Loading...
2008, 07-29 Special Joint Council/Spokane City Council Meeting MinutesAttendance. City of Spokane Valley Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Rich VanLeuven, Police Chief Neil Kersten, Public Works Director John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bill Miller, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk MINUTES Joint Spokane Valley City Council/ Spokane City Council Meeting Monday, July 29, 2008 12:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Spokane City Mary Verner, Mayor Joe Shogan, Council President Mike Allen, Councilmember Bob Apple, Councilmember Steve Corker, Councilmember Al French, Councilmember Nancy McLaughlin, Councilmember Richard Rush, Councilmember Spokane City Staff Ted Danek, City Administrator Eldon Brown, Engineering Services Acting Dir Tim Dunivant, Mgmt & Budget Director Leroy Eadie, Planning Director Gerry Gemmill, Public Works Deputy Dir Dave Mandyke, Public Works & Utilities Dir Molly Matthews, Council Assistant John Mercer, Capital Programs PW Manager Reagan Oliver, Senior Ex. Assistant Mike Piccolo, Assistant Attorney Theresa Sanders, Economic Development Dir Todd Babcock, Research Analyst Joe Wizner, Building Services Karen Corkins, Council Assistant Dixie Beasley, Council Assistant Lori Kiniveer, Council Assistant Dale Arnold, Wastewater Mgmt Director Gavin Cooley, Chief Financial Officer After everyone had the opportunity to have lunch, Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at approximately 12:20 p.m. Mayor Munson welcomed everyone to this historic, first joint meeting with the City of Spokane, which he explained is an opportunity to share ideas. Council President Shogan thanked City of Spokane Valley for hosting the meeting and for lunch, and echoed that this meeting is an opportunity to develop and enhance lines of communication. After everyone had the opportunity for self - introductions, Mayor Munson explained that today's meeting is a very informal workshop /study session type meeting and he encouraged free flowing conversation. 1. Growth Management Act and Joint Planning Areas Mayor Munson said that both cities have been working with the County to develop joint planning procedures and interlocal agreements; and although we share borders, there has not been discussion about the implication of what that means and what we plan to do about future development; and he brought Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 everyone's attention to the Council packet information documenting the history of this issue; and he mentioned that both cities have made progress in working with the County on this issue. Deputy City Attorney Driskell introduced Planning Manager Greg McCormick to address this subject. Mr. McCormick provided information concerning the legislative /legal frame work in providing collaborative planning, including the history of the Growth Management Act and a brief overview of the sections of that Act; that explained that this Act is in the public interest of citizens that local governments cooperate and coordinate local plans and planning efforts; he explained the goals of the Statewide Planning Goals, which include the significant issue of transportation; that Comprehensive Plans of each county and city must be coordinated and consistent with plans adopted as required by state law; and the requirement of establishing Countywide planning policies (CWPP) that are produced in cooperation with the cities located within each county. In reference to the Countywide Planning Policies, Mr. McCormick said that almost each section speaks of coordination and cooperation especially in dealing with urban growth areas and the joint planning within those areas; and Mr. McCormick went over a calendar of dates beginning in 1993 when the threshold for Growth Management Planning was exceeded by local county growth; the formation of the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (also in 1993), and in 1994 the County adopted the CWPP; interim growth area boundaries were adopted in 1997, and in 2001 with the adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Growth Areas were adopted; Liberty Lake incorporated in 2001, Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003, in 2005 and 2006 a draft interlocal template was provided to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials; 2006 also saw the adoption of the County's twenty -year population projection for planning purposes; in 2006 Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) awarded the municipalities in the County with the first collaborative grant; 2006 and 2007 saw the ongoing review of the interlocal template, which was done in cooperation with the County and the Cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley; in 2007 Spokane Valley and the County agreed on the Glenrose Planning Area and executed an interlocal agreement; and in 2007 the second collaborative grant was warded to the region from CTED; in 2008 the Turtle Creek Interlocal agreement was executed; and the Steering Committee of Elected Officials recommended to the Board of County Commissioners