Loading...
2010, 03-08 Special Joint BOCC Meeting MinutesMINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Monday, March 8, 2010 1:00 p.m. — 4.00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Tom Towey, Mayor Mark Richard, Chair Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Bonnie Mager, Vice -Chair Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Todd Mielke, Commissioner Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Brenda Grassel Councilmember Others: Spokane Transit Authority Dean Grafos, Councilmember Susan Meyer, Chief Executive Officer Absent.- Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Staff: Spokane County Staff Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Jim Emacio, DPA, Prosecutor's Office John Hohman, Senior Engineer, Development Bruce Rawls, Director Division of Utilities Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bob Brueggeman, County Engineer Mike Connelly, City Attorney Randy Vissia, Building Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer MaryKate McGee, Building Official Carolbelle Branch, Public Information officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone, said the group would break at 2:30 for ten minutes; said this is an opportunity for informal discussion and free flow of information, and invited Councilmembers and Commissioners to introduce themselves. 1. Milwaukee Right -of -way (Appleway) Mayor Towey asked for some background of this issue. Commissioner Mielke explained that the right - of -way issue pre -dates all three current commissioners; that the issue is about the railroad vacating some property, and about timing and politics; he explained that Sprague was re- configured and the rest of the right -of -way was never put into a road use and as a result of ownership disagreement between the then City Council and Board, a court action was undertaken to determine ownership. Mr. Mielke said that the Superior Court affirmed ownership with Spokane County, that decision was appealed and the Court of Appeals re- affirmed the lower court decision; and the State Supreme Court refused to hear the matter thereby re- affirming the Court of Appeal's decision; and he said that likely the ownership issue has been exhausted; he said the section has never been used as a roadway so it continues as property of Spokane County. Mr. Mielke said his personal view is that it is the County's responsibility to connect communities within the region, and his goal is to preserve some continuous corridor along that route for the future Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 connection of communities, and he said his personal top priority is to maintain a continuous corridor. Commissioner Mager added that there is a need to maintain a corridor for some kind of mass transit in the future, whether for light rail or something else; she said when she came on the Board, negotiations were already in progress; she said she felt the original proposal by Council concerned the sewer main and when it came to the narrow section, whoever was on either side would purchase the additional needed property; she said now with the difficult economic times, things have changed and said whatever they do, Spokane County needs to receive the fair market value; she said she had a discussion last week with some staff and that since there is a sewer main through there, we need to make sure we don't compromise that for any future plans. Commissioner Chair Richard said he forwarded a copy of the latest proposal to Councilmember Grafos; he explained that we have a major interceptor through much of corridor and that needs to be protected; and said in terms of mass transit, it must not run in a way to prevent reasonable access for maintenance and operation; he said the County also wanted to make sure they didn't take responsibility for any environmental contamination for anything prior to Spokane County's ownership, but that Spokane County would take responsibility during their ownership, he said the County asked Spokane Valley to hold the County harmless during that period when the site was not owned by the County; he said the latest look at the sewer line presented a convenient ability to assess the property; and he spoke of formulas and percentages that would serve Spokane Valley and the STA (Spokane Transit Authority); that since negotiations stalled, the County started discussions with STA and STA came back with a position to authorize negotiations on some or all of the right -of -way; the idea was that whatever Spokane Valley needed concerning certain "pinch points ", that Spokane Valley would be responsible to purchase, and STA would be responsible to complete its objectives. Commissioner Mielke said that the area ranged from 100' wide down to 60', and the assumption was that Spokane Valley wanted 72' or thereabouts, and discussion concerned light rail and how much was needed for double track, with the general presumption that it needed 100'; leaving the question of what to do on those parts where it was less; especially where it got down to the 60' area. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that Spokane Valley wants to preserve the corridor, and has always been anxious to preserve the full 100' even though we didn't own it; and said he understands that the sewer main meanders; and the idea was they always wanted to preserve the necessity to make repairs. Commissioner Richard said they would like to get a renewed sense of where this new council wants to go, and if there remains an interest in the right -of -way, and if so, what does that look like; and asked if Council has ideas on how to proceed. Commissioner Mielke also stated that as STA is the provider of public transportation in this region, it may be easier for the County and STA to negotiate, and then have Spokane Valley negotiate with STA in the future. Mayor Towey suggested that with three agencies having the interest of preserving the right -of -way, perhaps it would be beneficial to have representatives from all three agencies meet regularly to discuss the issue; and said he would have to discuss that with the City Manager to designate staff for that purpose. Commissioner Mager asked if Spokane Valley is looking at city hall plans or has decided on what their vision is, or has ideas that might affect the corridor. Mayor Towey said he feels it has to be a group decision with Spokane Valley, the Board of County Commissioners, and the STA, to sit down and figure out what the group wants it to look like in the future, and work towards that. Councilmember Grafos said the location of the sewer line is not the issue, but the issue is the pinch points; and he said he has some property on those pinch points and he would have to recuse himself from that discussion; and said he feels this Council agrees that we want to preserve this as a right -of -way and work with STA in that regard; he said the big issue has always been that narrowing part, and who would pay for it; and does the STA want to be on Sprague Avenue or some other place; he said he feels the right -of -way should be preserved and an agreement worked out with the County and STA to preserve that 100% and said if the STA said they need 28' and we need the difference, we should work toward that; and stated that there is no easement for mass transit between University and the freeway, so that's another issue to consider; and said based on previous conversations with Ms. Meyer, that what she would work for the STA would be to Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 initially have their operation on the south side of that corridor versus Sprague. Ms. Meyer, CEO for STA said that they should plan for that until there is some specific plan for what the next public transportation mode will be; and said they'll do an alternative analysis on the corridor to look at a new mode, which is electric rapid- transit, and to look at Sprague as an alternative to part of the corridor, but said they won't know if Sprague or Appleway is preferable until that analysis is complete; and that decision would involve meeting the economic development and mobility needs of Spokane Valley; and she said they want to be part of preserving the 100' and can discuss about a potential swap once the Sprague or Appleway decision is determined. Councilmember Grafos said if we can agree with the direction, we can get down to a two -part conversation and eliminate Spokane County; and he said that the last offer as per a letter dated March 24, 2008 from the County to City Attorney Mike Connelly, states some goals that the City of Spokane Valley has, and said he feels a lot of those have changed; that he would like to see this move forward and to perhaps have the staff get together to determine how to preserve the 100' fairly and economically. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels that what Mr. Grafos has just stated the City has agreed to for a long time but money is an issue; and said there are many citizens who feel we already paid for that corridor and argue why should they pay for it twice; so that is one of the impediments; but said he feels the wise thing for Spokane Valley is to be flexible with that issue so there can be genuine negotiations; and that this Council will need to determine its position on the issue, as well as determine that section's use. Commissioner Mielke agreed that residences in the various districts feel that during the five to eight years prior to this City's incorporation, that an disproportionate amount of the money in the road fund flowed into the area of the county that was unincorporated and which eventually became Spokane Valley; and said that the court cases same down to whether the property was ever used for a road purpose and whether it should have transferred at the time of incorporation; and the Court's ruled that the section in question had never been open to vehicular traffic, and therefore was never a roadway and not subject to automatic transfer upon incorporation; and he said they spent a lot more money in their legal department going through the court cases. Mayor Towey stated that who paid for it and why are valid issues, but suggested we concentrate on what we want in the present and the future: to determine the process to preserve the right -of -way; and to discuss these issues regularly together; and he said he would like to know what that group would entail and compromise. Councilmember Gothmann asked why we would pay for land if we don't need it, and he said we don't need it; that we own 4 I Avenue and could upgrade that to an arterial; or upgrade Valleyway; and said the only reason is to relieve traffic congestion at the busy intersections of Pines and Sprague and Sullivan and Sprague; and providing a second road would do that and perhaps 4`" Avenue could do that; and said he feels Council needs to determine how to solve the traffic congestion issue; and said he feels it would be wise for those who have authority to negotiate, which is not council, to get together to discuss the matter; and said he feels council needs to determine what council wants to do before that can occur. Commissioner Richard said one of the valid points is, what is the Council's interest, or does Council have an interest; and said while Council tries to determine if there is a need and the ability to pay for that need, that gas taxes are down, excise taxes are down, and the two record snow events have put the County's road fund in a serious situation; that they are trying to find a willing buyer; that the County approached STA and STA has been authorized to discuss the issue, but depending on Council's study and needs, it will depend if that real