Loading...
2008, 01-12 Special Retreat Meeting MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers January 12, 2008 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 Mike DeVleming Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL CenterPlace 2 Floor Conference Room 2426 N Discovery Place Spokane Valley, Washington 8:00 a.m. — 1:30 p.m. Staff Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Kathy McClung, Community Develop. Dir. Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Connelly, City Attorney Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk 1. Review 2008 Council budget goals — 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 discharges licenses. Deputy City Manager Jackson asked if there were any suggestions for any changes to the goals, and Mayor Munson asked Deputy Mayor Denenny to give an update on the wastewater treatment plant issue. Deputy Mayor Denenny explained that he will give Council an update in March, but briefly stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has some criticism about the agreement, and there is some disagreement among the attorneys and consultants regarding the direction EPA gave them in letters; that the criticism was not specified in the discharge allocations, which was part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and he stated that the Sierra Club and others might file suit regarding that agreement; that the Department of Ecology (DOE) controls and issues everything in this State and has delegated authority from the EPA; and that the EPA might not allow what the DOE agreed to, and if suit occurs, it would go through the Ninth Circuit, and we would be out of the window of capacity or beyond that window of having enough capacity to allow building, which could result in a thrust to put the discharge out on the Slatese. Mayor Munson said he discussed this issue with Governor Gregoire, that the Governor is aware of the problem, and that he told her that this could result in issuing a building moratorium if this is not resolved. There were no suggested changes for this goal. Goal #2: Refine initial departmental six year business plans in order to identify and incorporate fiscal impacts into a strategic financial plan. Deputy City Manager Jackson explained that one of the intents of this 2007 Business Plan is to more closely align the Plan with the Budget and the Strategic Plan; that Council needs to examine funding possibilities to fund those stated goals, and he added that the number of customer service improvements actually exceed what are stated in the plan. There were no suggested changes for this goal. Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 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 constrains; and proposes formulas for Council consideration that institute sustainable budget - balancing approaches and itemizes necessary service reductions or revenue increases or combinations thereof. There were no suggested changes for this goal and Finance Director Thompson said we need to begin to take action on this and he will address this issue later today. Goal #4: Initiate Implementation of the sub -area plan for the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. Community Development Director McClung said that the next steps are public meetings for February, including the Consultant's presentation of Book 3 for February 19, which will be to Council and the Planning Commission. Ms. McClung stated that a SEPA Determination has been issued on the City Center portion of the plan, and we should have estimates on infrastructure cost soon. Public Works Director Kersten said that he and Gladding Jackson are working on those estimates, and should have some numbers within the next few weeks, but he estimates the cost in the twelve to fourteen million dollar range, and said that costs will cover streets, underground water and power, sewer, and landscaping down that part of the Center; and that the City Center street by itself is about $3 million; he added that the numbers will include frontages but not the actual upgrade of the whole streets or new interchanges. Mr. Kersten also stated that the library is obligated to build their half of the street, and that there are some minor streets which could be built by a developer. City Attorney Connelly remarked that the condition of purchase and sale is the road extending south to the library which has to be built, and there is no indication as to who or how that will be accomplished; that they have had contacts from at least one developer concerning the city, and are finally getting down to costs, and said he anticipates the next month or two will be productive. Mr. Kersten stated that we don't have to use all $12 million to satisfy the library; and Mr. Connelly responded that we can start with the idea that the developer will build the streets. The issue of turning Sprague and Appleway back to two -ways was broached, and Mr. Kersten said that Glatting Jackson is working on that and should have some figures in the next few weeks and will consolidate that into another report. Mr. Kersten also mentioned we will have a list of all potential projects that it will take to have the City Center Project; and said some developers are interested who want to look at the project in the next few weeks, after which time Mr. Kersten said he should know if those developers are genuinely interested. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that any developers meeting with Mr. Munson should include Mr. Denenny as well, and he (Mr. Connelly) sent Council a memo on what they can and cannot do regarding developer contact. There were no suggested changes for this goal. Goal S: Adopt area -wide rezoning proposals consistent with the comprehensive plan that reflect appropriate adjustments in zoning designations. Deputy City Manager Jackson stated that the just initiated quarterly updates for Council are in keeping with Council requests for opportunity for input into future Comp Plan changes. Ms. McClung explained that they are putting together a schedule for the next "batch" of comp plan change requests, which are from eleven individual property owners. In response to Mayor Munson's question about Council protocol on how to address comp plan changes, it was mentioned that Mr. McCormick will be giving Council a report on this at the next council meeting, and will subsequently give quarterly updates. Councilmember Taylor mentioned that this is in response to his and other Councilmembers' previous comments concerning giving input into the comp plan changes process; and Council concurred that they do not need written documentation prior to discussion of these quarterly updates. There were no suggested changes for this goal. [See further discussion below for this goal.] Goal 6: Perform an analysis of a land owner initiated request for annexation. Community Development Director McClung explained that this is the end of a process which begins with reaching consensus with the County regarding where the annexation boundaries are going to be; she said that a meeting is scheduled for February 6 as a "kick -off' meeting with us, Spokane County and others, and she said that the meeting notice explained that the Washington State Community and Economic Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 Development Department recently awarded Spokane County, Spokane, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Airway Heights, and the Town of Millwood a grant that allows the County and affected cities to move forward with coordinated planning for the metro urban growth area; and this meeting should be of assistance as there is a lot of work to do so we know the process on taking in a neighborhood that may want to be annexed. City Attorney Connelly said that our existing comp plan does not identify any urban growth areas (UGAs) as future growth areas for the City of Spokane Valley; and such needs to be included in our Plan; that we intentionally did not include that in the first plan as we have to have the comp plan basis for moving forward; and once we agree on those areas, we can move forward. Councilmember Taylor said that would be a great topic for the first quarter comp plan issues; and Mr. Connelly replied that these should be in conjunction with a joint planning presentation, and that we can move this issue parallel with the comp plan process. Mayor Munson mentioned that provided we follow the County Wide Planning Policies on joint planning, we can annex; and Mr. Connelly added that we just need to do our part to identify future growth areas for Spokane valley. It was then mentioned that perhaps Goal #5 is completed and perhaps should be re- worded. Ms. McClung suggested re- wording to read, "Complete the annual comp plan update" or to simply leave the goal as stated, noting that it is complete. It was suggested to continue to improve the area -wide zoning proposals and include identifying the specific areas for annexation; or perhaps combine goal 5 and 6; and it was subsequently mentioned by Mr. Connelly that the UGA is the planning tool, and annexation is the regulation that implements it. Councilmember Taylor said that before the end of this year, everything the City needs to do needs to be in place to accomplish this (Goal #5) goal. For goal #6, Councilmember Taylor suggested changing it to read: "Adopt all necessary annexation policies and perform the analysis of land owner and city- initiated requests for annexation." When Ms. McClung asked if Council wants analysis, cost, and procedure, Councilmember Taylor responded that if a member of the public asks to be annexed, we need to know the cost for upgrading roads. Ms. McClung replied that in her previous experience, approximately five years ago it cost $150,000 for a consultant to get together that information, not to mention a great deal of staff work. Mr. Connelly added that a financial analysis, which precedes an annexation analysis, would be several hundred thousand dollars to determine if there are sufficient tax revenues to justify it. Councilmember Taylor responded that perhaps we don't need a full financial analysis on every possible annexation, but as they come; to which Councilmember Gothmann added that there needs to be a process that is timely for owner - initiated annexations, and some people are inquiring already. Mr. Connelly explained that we have to have those future growth areas identified. Deputy City Manager Jackson said that according to the minutes of the last June retreat, "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." Further comments were that part of developing this goal would be a financial analysis; that we need a process when determining UGAs, that it is easier to annex vacant land than developed land; that any areas we want to annex, whether already developed or to be developed, needs to be up to our city standards; and that we should include the benefit of looking at annexations prior to development. There was nothing definitive stated regarding changing this goal. Goal 7.