an amendment to the CWPP to amend the five -year review requirement for the Urban Growth Area boundaries, and to adopt the planning technical advisory committee's recommendations on the UGA, shown in the May 2008 report. Mr. McCormick also mentioned that this year the Spokane Transit Authority and City of Spokane Valley entered into discussions related to identifying and preserving the regional high capacity transit corridor; and within the last week, the City was notified that CTED awarded another $20,000 grant for emerging issues which will be used to further the effort of the local collaborative grant planning effort which has taken place over the last two years. Mr. McCormick said that the next steps include adopting a 20 -year population projection, finalizing the work program for the next UGA boundary update, focus on regional issues including capital facilities and land use within the UGAs, regional transportation issues as well as other regional services; continue regional collaboration through identification of a work program and consider the integration of the Environmental Review and public participation at a regional level; continue work on other interlocal agreements for joint planning in areas of mutual interest; and consider issues and appropriate actions based on the results of the emerging grant issues that are regional in nature, and to move forward with the appropriate interlocal agreements to coordinate that. Mr. Shogan said the topic he is interested in is the common boundaries between the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley, as he wasn't aware there were common boundaries. Mayor Verner brought attention to the Council packet materials which contain a map showing the common boundaries (Exhibit E); and Mr. Shogan asked if the Spokane staff has had communications with Spokane Valley staff on common boundaries issues. Planning Director Eadie said there have been no conversations on the Planning Department side regarding boundaries; and most of the work focused on getting interlocal agreements drafted and adopted for the UGA. Engineering Services Acting Director Eldon Brown said Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 there are common boundaries for utilities such as sewer and water and there is continuous coordination in that regard. Mr. McCormick said that the main east/west shared boundary is along Havana between approximately 8 and north of Broadway; and we share the common boundary along Felts Field to the north and northeast, which goes up to the Spokane River. In response to Mr. Shogan's question if there are any shared undeveloped land common boundaries, Mr. McCormick said there is one UGA adjoining both cities, which is the Alcott UGA; that staff has examined that in the past and since there is no direct connection between that UGA and the City of Spokane Valley, staff has worked under the assumption that that area is one which most logically would go to the City of Spokane; and added that there are no contentious boundaries. Mayor Verner said if the City of Spokane Valley would like to discuss that common boundary with the City of Spokane, she would be interested; that most of the area on the boundary is residential with few commercial opportunities; and perhaps the conversation should be focused on the area north of the River, as several Spokane's Councilmembers have discussed going to the Valley (and perhaps even jointly talking to the County) about what will happen north of the river as growth seems to be occurring toward Mt. Spokane rather then other directions. Councilmember Wilhite said regarding the area north of the river, the development of North Woods will connect through Beacon Hill and to the other side; that Northwood is a Spokane Valley UGA and at that point of development, there would be some collaboration. Mayor Munson said that while no decisions would be made today on any topic, he had hoped to identify areas for further collaboration; and there are some details on joint borders to discuss in an effort to develop common positions in our negotiations with the County; and he suggested staffs begin those kinds of discussions to see how to find common grounds on borders and with both cities' discussions with the County. Councilmember Wilhite also mentioned the Glenrose area would be a good area to discuss. Mayor Verner stated that Dave Mandyke and Leroy Eadie could address their conversations with the County, which were primarily centered on infrastructure and stormwater in the Browns Mountain /Glenrose Moran Prairie area. Mr. Eadie said staff is not looking at any extension beyond what UGA is already proposed in that area; there is an agreement for extension of services to the pool; and they are aware the County has an application for an UGA extension beyond what the City has proposed; which he believes is for a church; that they are formulating comments from the city and from the Planning Department side, their comments will be that that proposal is not consistent with agreements nor is it consistent with the proposed UGA designation; but from planning services area, no other