2011, 08-31 Special Joint Meeting Minutes MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
Spokane Valley City Council
Spokane County Board of County Commissioners
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
9:00 a.m. —12:00 p.m.
Spokane County Fair and Expo Center
Conference Facility located in Expo Complex
404 N Havana Street
ATTENDANCE
Snokane Vallev Spokane County
Thomas Towey, Mayor A1 French, Chair, Board of Co. Commissioners
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Todd Mielke, Vice-Chair
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mark Richard, Commissioner
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Arne Woodard, Councilmember
Mike Jackson, City Manager Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer
Cary Driskell, City Attorney David Hubert, Attorney
Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Guy Cavender, Costs Recovery Projects Mgr.
John Hohman, Comm. Development Dir. Nancy Voermans, Executive Assistant
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Pat Harper, Engineers Office Admin.
Roger Crum, Interim Deputy City Manager Bob Brueggeman, County Engineer
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Bill Wedlake, Solid Waste Section Manager
Matt Lyons, Spokane Valley Police Lt. Nancy Hill, SCRAPS
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Martha Lou Wheatley-Billeter, Public Info Mgr.
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Diane L Timoney, StaffAssistant
Karen Corkins, Executive Assistant
Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board of County Commissioners Chair French opened the meeting and welcomed all in attendance, and
thanked Spokane Valley Councilmembers and staff for coming; which was followed by a brief welcome
from Mayor Towey, then self-introductions by those in attendance.
1. Solid Waste Alliance Interlocal Agreement
Chair French gave an update of the solid waste issue; explained that yesterday the Commissioners
approved a"Statement of Principles" of where the Board is heading, and listing the Board's priorities and
guiding principles the Board will follow as they move through the process; and he read an excerpt from a
letter addressing those principles, as follows:
".. Below is a general outline of the key principals that the Board used as the formation of the
Alliance and should govern its future management. #1 — provide the best technology in solid waste
disposal at the most affordable cost to the rate payer; #2 — provide for equitable representation of
members and their constituents on the alliance board; #3 — contract out to the private sector to the
greatest extent possible, all operations; #4 — minimize the financial burden to the alliance members;
#5—employ minimal staff consisting of an executive director, contract administrator and
accounting/billing services as required; #6 — allow for decisions related to utility t�es to be
controlled by the individual jurisdictions and not the alliance; #7—ensure vendor contract terms
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2011 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council:
provide flexibility to adjust to the latest technologies as they become competitively available to the
region; #S — use vendor contracting process to acquire assets for the system as opposed to incurring
debt to be borne by the alliance or its members; #9 — minimize any exposure to alliance members'
general funds; and #10 — minimize financial exposure to alliance members for any start-up costs."
In reference to the draft interlocal, Chair French said that many jurisdictions aze reviewing the agreement,
and several including the City of Cheney have expressed concern with meeting the October 3 deadline,
and said Cheney's mayor will be giving the Board information on the process and at what point Cheney
can participate, and said they indicated they want to participate. Commissioner Mielke mentioned that
when this draft interlocal was presented to Deer Park, they felt it was a"cart-horse thing" as they wanted
a cost, but Commissioner Mielke said a cost can't be calculated until they know all the partners as they
need to determine how many jurisdictions are interested, and then calculate according to each
jurisdiction's annual tonnage; and said Deer Park also wanted a model resolution for consideration, and
said Chair French is working on that. Chair French said that at the two-day summit in February, everyone
wanted to examine forming an alliance, and said the task force has done excellent work, that they had a
goal of having it all done by June and that was accomplished. He also mentioned that some asked about
an alternate plan, and said the alternate plan is the county would form its own department and farm out for
those willing to work, if people are happy with the County taking over and doing that service; he said the
Board of County Commissioners is prepared to move in that direction only if that is the desire of the
members. Councilmember Gothmann said this topic was included on last night's council agenda where
councilmembers discussed a list of concerns, and said he feels they are at a point where they need facts
and figures on cost and that the Council doesn't want to sign until those figures are provided. Chair
French said they need to start working through and identifying the cost, whether this is handled by a
contractor or with the County, and Councilmember Gothmann stated he feels regionally is the common
sense way to do things and feels Spokane Valley is not likely moving towards its own plan. Mayor
Towey agreed the Council is leaning toward the alliance but has concerns about the details, and that the
City of Spokane has not yet made a decision, adding that without the City of Spokane, there can be no
regionalism; and said he would like to see a study of options and that a partial regional concept doesn't
seem to be what came out of the Summit or Task Force. Commissioner Richard said their desire is not to
separate from the City of Spokane, that he believes the current system lacks fmancial accountability,
representation and transparency; and for the better part of four years, he has tried to articulate to the City
of Spokane that these things are needed; that it would be great to have all jurisdictions participate, but a
regional system does not have to include every jurisdiction, although there would be a huge hole without
the City of Spokane.