• Develop a Shoreline Master Program as required by the State of Washington to provide additional regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance; i.e., Spokane River, Shelley Lake. Community Development Director McClung explained that this Shoreline Master Program must be updated by 2013; and when this goal was first developed, there was some state funding available, but such funding did not materialize. Ms. McClung said staff will put together a plan for how to get the program completed and processed by the deadline, but that this is not something they will be working on this year, which prompted Deputy Mayor Denenny to inquire if this perhaps should not be an 08 goal. Mr. Connelly stated that if the County changes their program, we have a choice to stay with theirs or have our own; and that previously we had a draft shoreline ordinance before the Planning Commission which former Community Development Director Marina Sukup had completed; but the DOE said it wasn't Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 going to occur; that there were specifics in the ordinance that DOE was not comfortable with and they put it as a low priority; adding that many thought we were a lot closer then we ended up being. After further brief discussion, there was council consensus to delete this as an 08 goal and put this on the agenda in six months to consider as an 2009 goal. 2. Proposed 2009 Council Goals — Mike Jackson Deputy City Manager Jackson explained that this is a type of brainstorming session to discuss possible 2009 goals. There was council consensus to wait until June to decide whether to include the Shoreline Master Program as a 2009 goal. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of keeping the monitoring of wastewater issues goal as a 2009 goal, and Deputy Mayor Denenny explained some of the pressing issues as discussed previously and noted above, but no decision was made to have this considered a 2009 goal. Councilmember Taylor talked about having funding for the City Center as a possible goal. That led to further financial discussion including mention of the possibility of having multiple bonding issues on an upcoming ballot. Mayor Munson asked about developing an audit for various contracts we have. Discussion on this topic included mention that the Sheriff's Office would be the top contract audit priority; whether to have a performance and /or a financial Sheriff's Office audit; the idea of examining other options for law enforcement and whether that should be a stated 2009 goal; Deputy Mayor Denenny's mention of the need for an analysis of our "largest financial obligation" and that we can't examine alternatives without an audit involving the cost factor; disagreement from Councilmember Gothmann that the purpose of an audit is to see if our administrative division is meeting its goals; with Deputy Mayor Denenny's counter - response that a performance audit is to look at control mechanisms, and we can't do that if we can't control any changes. That prompted an additional response from Councilmember Gothmann that we already have control over such things as asking for re- assigning of patrol officers in needed areas, that we can discuss those needs with the Sheriff; but Councilmember Taylor disagreed and said those are issues dealt with by the City Manager and not something Council deals with. Mr. Gothmann disagreed and stated that we have not set goals for our police, such as do we want more or less traffic enforcement; and that those are policies we can set and turn over to the Sheriff's Office; that our role is to identify areas to re- assign or add officers, and to make policy decisions to best serve our citizens. Mayor Munson stated that in examining the contract issue with the Sheriff's Office, there was a "water line" and some things were not negotiable, and some things were not defined. Councilmember Taylor asked Mr. Koudelka what is allowed within the contract, and are there changes the City is looking to make now after five years, such as something to change to give us more control and more autonomy? Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that it became evident this past year when we had to select a new police chief, that there were some shortcomings as to our perspective as how that process takes place; that at one point we had worked to come up with a new law enforcement agreement that incorporated a lot of the model language of most of our other contracts already adopted by Council, and that we reached a point where we had a good draft ready for review by Sheriff Sterk, who resigned before the end of his term, and that process was put on hold; and at this point, Mr. Koudelka explained, we are trying to work through some building issues and get a better understanding of what our costs are and get more specifics; and that all that would help us to understand if we are getting an efficient delivery of services, which would help us to move forward to discuss options. For this year, Mr. Koudelka stated, there was a meeting set for next week with Marshall and one of the undersheriffs, Mr. Koudelka, and Mr. Connelly, which meeting was postponed due to Mr. Mercier's unexpected absence due to the death in his family; Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 and that said meeting will have to be re- scheduled. Mr. Koudelka stated that when such meeting does occur, they should know where they stand regarding some unresolved building issues; and said that staff plans to pull together all the items in the old contract that were deficient, and to get input from Council as well as identify some new items or revisions to the existing agreement, then move forward to implement a model agreement that will address all our needs. As an aside, Mr. Jackson said Mr. Koudelka will perform the performance audit of the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Koudelka also mentioned that Councilmember Gothmann seemed to be addressing a performance measurement, but that the business plan hopes to incorporate that and bring law enforcement into the business plan giving the opportunity to have goals; and added that a performance audit would look at the efficiency of delivering that service, such as getting data of crime analysis on how quickly law enforcement responds, how many units, etc. or to see if perhaps there is a better way to use time; staffing