areas have been examined beyond that. Further discussion included the mention of including Airway Heights and /or Liberty Lake; when would it be an appropriate time to discuss this with the County; that other areas of collaboration on other topics might include ordering asphalt in bulk, other transportation issues; that although the County would likely disagree with the Cities annexing other areas as it would amount to revenue loses for the County; that urbanization will likely occur and perhaps municipalities can devise a revenue sharing plan; the Alcott area is an area of mutual opportunities; the area east of Alcott which was impacted by the recent fire and that recent cleaning out of the destroyed trees could create an environment for further development; and of the idea of moving the Spokane Valley south to capture some of that area; mention that perhaps a further discussion topic would include how to service the peninsula area to develop into a reasonable fashion; and that the Alcott area includes from Havana to Glenrose, then Morrill down to 16 Councilmember McLaughlin mentioned the need to examine commercial and industrial areas for possible annexation and the idea of working with state legislators to make the annexation process easier; but said that mostly she doesn't like her County -paid tax dollars used to sue her City -paid tax dollars in land use and other issues. Council President Shogan suggested in order to keep the lines of communication open between the cities, that perhaps the planning departments could look at Glenrose to see if something could be worked out on that; and to build from there to other topics that are more difficult and perhaps design a template for future joint dealings. Mayor Munson said that realizing the different roles of the different types of mayor (strong mayor versus council- manager form of government), that his personal vision of a Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 good starting place would be for the two staffs to develop a shopping list on items that both cities can collaborate on, which might include concurrency, infill, transit, and dealing with state agencies. Mr. Shogan suggested adding Glenrose to that list. Mr. McCormick replied that the emerging issues grants are a tool to keep the consultant team moving and on to the next step in detailing what needs to occur with the County, and to define specific roles in providing regional services, and said many of those issues will be discussed and laid out for all councils over the next several months; and said that in this Council packet there are materials from the Consultant (Bill Grimes) and Susan Winchell which provide background and some alternatives in dealing with issues concerning different standards. Mayor Verner added that groups have been formed to study and compare the different standards and asked if there are any urgent issues, to please let them know, or perhaps the two cities' staffs could get together to identify the issues; but she recommends her staff complete their existing workload for this year, and make plans for these topics for 2009. Closing issues discussed on this topic included whether residential districts do or don't pay their own way; needed infrastructure for new development that won't be underperforming; not "cherry picking" areas for growth; and finally, that there was a consensus for the administrative staffs to get together, based on their current work schedule, to develop a list of items to further discuss. 2. Wastewater Council President Shogan asked how Spokane Valley's plan fits in with the County, and whether Spokane Valley needs capacity from Spokane. Mr. Shogan said the city is building two large digesters at their plant; and he asked Wastewater Management Director Arnold to address those issues. Mr. Arnold gave some history on Spokane's building, and mentioned that in 2004 they had one failure on their digester which required them to build some additional digester capacity to cover the lost capacity; that they ended up building two additional egg- shaped digesters which brings them to capacity just slightly greater than what they had before, by half to one - million gallons more in capacity; that the Department of Ecology (DOE) put constraints to clean up the existing effluent to a stronger standard; that their original facility had 52 -55 million gallons capacity, and that they probably do not have capacity without adding the next level of treatment; and that they plan to install two new digesters in 2015, bringing their capacity upwards to 60 million gallons, which is probably the highest amount they can have on that facility; and added that the County's new plant is coming in at about eight million gallons. Mr. Arnold said that out of the 50 million capacity, they have ten million gallons with the County, 670,000 with Airway Heights, and one million gallons with Fairchild Air Force Base; adding that at the end of this year, including the digesters, they will have spent almost $150 million dollars, with an additional $130 million allocated for the next level of treatment; and from now until 2017 they