estate is of interest and what value it holds; and he said that STA is going through a similar process as it determines if this fits their long term needs, and if so, what is STA willing to pay; and said the County wants to maintain the over - arching goal to preserve the corridor, which by bits and pieces goes from the State line to downtown Spokane, and said in that context, they don't necessarily want to continue ownership, and said he feels it would be beneficial to the Council to try to develop a position on this sooner rather than later; that they appreciate STA not moving forward with that discussion realizing STA has put money aside for this; but said the County has several road fund budgets in the red and said he wonders how long they can hold on; and said the County needs this Council's help Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 in trying to move this forward. Commissioner Mielke said they don't need a decision within the next thirty days, but that the County needs to determine what are the incremental things needed in anticipation of what this community will need twenty to forty years from now; he said he feels in that time - frame, congestion on I -90 will get worse and based on the way people have settled in this region, parallel to the River and to 1 -90, that we are going to likely need some type of parallel corridor; and said if Spokane Valley were to say that it doesn't know if it is in position to purchase right -of -way and /or Spokane Valley is not sure it this meets the long term goal; and if Spokane County were to negotiate something with STA, he said he feels that would not prevent future conversation between Spokane Valley and STA to discuss a surplus corridor; and said the County finds itself in a position to have to replenish reserves that no longer exist. Deputy Mayor Schimmels stated that he believes the main question is to form a group, to try to pick a plan that would fit everything, and then worry about the funding source from that point. Commissioner Richard asked if Deputy Mayor Schimmels felt it would be important for this council to come to some preliminary agreement within council that there is some level of interest in the corridor which causes us to find a three -way solution; or if this even fits in with this Council's long -term plans; and then convene the working group. Deputy Mayor Schimmels responded that he feels that is tied in to what they are going through now; that this Council hasn't got there yet, he said they are not very far away, and this discussion helps. Ms. Meyer said the STA Board authorized her to negotiate with Spokane County to purchase the right -of -way, and said STA was willing to do that before knowing if it would be Sprague or Appleway as either way they would have an asset to keep or use; but said she prefers the matter come about in collaboration with both entities. Commissioner Mager asked if Council was looking at a time line; and Councilmember Gothmann said in his view, that is a comprehensive plan issue; that the present comprehensive plan says the corridor is part of it; and he asked if the prospect of remaining in that corridor is dim, why consider it at all and why not look elsewhere; as the City owns assets elsewhere that may solve the problem; that the comprehensive plan is updated annually in November; and said that is an issue that needs to go back to the Planning Commission after the Council determines the direction for this issue. Councilmember Grafos asked if it is possible to hold an executive session to discuss the purchase of the right -of -way; and City Attorney Connelly said topics are limited; but if the discussion is what are we offering and are willing to accept, then yes; but outside of that probably no; on the long term plans, does Council want to amend the comp plan, or make this a corridor — all of those are open discussions. Councilmember Grafos said there are some funds in the civic building fund that were going to be used for the City Hall which we are not going to build, and said he would like to discuss some of those items in executive session and do so fairly quickly as the STA needs direction, and there also remains the issue of the easement from University to the Freeway. Mr. Connelly replied that much of that discussion would have to be in open session. Councilmember Dempsey said that this council has not determined the path on this issue yet, and can't come to agreement within all bodies until Council has determined its own path. Mayor Towey said the process has begun and they are looking at the SARP (Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan) including zoning, city center, two -way conversion, and the Appleway extension. Councilmember Dempsey said since the STA and County Commissioners would like a timeline on this, she asked about the possibility of separating the corridor from the SARP; and Mayor Towey said the. process has begun, but he doesn't know how long the entire process will take; and said he recognizes a decision needs to be made on whether to keep that portion in place; and that process can begin as a priority. Councilmember Grassel suggested Council pursue the question of whether it wants the land. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he feels the first thing to do would be to meet with STA and some staff and the County Commissioners, to pick up general ideas; perhaps in thirty to sixty days. Ms. Meyer said in STA's perspective, developing a high performance transit plan for the south Valley Corridor originating downtown and going to Liberty Lake, will depend in large measure on this Council's land use plans and how STA can support that; and said STA cannot make a decision of which direction to go until this Council determines its direction; and Commissioner Richard said making that decision would be Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 helpful. Acting City Manager Jackson said that council can begin discussion on the Appleway corridor in the near future, possibly in April, and Council can examine Appleway independently of SARP and also how it ties in with SARP. Commissioner Mielke said regardless if a portion of Milwaukee right -of -way is used as roadway or as an alternative transportation corridor, that he feels as this Council examines the long -term comp plan, if there is a transportation corridor along there it would be viable to incorporate in the land use planning; that he has seen many other metropolitan areas that have a transportation corridor, whether bus, rail, or roadway, those communities have designed land use around that and they have flourished; and the idea was offered of bringing in Ms. Meyer and other staff from STA as Council discusses some development opportunity for some type of transportation system; just to discuss the sense of the view of the future. Commissioner Richard asked if there could be consensus, perhaps in the next thirty to sixty days that Council will attempt to make a decision if this Council has an interest in some level of ownership in this right -of -way, and to convey that decision to the Board of Commissioners, and to perhaps include STA in such discussions in order to get a better perspective; and based on that outcome, a working group could be established to move forward. Mayor Towey asked if there were any council objections and there were none. 2. Law Enforcement Contract Commissioner Richard said the Commissioners desire to move forward on this discussion; and he mentioned that there are two components of this issue: (1) updating the current contract; and (2) the billing discrepancy on the past years' contracts. Mr. Richard said the two staffs are working well on both items and he feels things are moving along well. Acting City Manager Jackson said meetings are held every Wednesday, that the first few meetings were spent in determining how to meet, who is on the negotiating team, that the "pinch points" would be addressed; that some meetings included discussion of the county -wide allocation plan and how those numbers work into the law enforcement cost plan and said research continues in that regard; that they just received the law enforcement contract so Mr. Jackson said he has not had a chance to read the contract; that regarding the settlement, a meeting is scheduled for next Monday to go over the settle and adjust so the City's point of view can be described and decide where to go from there. Mr. Farnell added that the discussions have been very helpful, frank, friendly and open; and that regarding any disagreements, Mr. Connelly put together an agenda that they follow; and said they are making good progress; adding that the contract was sent out Sunday night; and there is a separate discussion on the double - billing issue pinch point; and the upcoming meeting should provide that opportunity to discuss the different viewpoints; and said that the discussions for the past few months have been positive, that Sheriff Knezovich has been involved in all those discussions; and said this issue will be resolved. Commissioner Richard said as mentioned in a letter sent to the City last winter, a goal was to have the updated contract completed by April, with an outside date of June; and said there is a similar goal for the billing discrepancy; that their books and the auditing of those books for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 have not been reconciled and they would like that done and believe that should occur concurrent with an update of a contract if possible; and that perhaps prior to council making a decision on this, that they would consider either Council or a hired team to sit down with the State Auditor, or the County Auditor, and understand where everyone is coming from; that they have asked for that since August of last year and remain hopeful that will occur; and he reminded everyone of the "leap of faith" taken last year by Spokane Valley when $1 million was released to Spokane County; and said by the City's view, the County owes the City money which would be an impetus to move this forward; but said if no progress can be made from either entity, perhaps an arbitration process can be agreed upon, not in the courts but through an independent arbitrator, to help facilitate moving this forward. Commissioner Mielke agreed and said this issue on double billing goes back to 2006; and since the State Auditor is responsible for cities and counties, it was the Board's decision to involve the State Auditor; and said it seems it has been Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 a long time to get those two people, the State Auditor and the City's Forensics Consultant, to discuss this, compare notes and report back to the entities as a combined group so everyone hears the same thing at the same time. Councilmember Gothmann said he believes all the needed facts are in, a meeting is scheduled, and he feels positive about resolving the issue. Mayor Towey mentioned that Council cannot directly participate in these negotiations; that staff reports to Council on the progress, but Council generally gets the contract as a final product to consider approving. Acting City Manager Jackson said it took time for the auditor to put together their report, there was a discovery process to request documents and time for Financial Forensics to review those records; that the City has been actively working on this since last June when the payment was made to the County; and he said next Monday County and City staff will meet with the goal to decide how to move forward from there; and he said the City is prepared to move ahead with whatever is agreed: whether that is to have Financial Forensics and the Auditor meet; or