. Commissioner Mielke stated he has two concerns: (1) He wouldn't support transferring a service from the County to the Valley, and then being asked later to take it back. He does not want to be in the position of hiring staff, then laying them off; and (2) the level of service provided. He said typically, incorporated areas have a higher level of service than unincorporated areas. He would be concerned in contracting with Spokane Valley if the level of service fell below whatever the standard for Spokane Valley is - due to the fact that it is "Spokane County" named as the service provider. For example, Spokane Valley was Joint County /City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 contemplating lowering their level of service on snow plowing, adopting a lower level than what the County currently has with regard to residential streets. Councilmember DeVleming asked what determines what the level of service is, and who it is that decides. City Manager Mercier explained there is a certain amount of mythology and semantics involved in the discussion of levels of service. Some is in relation to what comes first: there is no hard and fast number of inches of snow needed before sending a plow or a "4- inch" plow because it is based on forecasts, etc. Chairman Richard gave street sweeping services as an additional example and whether Spokane Valley wanted to take sweeping away from the County or contract it to a private agency? The summer maintenance was taken off the County contract due to a three -year schedule of transition. Chairman Richard stated he believes the County is interested in contracting with Spokane Valley. He would like to make sure doing so is a win -win situation for both and that the County is recouping its costs. He said it is beneficial to contract with the Valley because it is beneficial to Spokane Valley. As a long -term strategy that may need to come to an end. He asked how long it would take for the Valley to take on this project. City Manager Mercier said he thinks the contracting is going fine, that the concerns are being dealt with as they come up. He asked as a point of clarification if the County is looking to establish an end -point in the future. Chairman Richard indicated the contract is ambiguous. He asked that staff agree to revisit the contract and determine if it is a transition plan or an on -going contract with no end clause. There is a difference in viewpoints as to its interpretation. Councilmember DeVleming said he would like to see long -term contracting between the Valley and County. He would like to see if arrangements can be made for long -term provided it benefits both sides. Councilmember Munson said the time to make changes is when times are good. If the County wants to contract with the City, he would like to look at long -term contracting, but if not, he thinks Spokane Valley needs to look at other avenues. Mayor Wilhite said she would like to continue this discussion. Chairman Richard suggested he meet with Mayor Wilhite and members of staff to continue the discussion prior to the next meeting to clear up any mixed signals regarding the contracting and getting back into alignment. A Break was called at 3:40 p.m.; and at 3:45 p.m. the meeting reconvened. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Chairman Richard and Mayor Wilhite agreed to drop item 4a.) Joint Planning Agreements from the agenda and give an update instead. Chairman Richard said the County is ratifying their interlocal agreement and it is the goal of the Board to have reviewed the draft interlocal agreement for the July meeting. The Board has the draft. Mayor Wilhite requested the Board provide any changes to Council in writing prior to the July meeting so they can be reviewed. Councilmember Munson asked that they look at the draft as a template, not as the final document; it is a start to the conversation. The Board's agreement with Spokane Valley that will be used as a template is based off the Moran Prairie Aquatic Facility project. Chairman Richard said he is concerned about the Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Hunt gave a snapshot as to where the County is and an update on the Comprehensive Plan. State statutes require updates on the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Spokane County took it upon itself to update its UGA every five years. Planning directors have been working on updating the plan and are hoping to have a report in the next few days that will summarize where they are now and what it will take to finish the job. The data is updated quarterly or biannually. Hopefully they will then be better prepared to answer the questions of the public. Councilmember Munson mentioned he felt early on there was not a problem of time, but a problem in process. He said they were constantly reinventing the process and things were not codified. Now he is excited they are using the Ad -hoc committee. He said they took a positive approach to solve the problems and move the process along. Commissioner Mielke said the subcommittee members met earlier that Joint County /City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 morning to talk about establishing a well - defined process, regardless of timeline intervals. He said they need to know what they need to do, by what timeline, and if the timelines are not met that cannot handicap the rest of the process. The law gives a timeframe for annual amendments. Jurisdictions within the urban core impact each other so there needs to be a definition of what triggers when to do an update if it is to be less than what was previously agreed upon. Chairman Richard said he presented a matrix and menu of options as to what could be used as different trigger points as well as annual measurements that would "trigger" a review. He said the measurements would give legitimacy to the process rather than represent political views. Councilmember Munson said CTED(Community Trade and Economic Development) paid for a study to identify impediments and determine which are real and which are not; there aren't any that can't be dealt with through joint planning. Chairman Richard said because they are behind in having the plan updated in a timely fashion, the Steering Committee will hear comments from small rural towns at the next meeting. They might also include non -UGA in the 2007 cycle and perhaps contemplate putting non -UGA amendments with small town amendments, process the others and ratify the plan in 2008. They are looking for a way to take care of the backlog of those who have been waiting over two years. He asked that Spokane Valley consider that option. The next joint County /City meeting will be July 23, 2007 from 2:00 -5:00 p.m. at Spokane Valley City Hall. Agenda items will include capital projects, regional transportation concurrency, joint planning, wastewater governance, and sales tax. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. ATTEST: uvi-ij‘-- (_.>40.tx. Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk 0. ).) ,6,0,,, Diana Wilhite, Mayor Joint County /City Meeting Minutes 06 -18 -2007 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07