have almost $200 million of CSO separation; and have programmed in after 2017 for five more years, an additional $100 million dollars worth of CSO (combined sewer overflow) work; and that this is because there are significant needed treatment plant upgrades, and between 2012 and 2015 the next level of treatments will be installed; and said that this will meet the TMDL standard. Mr. Arnold said that after the next level of treatments are completed, they will go for an engineering report and a modification to DOE to allow the discharge of more flow; that today DOE has been telling them that they will allow the additional flow and the additional ability to discharge into the river provided the City meets the equivalent of 7.5 parts per billion in the effluent; the next level of treatment will be installed in 2014 and it will likely get down to 50 parts per billion; Ecology's agreement allows them to do a delta plan that says they can technically remove down to 50, and must get down to ten, which means there are 40 parts per billion that need to be removed by other means besides what can technically be derived; and that will be what the Mayor has discussed as water conservation, the re -use program, the County's Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP), and said the non - structured means of the delta plan is to achieve the standard equivalent of the 7.8 or 10 parts per billion that is required from DOE. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that today the City of Spokane Valley uses about 7.5 million daily, which is Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 from the ten contracted by the County. Mr. Arnold also mentioned that concerning the current calculations for projected growth to 2015 or 2025, there is probably sufficient capacity at the existing plant if they get rated to the 44 to 50 million gallons daily; but that is not enough for the region; and that the DOE's position is a regional position of not meeting the Total Maximum Density Load (TMDL) levels. Mayor Munson said that in 2003, Spokane Valley was approached by the City of Spokane for Spokane Valley to participate in Spokane's plant by building a new interceptor, and asked if that is now "off the table." Mr. Arnold said that looking back at 2003, that was one of the initial studies the County did for their wastewater planning to get to the conclusion of the need to build a plant; the interceptor currently goes through the City of Spokane, and Spokane Valley would have to build another interceptor probably in the exact location the County proposed when they were building, and that cost in 2003 was approximately $100 million; at that point, that was the same cost to almost build a new plant. Mr. Kersten interjected that the City of Spokane Valley's projected needs over the next ten to twenty years would increase from the 7.5 million to about 10 million; and that if a plant is not built within five years, we will be right at capacity. Mr. Arnold said that if necessary, they could likely absorb another 2.5 million gallons, but added that all these changes and increases are contingent upon DOE's acceptance of this Management Plan in order for us to meet the equivalency of the water quality standard; so mechanically Spokane can handle an additional 2.5 million gallons, but the water quality standard has not been met yet, and DOE has not approved it, and it is not yet implemented. Mayor Munson mentioned that in the face of all these speculations, if there is a possibility for an alternative plan; that we all want to avoid a building moratorium in the County, which will happen if this plan is not approved. Council President Shogan suggested this be another item for the shopping list. Mr. Arnold added that we recognize we will need more capacity as a region regardless of which entity owns the plant; but we also need to continually work with DOE to make sure they have a good understanding of what we can do, afford, and what are the plans, and to assure DOE and to assure the community that we will achieve the water quality standard, but we need to be allowed to have this delta plan as it is the only way to achieve this right way; keeping in mind there could be future technical capabilities to allow for entities to easier reach the suggested seven or ten parts per billion; but that likely won't happen in the next ten years; and he said the delta plan is the difference between what we can technically remove and what we must remove; and said we are currently at an estimated 750 parts per billion, which is about a 90% reduction of phosphorus. Councilmember McLaughlin said that other states do not have such strict standards, and without compromising the water quality, she suggested lobbing the legislators for assistance; and Deputy Mayor Denenny reminded everyone that the problem is phosphorus and dissolved oxygen which is necessary for the survival of fish. Mayor Munson said he is uncertain anything else can be done without first acquiring an answer from DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, but to be prepared to have alternatives; and that time is certainly