have an additional meeting with the staff, and he said this is a very complex problem, and said the elected bodies should be able to have a report thereafter on how that matter is proceeding; and said he doesn't see a need to drag this out unless an agreement can't be reached, not necessarily on the amounts of money, but on the concept on where the City believes the overbilling occurred. Commissioner Mielke said that he feels the purpose of this item today is that this is a point they would like resolved; and said that he appreciates the opportunity for having this discussion; and said that as Council gives guidance to the City Manager, that the Council understands the County's perspective; and that in the past, it was his understanding that the only way to convey feelings to Council was through a member of staff; and that he realizes this falls under the authority of the City Manager, but as peers, he appreciates the opportunity for discussion; and Mayor Towey said he appreciates having the information. Commissioner Richard said he feels this conversation doesn't violate the separation of powers of Council and staff; and that they are not asking Council to weigh -in on the minutia of the contract, but they can direct staff in the terms of the negotiation; and said that four years is a long time; they're asking for resolution; and he said the Board is asking that the City's forensics team be given the direction to sit down with the county's auditor as part of fact finding instead of them making assumptions based on city staff s perspectives, and he said he feels Council could give that direction and he is perplexed why that wouldn't occur; and said they might find some understanding on how the respective conclusions were reached , adding that he appreciates the emphasis on resolving this issue; and said the Board feels the consultants meeting is a logical step. Mayor Towey said he feels that is reasonable. Mr. Jackson commented that he agrees it is time for the consultants to work together, and said there was a lot of dialogue between the auditor and the City's consultant prior to the report. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 2:30 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 2:40 p.m. 3. Snow Removal Update Commissioner Richard explained that he and Councilmember Grafos had a conversation about getting an update or comments or suggestions, and one of the thoughts he had was the possibility of having mutual aid agreements between jurisdictions. Councilmember Grafos said if we are going to help each other, perhaps there should be discussion of what any additional help would entail, if such help were needed; that perhaps the standards on levels of service could be discussed, and he said we would appreciate having the County as backup; and perhaps what we would end up with would be a hybrid operation. Commissioner Mielke said when they are in need of help, so are all the other jurisdictions; in the last two winters when the County got behind and looked to the Department of Transportation or the City of Spokane for assistance, both entities were stretched beyond their limits as well and were looking for backup. Commissioner Mager added that another area where mutual benefit would come into play would be on those certain roads that are part county and part City, and for whoever is working on that particular road, to continue on the road, and she said those types of mutual agreements could be very useful. Mayor Towey mentioned the idea of the entities having some sort of mutual operating standards, and said the point about crossing boundaries is a good one, instead of stopping at the boundary line. Deputy Mayor Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 Schimmels mentioned the possibility of having garbage trucks having a plow on the front of their trucks as he is aware that occurs in sections of the East Coast. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that we need to keep in mind we are a litigious society, and accidents happen during plowing, such as hitting mailboxes or parked cars; and said this is likely one of the reasons we don't do that. Commissioner Richard said for a point of direction, perhaps Council could speak with the City Manager to have the staffs talk about meeting to discuss ways to make sure we are collaborative; and Mayor Towey said he feels it would be beneficial if both parties had standard operations. Councilmember Gothmann added that he feels of level of operation in the City was based on the amount of maintenance money available; and that the level of service is tied closely to the amount of available budget maintenance funds; and one entity might have more or less funds than another. Commissioner Mielke said then the idea is to get staffs together to look at several issues (1) level of service and service criteria standard, and (2) where we might look for coordination on plowing routes, and (3) how we classify priorities. There was no council objection. 