schedules and levels sufficient to address call times would also be examined; and he stated that we don't have a developed system or procedure for performance audits; but are working on identifying what steps are needed to do so. Police Chief VanLeuven mentioned that some of that data is now available and is included in his monthly report he submits as part of the Council packet; and the data is analyzed by supervisors who manage the performance of addressing those "hot spots." Councilmember Taylor remarked that the previously mentioned "water line" needs to be discussed, whether that includes the need for more FTE's, or switching officers from one place to another; and a discussion on whether that flexibility should exist; that so far there have been no contractual changes, and we need to see what headway we can make, that a lot of this came to a head but the City backed away from some of the more controversial issues so we could get a new police chief. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that he feels it strange to focus so much on personnel issues and not on the area of enforcement, to which Mr. Taylor replied that the area of enforcement is directly impacted by the level of autonomy noted in the contract. Councilmember Gothmann said he wants to focus on performance issues, and that the Sheriff's Office should bring alternatives to us. Deputy Mayor Denenny said he wants to start the process for our own department and would like that as a goal; and Councilmember Schimmels said if we can't come to a contract agreement, our duty is to talk to Mr. Mercier and /or Mr. Jackson; and that we need to do a performance audit which will direct the financial picture and move from there to alternatives. Mr. Koudelka explained that one of the work goals is to develop an audit plan for all contracts, and to have that designed to ensure consistency in our method of verifying costs we are charged; and that concerning law enforcement, we are in the process of working with the County to come up with a method to more accurately determine costs, which will then be brought forward to Council later this year. Mayor Munson said for 2009 alternatives, we should have current costs to make comparisons; and Mr. Koudelka explained that the County has a consultant to develop a cost plan for the Sheriff's Office and for direct costs such as telephone, yet he added that a lot of the support costs come to us in a simplex method, so there is a need for a greater in -depth comparison. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to have Council ask the Police Chief to bring a plan for policing the city, and to present that along with alternatives to Council; that such report has never been done, and he feels that is wrong but is something that Sheriff Knezovich said he would do. Mayor Munson said he sees no reason why we can't ask for that this year, and Deputy Mayor Denenny agreed, as well as to address those issues previously mentioned. Mayor Munson asked if a 2009 goal should be to develop a cost model for law enforcement; and Councilmember Taylor said he feels it premature for Council to state specific goals until staff has had that discussion with the Sheriff's Office, which meeting was mentioned previously by Mr. Koudelka, and he added that we don't want to send a misleading message that we are no longer confident with our current contract. Deputy Mayor Denenny said he feels we need to have a law enforcement analysis and cost out the alternatives, and that this should be discussed in June. Councilmember Taylor concurred that this should be postponed until the summer agenda, as did Mayor Munson. Councilmember Taylor then Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 suggested the option of merely postponing this issue until we can get a report from staff on how the contractual negotiations are coming, as part of this issue centers on performance and part is governance; and that it returns to the autonomy issues which were not resolved before. Councilmember Wilhite also suggested putting this on the agenda for June to examine how in -depth Council may want to have this as a 2009 goal. Mayor Munson said he feels this issue will take several meetings to resolve, and Councilmember Gothmann said we need to identify what it is we are contracting, and what are our goals for the community regarding law enforcement, that we need to identify those goals before considering alternatives. There was eventual consensus to put this as an upcoming study session agenda item, and that Police Chief VanLeuven and Mr. Mercier could give Council a list of what Council has control over, and of suggested areas or goals for law enforcement to achieve, and that this is separate from the contractual based issues which will come back later. To recap, Mr. Jackson stated that possible 2009 goals include continuing the monitoring of wastewater issues, the police department, and securing funding sources for the City Center. Mr. Thompson said it is his perception from speaking with Mr. Mercier on this topic, that we need to move forward with major decisions for securing funding sources for the City Center by July 2008, and said if we don't get financing started soon, we will lose ground. Councilmember Taylor said that rather than the suggested 2009 goal of securing funding sources for the City Center, that perhaps a better 2009 goal to add during the June retreat would be to further refine 2008 Goal number 4. Brief discussion continued regarding using the private sector contractually for other public works issues; that Mr. Kersten said the only area left is snow removal which would be very difficult and extremely expensive to do ourselves, but that he could explore that option at Council direction. Mayor Munson suggested keeping these issues in mind for possible goals to discuss at the June retreat. There was a brief break in the meeting at 9:30 a.