a factor; and he has discussed this issue with several legislators on the west side and it was apparent to him that the legislators are not interested in changing anything when it comes to water quality. Councilmember Rush asked about other alternatives, such as use of recycling and re -use of gray water. President Shogan aid that Spokane's golf courses use "purple water" and that they use about 500,000 gallons; and he said that there is a lot of commonality for the two staffs to begin conversations and looking at an alternative plan, if there is no County Plan, or no Spokane Valley plan. Regarding the use of gray water, Mr. Arnold said that currently our health district does not allow gray water to be disposed of on private property; but a gray water system might be something to examine in the future, although there are numerous problems with gray water due to contaminants not found even in effluent, as gray water is more raw. Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 3. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) — Cary Driskell Spokane Valley Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that there are limited opportunities to receive funding; and that in 2007 the legislature passed RCW 36.73 relative to Transportation Benefit Districts; that this opened a new avenue for generating revenue, primarily through vehicle registration fees; that once we became aware of those changes, we gathered information to determine the possibilities of what those funds could be used for or restricted to; and Mr. Driskell gave the definition and purpose of a TBD, explained how it can be created, when interlocals are required, what improvements are intended to be accomplished, the proposed taxes or fees proposed for those improvements; and the different options that can be used to raise revenue, including which are subject to voter approval. Mr. Driskell said that in discussing this with Glenn Miles of Spokane Regional Transportation Council, they will be proposing changes to the 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Plan that should ensure that the statutory guidelines are in accordance with the regional transportation plan, in the event the city wants to use TBD funds for maintenance of existing roads, that will be appropriate; and Mr. Driskell brought attention to the Spokane Valley's draft ordinance. Mayor Munson said no decision has been made yet concerning whether to place this matter on the November ballot, but that Council will consider a 6% telephone utility tax at the August 12 council meeting, which will meet the immediate road management and maintenance needs; and said that this Council has asked its lobbyist to promote that Street Utility Tax which idea was presented earlier this year by Councilmember French; and if a better alternative then the telephone utility tax comes about, this council would use such alternative rather than the telephone utility tax. Councilmember French noted that the last time this street utility tax was pursued, King County indicated their support (albeit silently), but indicated they would be very vocal of such proposed legislation now; as were representatives from Tacoma, Auburn, and Vancouver who all indicated their willingness to "carry the load." Other discussion included raising funds for M &O (maintenance and operation) projects, and supporting the north /south corridor; and Mayor Munson said that local requirements take precedence over anything else; the possibility of forming a county -wide TBD; that if such county -wide TBD were formed, the need to fund local M &O from that; that a TBD doesn't account for inflation; the six -year sunset clause in the TBD; that a TBD likely would not be presented to the public without a vote; that a TBD is more of a capital funding mechanism rather than M &O, while a street utility tax would be M &O; that a TBD can deal with current deficiencies in the current infrastructure (capital projects); that impact fees are good for new capacity; with Councilmember French mentioning that capital projects do not include pavement preservation because that can be addressed much more effectively through the utility than through bonding — and the amount of funds raised annually can be adjusted to handle pavement preservation, but that a challenge of an impact fee is you can't do any enhancements or any catch -up work, which is the challenge. President Shogan suggested if municipalities are again faced with the issue of coming up with matching funds, that we approach the County and ask them to impose the $20.00 vehicle tab fee as matching funds for the corridor; and if further funds are needed, we tell the legislators to toll the road, and that such idea would work especially now in light of the high price of fuel, as time is money and time is fuel; and he concluded that a TBD if not an annual, stable source for funding street maintenance. It was also mentioned that Spokane Valley is placing a six -year sunset clause in its ordinance, but the statute include a ten -year clause. Also mentioned was including light rail as a capital project for a TBD; efficiency of