4. Permit Center Partnership Councilmember Grafos said he spoke with Commissioner Richard and mentioned that Councilmember Grafos and Councilmember Grassel had discussed combining some of the functions of the permit operation to save the citizens money and create a permit center with a higher efficiency; and in that conversation, he said that Commissioner Richard said they have been thinking about that as well. Commissioner Richard said there has been some conversations on this issue; and in speaking with the City of Spokane, they have discussed trying to find areas of mutual interest for partnership /collaboration/ consolidation; and recognizing that could mean anything along that spectrum; he said he wanted to make his staff is at ease as this is not the "jobs elimination bill" but is how to better partner with other entities to provide better citizen service; that the "one -stop shop" center has been discussed in the past; and that there is the possibility of having some sort of partnership via the respective websites; like a portal for city /county building permit center where citizens go to one website, and depending on the address, the permit gets channeled to the correct department; and said he would be interested in having a discussion with the City's staff in this regard; and said unless there is some objection, he would suggest we put together some kind of working group and include the City of Spokane as well; and perhaps bring in members of the private sector to get their viewpoint. Commissioner Mielke added that the City of Spokane has identified several programs they thought would fit well with the collaboration process. Further discussion included mention of possible difference in philosophies within the building and permitting, the importance of citizen feedback, and having staffs works together to have similar application documents. Spokane County Building Director Vissia mentioned that staff strives to look for commonalities among various municipal entities; he mentioned the website "mybuildingpermit.com" which is shared among seven entities and which funnels documents to the appropriate jurisdiction; he said his department is interested in the web based permit to be able to offer permits on line, if not for commercial buildings at least for such things as wood stove permits. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that Spokane Valley is working to have a new website to replace the current outdated website; he said he values the physical site here for getting permits and prefers not sending citizens to downtown Spokane, and added that the City of Spokane Valley has had several developer conferences to get critiques of our system, and based on that a formal report is made and action is taken, and said those processes are valuable. Commissioner Richard mentioned that the staff from Spokane Valley and Spokane County work very well together; and before we move to uniform forms, we ask our staffs to meet with the City of Spokane for further discussion. Spokane Valley Building Official McGee said she and Mr. Vissia have been engaged in conversations with City of Spokane Building Official Joseph Wizner to try to partner with utilities for an energy code forum late fall to let the citizens know of the changes to the code, and to include Medical Lake and other jurisdictions; and Mr. Vissia mentioned that the Spokane Regional Code Group, initially Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 with just Spokane City and Spokane County, now includes other jurisdictions and the group meets monthly. Commissioner Mielke said without being too prescriptive to staff, he would suggest these groups be directed to discuss such things as administrative or trade permits which require less overview, such as plumbing or mechanical, and to perhaps come up with a list of what to include in that category; and what each jurisdiction uses to determine consistencies among the group members. Building official McGee said they have just started discussions on a master application; and that the City of Spokane has already started such a list, which could be expanded. The matter of software was mentioned and Ms. McGee said Spokane Valley and Spokane County share the PLUS Permitting System, but of course don't have access to each other's databases. Commissioner Richard added if everyone agrees, he suggested the staffs examine the concept of accessibility to customers, whether a one -stop shop or the portal ideal; and asked if we might be willing to co- convene a discussion with the citizens on how together we can generally improve customer service, to include topics such as forms, logistics, and even physical location. Acting City Manager Jackson said those ideas sound do -able, especially to sit down and discuss. 5. Other Tonics of Mutual Interest Regional Single Sewer S sy tem Commissioner Mielke said the City of Spokane has identified several topics for discussion, one of which is going to a regional single sewer system; with the TMDL (total maximum daily load), all the state and federal regulators will regulate the entire watershed as one, which includes Liberty Lake, Kaiser, Spokane County, Empire Inland Paper, and the City of Spokane as dischargers on this side of the border, and of those, if four are in compliance and one is not therefore making the watershed out of compliance, then according to the regulations, all five would be out of compliance; he said a single sewer system has a broad definition and perhaps could only include the sewer mains with the conveyance system as it is now; and said they were asked to begin discussions to explore that issue. Mr. Mielke said he has been asked to work with Bruce Rawls of Spokane County and Dale Arnold of Spokane City, and said part of that means trying to find a designated elected representative from each jurisdiction; he said he does not have a designated elected official in Spokane Valley and asked if there is an interest in pursuing that, to have such official participate in those discussions; including any appropriate staff to attend those meetings. City Attorney Connelly said staff has been attending the two regional meetings held so far, and past councilmembers have participated, and said it would be appropriate to choose a new councilmember. The joint solid waste advisory committee was mentioned with citizen representative Dick Denenny, and Spokane Valley representatives Mayor Towey and Councilmember Dempsey; and Mr. Mielke said unless he hears otherwise, he will presume those representatives for discussions will be Mayor Towey and Councilmember Dempsey. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Commissioner Mielke said this issue was discussed at the last Council of Governance Meeting; said the next "big tent" transportation meeting is set for April 7 from 2 -5 p.m. with this topic as a major part of that agenda, including a draft interlocal agreement on TBD; and said one issue is to refine the language so it would be amenable to the most jurisdictions as possible; Liberty Lake brought up the issue of language in the draft agreement that all parties would agree they would not impose an impact fee for the purposes of mitigating transportation issues; and Mr. Mielke said since then he discovered that Liberty Lake's impact fee is voluntary; so after editing the language, the draft now states that "none of the parties will implement a mandatory impact fee for the purposes of transportation mitigation;" and said he is waiting for feedback from the jurisdictions. Discussion included impact fees and who would collect those; that City of Spokane's impact fee is on hold; traffic impact fees and new construction; finding a reliable source; and the difficult issue of tab fees and that they are all subject to a public vote except up to a $20.00 tab fee, which decision is made by the Regional Transportation Benefit District Committee. Commissioner Mielke mentioned that it was suggested at that Council of Governance meeting that anything should go to a public vote; so he said he is trying to write language that best represents the view of the majority of the jurisdictions, and he asked for input either Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010 now or later; adding that he is working to prepare for that April 7 meeting. There was discussion on what funds would be generated on specific tab fees: a $20.00 tab fee would generate $9 million and a $45 fee would generate $20 million; and whether the minimum would be enough; that all jurisdictions in this area estimate we are failing to fund totally about $24 million annually in road maintenance and operation costs; that the money could only be spent locally; and local governments could, subject to a public vote, also impose a gas tax of about three cents, which would generate county -wide about $10 to $12 million annually; and that several voiced an opinion that any issue needs to be put to a public vote. Commissioner Richard said the Board has not yet voted on this issue. Commissioner Mielke added that he was asked to be part of a committee to assemble a document for all jurisdictions; that others on the committee included Rich Munson, Mayor Verner, and Frank Tombari, who were asked to take the concept of a regional TBD and put it into a draft interlocal document which would meet the state law requirements; and bring that back for consideration if the TBD is the preferred route. Solid Waste Commissioner Mager said the liaison board has started to meet and determine if it will continue meeting with the solid waste advisory committee; as they adopted a comp plan, that triggered a discussion about moving to a governance related to solid waste; she said the reason is that bonds will retire in 2011 for the incinerator, and Spokane Valley's and Liberty Lake's contract will be up; and that this is an important time to determine if this is a separate issue or a regional issue; which means if regional, it would have a governance structure where each member would be responsible and accountable for what happens with the solid waste in the future; said there has been some discussion about the advisory task force which examined this and recommended to the two bodies that it would be helpful if the City of Spokane would move forward and put out an RFP (request for proposal) for the waste stream in general, to allow the market to give the necessary information regarding cost to handle the tons of material generated regionally. She said the other recommendation was in terms of governance, and whether an interim contract for three to five years might be one way to address this without creating a crisis but to assist in moving forward. Commissioner Richard said when Spokane Valley is released from the bond obligation in 2011, that they believe there is value in staying together in a system in terms of economy of scale, and that there is a need to move to a regional governance structure; adding that any capital expenditures under $1 million are made by the City of Spokane staff; and when constituents start addressing issues such as recycling or refuse collection, the entities don't have a vote; and said he greatly appreciates Spokane City for taking the leadership role, but feels there is a time now to protect their interest, contemplate a new government structure and to allow a regional governance structure; and he encouraged Spokane Valley to weigh in on this if that feeling is shared. Deputy Mayor Schimmels mentioned that the technical committee presented the concept that Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake's contract ends in 2014 and therefore get rid of the 2011 concern by extending out to 2014 instead of doing this piece -meal this just because of the bonds. Commissioner Mager said it would make sense to do that as a short-term electricity contract is now possible and said a small three to five year contract would give everyone enough time to work through the issues. There were no other suggested topics to discuss and thanks and appreciation were expressed for the opportunity to discuss these topics together. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from this meeting. Commissioner Richard said he was hopeful to get a quarterly meeting schedule determined; and for Spokane County, he adjourned the meeting at 4 :00 p.m. It was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ATTEST: VineBZinbridge, Thomas E. Towey, Mayor k City Clerk Joint City/ Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03 -08 -2010 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: 03 -23 -2010