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:50 a.m. 3. Financial Forecast — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that the purpose of this item is to bring Council an update on projections for revenues and expenditures in the general fund and other areas such as the street fund, but he said it would not include the stormwater fund as they have a fixed income source which flows through the County. In looking at areas we track, he explained, general, street, and capital fund, there will always be more projects then we have money for; and we can spread those projects over a six -year period. Mr. Thompson then highlighted the packet document "Significant Points" under general fund, street fund, and capital. Mr. Thompson mentioned that in the general fund, there are no funds for the City Center; and also in the general fund, he mentioned that additional transfers to the Civic Facilities Fund will lessen the facilities' need in future years; and that the bottom line is, if we keep putting funds aside we can probably handle that; and if we don't put funds aside, we will have an approximate $6 million problem; that we need to get started and he would like direction from Council to keep putting funds aside for the next five years. The Street Fund needs an additional $2 million a year for maintenance, and Mr. Thompson reminded Council that we no longer move funds from the general fund to the street fund. Finance Director Thompson said regarding Capital, the 2008 figures look pretty good, but beyond that there are too many variables to make a good funding prediction. Mr. Thompson said the General Fund Sheets with the "B" on the top include the business plan, and the ones without the "B" do not; that property taxes have gone up mostly due to increases in assessed value; but gambling tax has decreased by several hundred thousand, and he feels that perhaps banning smoking in the casinos makes it difficult for them to keep customers; or perhaps people simply prefer the larger gambling establishments. Mr. Thompson said that the general fund is not as a big concern now as the deficit moves around we should be in good shape for another three or four years; and added that every year we budget a half - million dollars for a contingency; that we typically don't spend it so that gives that that much more each year to apply to the deficit in future years. Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 Concerning the Street fund, Mr. Thompson said there is perhaps one more year before we are out of funds; and we can't wait another year to address this problem as it will take six months to a year to get another funding source; that a decision needs to be made by June or July of this year for a funding source. Mr. Thompson added it will take approximately $6.5 million to fund the Street MasterPlan; that the gas tax is a fixed number per gallon rather than a percentage, and as the price of gasoline increases, people drive less. Mr. Thompson said it is difficult to predict what will happen to the future price of fuel. Finance Director Thompson also mentioned that Capital includes such things as parks projects, the University Park, swimming pool, and the recently added funds for the art work on the bridge, and that he anticipates there could be a future desire to appropriate more funds for art in the City Center; and that we need to put aside funds to get started on the ADA Plan; and that the pavement management program added another approximate $4 million. Concerning the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Public Works Director Kersten explained that the figures show our match, and this assumes we will get what we applied for, which likely won't be the case for all projects. Finance Director Thompson said the real estate excise tax (REET) generates about $2.2 million annually; that it cannot be used for road maintenance, but if a street were taken out and replaced, or a street needed a grind or overlay, we could use REET funds, but we cannot use any REET money on the street fund itself. Public Works Director Kersten said that in Problem Statement #2 expenditure line item of $4 million, that is what he spends on street maintenance now like snow removal; and just in street maintenance there will be an approximate $2.5 million shortfall beginning 2010; and that the capital bottom line pavement management program shows the dollars we need to maintain good conditions of our existing streets and does not include for example, changing a two -lane road into a four -lane road; and to maintain where we are today, we would have to fund $4 million now, which still won't keep up entirely but would allow for some road deterioration. This item ended with brief discussion on the rate of taxes coming in and the slow down of buildings. 4. Six -Year Business Plan — Mike Jackson Deputy City Manager Jackson said this is an opportunity for a quick look at various portions of the 2008 Business Plan, and to align funding sources with the business plan; that some things on the pending list have already come forward; that there has been overall customer service improvement; that a challenge is to try to align the Plan more closely with funding and to have the Strategic Plan work together with the Six -Year Business Plan; that the Business Plan is Council's direction to staff and staff's best attempt to look at programs and services they feel meet council's and the community's expectations. Mr. Jackson said that staff doesn't always weigh exactly what is feasible as they try to make Council aware of other things available in other communities similar in size with ours. Mr. Jackson explained that staff looks forward to developing the next business plan, and is looking