services and educating citizens concerning which services municipalities have control over and which are either state or federally mandated; and the desire to have legislators investigate where dollars are being wasted and areas the citizens want addressed; and to put some marketing strategies around the street utility tax. 4. Fees: (1) Traffic Impact Fees; (b) Permit Fee Structure Council President Shogan said that the permit fee structure is not as topical now as it was a month ago since the City of Spokane re -did their permit fees; and that they will have one more study session on traffic impact fees this Thursday, and it is his intent to bring the legislation forward, to have as many hearings as needed, then to move on; as this has been studied for over a year and a half, and said they are Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 using a cost recovery model for such fees. Mayor Verner added that the basic calculation for traffic impact fees for capacity is the same calculation that will be underpinning the street utility: one will fill capacity demand of the new development; and the street utility will fill existing demand; but both are based on trip generations; adding that we are all in this together in trying to find a way to pay for transportation infrastructure. Mayor Munson said it will be beneficial to have the municipalities work together on this. It was mentioned that citizens must realize that streets are a basic service just like water, sewer and garbage; and it might be good to gather information on what Spokane City traffic impact fees actually cover, compared with similar items for Spokane Valley to try to get some kind of cost comparables. 5. Panhandling Councilmember McLaughlin said that Spokane Attorney Mike Piccolo has drafted several ordinances; and Councilmember Gothmann indicated he received those proposed ordinances. Ms. McLaughlin said the proposed ordinance deal with pedestrian interference, sitting or lying on public sidewalks, solicitation of vehicle occupants, street performers, and that these draft ordinances have been circulated for feedback. Mr. Piccolo said this issue can't be discussed without discussing constitutional issues and constitutionally protected expressions; that they sent their draft ordinances to the Center for Justice and to Gonzaga University's legal assistance program, which both agreed to review them and provide input; that the draft ordinances are still in the early stages; that they continue to collect input, and that the draft ordinances will eventually come before Spokane's public safety committee then to the full council. Research Analyst Todd Babcock added that the group is studying overlap concerning panhandling restrictions; and that Spokane's issues may be a little broader then the Valley's as Spokane deals with panhandling and anarchists as well as pedestrian interference, loitering and vandalism, which are all related to panhandling; and said Mr. Gothmann expressed interest that the Spokane Valley ordinance has good overlap with the City of Spokane's so as to approach this issue regionally and have consistency in the ordinance; and not to criminalize panhandling but to address similar concerns. Councilmember Gothmann said he has the drafts from Spokane's legal department, but has not yet sent them to Spokane Valley's legal department, but the entire committee received copies today. Councilmember Gothmann said his committee is only examining panhandling, but realizes those other issues mentioned could be addressed and coordinated later; he explained how members of law enforcement visited the committee meeting who explained that panhandling is primarily done by professional panhandlers and not by people with legitimate social needs; and he gave examples of reported people who make their living as a panhandler; and added that some panhandlers have outstanding warrants; and that the committee realizes the need for a public education program, and of law changes, but stressed the problem would be better addressed through public education. Councilmember Gothmann also mentioned some of the suggested changes in the law, such as prohibiting drivers from giving funds while driving, and time and place restrictions. Mr. Gothmann shared some information he received from Ian Robertson on Alaska programs and mentioned the website of changeforthebetteralaska.org; he mentioned ideas from other social service agencies such as the Catholic Social Service, and ideas to collect money to help those in need; and said that giving money to panhandlers likely will go toward drugs and alcohol rather than food and shelter. Councilmember Gothmann said his next step is to write a final report to Council explaining their suggested changes to the law, how to conduct an ad campaign, and how to turn this project into a community driven organization. Discussion ensued regarding any proposed law and its enforcement, public education, the charge of the committee from Mayor Munson, involving the County (if needed), and other municipalities. Other topics of discussion: Council President Shogan thanked everyone for attending and for Spokane Valley for hosting today's meeting, and said the next meeting will be hosted by Spokane; and that after the two city staff's get together, perhaps a date can be set for the next meeting, perhaps in October or November; and to have the next meeting topics more narrowly defined. City Manager Mercier asked if Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 the councils could take a few minutes to identify items for the "shopping list," and the issues of wastewater, legislative agenda items to prepare for the next legislative session, GMA and JPA, panhandling, and perhaps impact fees were suggested. Comments from City Manager: Mr. Mercier mentioned Mike Allen's summary concerning transportation, in that everyone agrees that street utility is important and that TBD should be used for capital projects; and said he wanted to clarify that Spokane Valley Councilmembers said our "step two problem" is perhaps using TBD for pavement preservation as an interim plan until the Street Utility matures; which prompted brief discussion on a county TBD and a municipality TBD. Mr. Mercier said that perhaps over time we should consider if there are any basic services that either jurisdiction is providing that we might want to offer jointly; as we have eighteen service contracts now with Spokane County and a variety of services from the private sector, and are always looking for alternatives. Spokane City Administrator Ted Denek thanked all councils and Mayors for today's meeting, said that this meeting will inspire the staffs to get together; and he and his staff are at our service, and to feel free to contact them. Mayor Munson said knowing the contact people's name and phone numbers for each city will be helpful, and President Shogan said they have an attendance roster which will be helpful, and that a list of committees and board members would also be helpful in that regard. Mayor Verner also thanked Spokane Valley for the invitation for today's meeting and the opportunity to engage in conversation; and she thanked Spokane Valley for sharing Cary Driskell who participated on their municipal court task force; and added that municipal court is an area to explore for mutual cooperation. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Christine Bainbr dge, City Clerk Joint City/ Spokane City Meeting Minutes 07 -29 -08 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 Name Title j partment Joe Shogan -' Council President City Council City Council , Mike Allen / Councilmember Bob Apple Cotncilmember City Council Steve Corker Councilmember City Council Al French ., Councilmember City Council Nan. McLau_hlin ✓ Councilmember City Council Cit Council Richard Rush Councilmember Mary Franklin — Senior Ex Assistant City Council Todd Babcock Research Analyst City Council Molly Matthews Council Assistant City Council Mike Piccolo Assistant Attorne City Council / Le De.t Mayor Mary Verner Mayor Office of the Mayor Ted Danek City Administrator Office of the Mayor Susan Ashe Director Legislative /Public Affairs Reagan Oliver Senior Ex Assistant Office of the Ma or Howard Delaney _— City Attorney City Legal ._ ave Mandyke Director Public Works & Utilities Gerry Gemmill Deputy Director Acting Director Manager Public Works Engineerin Services Capital Programs /PW Eldon Brown John Mercer Dale Arnold Director Wastewater Management Planning Leroy Eadie Director Theresa Sanders Director Economic Develo • ment Tim Dunivant ' . Director Management and Buds =et Building Services Joe Wizner Director v Joint Planning Meeting with the City of Spokane Valley July 29, 2008 – 12:00 noon – 3:00 p.m. City of Spokane Valley - 11707 East Sprague City of Spokane Attendees C:\Docurnents and ScttingslspasstttoreU.ncal Sctlingsll'entporary Internet Filcsk01.K2E7 \2008 valley joint planning meeting (2),dx Name llen, Mike pple, Bob c lrnold, Dale n Ashe, Susan inbridge, Chris Brown, Eldon Corker, Steve ❑ Danek, Ted El Delaney, Howard 1empsey, Rose enenny, Dick -f skell, Cary Dunivant, Tim 1/ Eadie, Leroy ❑ Franklin, Mary ❑'French, Al V G r ei - Tirnill, Gerry thmann, Bill :son, Mike ersten, veil ❑ r ai' dyke, Dave Matthews, Molly 1 lung, Kathy McLaughlin, Nancy 2 John F1 ercicr, Dave F 1 son, Rich gliver, Reagan P ccolo, Mike M ush, Richard Sign in sheet ( ) 29, 2008 Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane City Council Meeting PLEASE CHECK IN Title Councilmember Councilmember Director Director City Clerk Acting Director Councilmember City Administrator City Attorney Councilmember Deputy Mayor Deputy City Att Director Director Senior Ex Assistant Councilmember Deputy Director Councilmember Deputy City Mgr Public Works Dir. Director Council Assistant Comm Dev Director Councilmember Manager City Manager Mayor Senior Ex Assistant Assistant Attorney Councilmember Nam Sanders, Theresa Sh' mels, Gary hogan, Joe ®'1 aylor, Steve . hompson, Ken Todd B<rner, Mary [Vlhite, Diana Winer, Joe ( QC\ n Title Director Councilmember Council President Councilmember Finance Director Research Analyst Mayor Councilmember Director c� unc . ,1 Asses . ❑ id re _ 6(4,11i,- ❑ e e ; 4‘ -am :ilex_ ❑