at recommendations that are feasible in keeping with funding items. Regarding the Public Works department, Mr. Jackson mentioned funding options will need to be examined for city hall, street maintenance, city center; and as noted on page 26, they want to look at the process to see if Council wants to change the way we are approaching the plan, as any changes will need to be addressed prior to development of the 2008 and 2009 business plan; that we want to develop a mission statement for each department, and in cases with multiple divisions within departments, there may be multiple mission statements. Mr. Jackson said that staff works hard to identify the realm of their program, and he feels it is important that Council reviews those pages. He pointed out the detailed goal list on page 28, and said there are the projects which will drive discussion on possible funding sources. Page 30 was highlighted by Mr. Jackson, and he said it shows all areas previously approved by Council, and that the programs will continue once implemented. Mr. Jackson also recommended Council review the appendix for updated versions of some of these figures. Deputy City Manager Jackson said that these recommendations are all incorporated into and are fully funded in our 2008 budget, which has all been previously authorized by Council. He reminded Council that some "big ticket" items are not included, such as funding for City Hall, the Street MasterPlan, and City Center, and Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 recommended Council review the updated financial chart just after page 40; and said that Council will want to discuss possible funding options to implement the 2009 plan and to further refine the plan to the point of recommending achievable programs and projects. Mr. Jackson also mentioned that these issues can easily be incorporated into a study session. In further review and discussion of the materials after page 40, those in the "Attachment to Business Plan," Councilmember Gothmann mentioned page 17 and at the top of page 25 to perhaps examine what affect an "Edgeclift Neighborhood Center" would have on senior services, and how it might affect our City's senior program. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the Senior Program is run out of the CenterPlace, but is not run by the City and the City does not provide the senior programs as that is provided by the Senior Association housed at CenterPlace. Councilmember Gothmann remarked that perhaps this would be an opportunity to coordinate all senior activities, and perhaps have the City offer some programs at Edgeclift; that he spoke with Ian Robertson out at the HUB where they have some representatives from other senior associations starting a recreation program there at no charge. Some members of Council agreed that it would be a good idea to coordinate senior activities with all community entities that provide senior programming, but Councilmember Taylor suggested that be done with caution as perhaps things to coordinate would be better ways to transport seniors to and from activities, and we might not be in a position to expand our direct responsibilities. Mr. Jackson said that as we start to look more closely at performance measurements in the future, we realize that each adds work and time and we must be careful about managing our time and resources. 5. Funding Options Bond Issues — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson said that one of the upcoming pressing financial problems is City Hall; that he estimates the project at $18 million; that we have six million plus interest; we could have a bond sale for another six million when we are ready to build (Councilmanic bonds), and could use what we are paying for rent at the current site to retire the 20 -year bond debt; but that still leaves a shortage of about six million; and that if he continues to set funds aside each year at the end of the year, that would amount to another $3.5 million, thereby only leaving a $2.5 million shortage; and that we could manage a $2.5 million shortage but not a six million dollar shortage. There followed discussion on setting aside $700,000 annually, and of amending the budget when necessary; or examining other alternatives. The idea of grants was mentioned, but Mr. Thompson said that grants are not likely for this type of financing issue. City Attorney Connelly said he is working with our bonding attorneys in discussing funding mechanisms, that they are waiting for some cost figures and should have a report for council soon on different ways to fund a city hall; and that options such as other bonds, perhaps some grants, and taxes are still being explored. Although grants may be available, Mr. Kersten mentioned that having someone with the time and expertise to explore grant options is not always an easy task, as you need someone highly skilled and it could be costly, but also could be worth examining. Mayor Munson said that he prefers keeping the reserve, but wants to have the ability to change his mind; to which Mr. Thompson replied Council always has that option. Mr. Thompson also mentioned the $2 million needed for potholes plowing, etc. and he suggested looking at a vehicle tab fee, and mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce committee would like us to dedicate such to the North South Freeway. There followed lengthy discussion concerning possible Transportation Benefits Districts; that Mayor Munson spoke with Senator Chris Marr who feels a vehicle tab fee should be imposed and dedicated to the North South Freeway, and such could generate $150 million for that freeway but would require a matching fee; that our own priorities include completion of that freeway; that the County will hold a public hearing on this topic January 22 that perhaps a staff member could attend the hearing; and that Mayor Munson mentioned the County indicated they might ask for a tab fee greater than $20.00. Councilmember Wilhite explained that she attended a telephonic conversation with Chris Marr, who indicated he has to convince the rest of the legislature to go along with that previous suggestion, but it seems to be a growing consensus that $20.00 is not ample for the needs and that the Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 message is that communities must help fund these enormous transportation costs, and if more than $20.00 per tab is sought, it will have to go for a public vote. Councilmember Wilhite also mentioned the frustration in trying to explain to the public about the importance of having freight use the North South Freeway versus roads such as Barker; that an option is to increase the $20 fee an additional 20 or 30 dollars, with half of the additional amount being dedicated to the North South Freeway, and then generating a project list of what they'd use the other fees for, adding that they could only be used for capital projects. Further discussion on this topic ensued, generating further questions on dollar limits, timing, can the County impose a fee before the City or vice - versa, when does such fee require a vote of the people; should this be a regional effort or does the City of Spokane Valley act alone; can there be co- existing Transportation Benefits Districts; if the funds are to be used for a federal highway, then why not use federal funds; would such a fee reduce potential funds for our own street maintenance; are there other options not yet explored; what are the advantages and disadvantages of going with the County or forming our own TBD; what can we do so we don't jeopardize our own ability for a $20.00 councilmanic bond; are we running out of time; and is it feasible to have more than one ballot issue for this item. These options will be further explored and reported back at the next council meeting, and Mayor Munson said he will endeavor to find out what Spokane City's views are on this issue, as he believes they are having their own retreat today as well and will be discussing this issue. 6. Brainstorming — Mike Jackson It was decided that the "brainstorming" would be postponed to another date, the group took a quick break at 11:10 p.m. and moved downstairs to room 109 for the Planning /Visioning presentation. 7. Bernardo Wills: City Hall facilities Planning /Visioning Representatives from Bernardo Wills said that the purpose of this visioning process is to develop a program in written form in order to have a clear understanding of what to accomplish in City Hall, and that after Council has responded, they will show Council staff's responses. They explained that they are scheduling this programming in phases, and anticipate presenting again to Council in February or March; that they are still in the gathering mode for specific needs of each department, and that they anticipate having a refined schedule after next week's meetings with staff. Below are the questions and some of the responses: 1. What image do you believe outsiders have of the Spokane Valley: Bedroom community of Spokane Shopping area Job variety Nice place to live Family- oriented — good schools Affordable 2. What makes Spokane Valley unique: Easy access to recreational facilities Friendly people Accessibility to local government We work hard and play hard Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 3. What aspects of Spokane Valley are citizens most proud of? River Close to everything — not all spread out Schools Roads Friendly community We retain open outdoor areas Safe community 4. How would you characterize the area's residents? Diverse age Independent Conservative as in slow to change Great kids 5. How important is the acknowledgement of local history in the new City Hall building? Need to add the "incorporation story" 6. What do you want in a city hall? Something indicative of openness, the sky, open space Want City Hall different from the library Don't want a colossal building but something formal and respectfull Something between traditional and modern Outdoor plaza /public space 7. What other city halls /buildings do you like? Oregon State Public building Hagadone office building Coeur d'Alene Resort 8. What industries /institutions are considered most important to Spokane Valley's economic and cultural development? This question was briefly discussed 9. City's mission statement: how do you envision this being expressed in the new City Hall? Perhaps having an interpretative center 10. Imagine it's the year 2028 and the City Hall is completed. How would you describe that? They thought ahead Warm and inviting Had great vision Enjoyed by all generations The sound of water Ties the City together — creative 11. As a community role model, how do you envision the City Hall expressing its leadership in promoting sustainable development? Good stewards of tax dollars — which led to a brief discussion on various levels of "green" for the building Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 8. Information Only: Workplan (information only, was not discussed) For the remainder of the time, discussion was about suggested uses of a council chamber, including a small conference room for pre- agenda meetings, or executive sessions, or other uses; mention that there will be some upcoming public meetings to get public input, mention and distribution of the "Employee List for Future City Hall," and that there will be an intense two -day effort to discuss needed work stations. As time was limited due to the 2:00 p.m. funeral for former Councilmember Mike Flanigan, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Cler chard nson, Ma or Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08