Commissioner Mielke said we need to be cautious to not allowing a jurisdiction to have veto power over
what they do, and if one potential partner holds out, they become the one with the veto power; that the
City of Spokane is trying to decide which direction to go and the Board of County Commissioners needs
to make a decision; he said he realizes the City of Spokane feels the Waste-to-Energy plant has a value as
an economic development tool and that they likely want to keep that running, so if every other jurisdiction
goes in different directions, they can rely on that plant; he said they don't want to commit any flow to the
alliance unless they know the alliance will keep the flow going to the Waste-to-Energy plant; that there is
a fine balancing point in the economies of scale to send all flow to one disposal plant versus diversifying
risk, and said perhaps the long haul would be the cheapest, unless gas prices soar; he said they are waiting
for us and we are waiting for them; that the only number the City of Spokane has is the cost of disposal of
a complete system, including recycling and education; and said the County has asked them to give just the
cost of the disposal, but that they have not calculated that at this point. Chair French added it is difficult to
negotiate price when there is only a single vendor. Councilmember Woodard said there are only two
months until Spokane Valley's interlocal expires and he feels it is a big mistake not to pursue other
options as it leaves no negotiating ability; he said he feels something must be done in the interim; that he
likes the concept but some items need refining, adding that he likes the idea of not allowing the larger
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2011 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council:
I
partners to leave as it would break the system. Councilmember Gothmann suggested there is no reason
why the County and Spokane Va11ey can't develop financial models, one including and one not including
the City of Spokane; and said he feels in the interim the obvious thing to do is to sign a three-year
extension, and Commissioner French agreed; and said they had a meeting yesterday with members of the
City and asked them to look at the system about any economies to minimize the rates. Mr. French said
one of those elements was how to manage the operating hours of the transfer stations, and said perhaps
the number of hours those transfer stations are open could be reduced.
Further discussion included costs, maintenance and other issues associated with Wheelabrator; mention
from Commissioner Richard that the County is attempting to make sure none of the parties would be
obligated for any debt beyond the retirement of the existing debt , and that none of the parties would be
obligated for any liability for the new sale to the current landfill beyond the term of the contractual
agreement; there was mention of shifts in cost driving the need to increase tipping fee as well as loss of
revenue or change in rates; and encouraging Spokane Valley to support legislation that would authorize
the Waste-to-Energy Plant as a renewal energy source. Commissioner French said that the October 3 date
was established by the Task Force and is an arbitrary date so that the issue wouldn't languish forever; and
said if Spokane Valley and other members need more time that is not a problem; but said they need to
start identifying costs and putting together some cost structures about how the system will look; and
suggested perhaps Spokane Valley stafF could work with County staff on cost structure, and that perhaps
Bill Wedlake and Neil Kersten could work together on that pricing and organizing structure; he also
mentioned that last June there was a joint meeting with the County Board and Kootenai County Board
and that they have a landfill and they said they'd be willing to take our waste, and the cost now is $65 a
ton, so there are options. Mayor Towey said October 3 date seems reasonable. Mr. Jackson said he has
no objection to staff working together, and said that the idea of the system being charged with developing
the cost and alternatives would be something to explore.
2. Animal Control
Commissioner Mielke distributed several documents concerning animal control, including a resolution in
support of the concept of a regional animal control partnership; and he explained the historical
perspective about Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Cheney, Millwood and others partnering with
SCRAPS for animal control services. Mr. Mielke said the current facility is a forty-year old building;
they have never paid rent but the State Auditor said they probably should; he said the facility is literally
on the wrong side of the railroad tracks and the train has a tendency to park on the line and block the
facility during the day. Additionally, he explained there are only two toilets in the building for about 70
people's use during the day; that the fire hydrant is on the wrong side which leads to water problems; that
the current site is on the border of gravel pits so if we were to move it too far it would be on unstable
ground; that the current coalition would have to determine how to finance a new facility; that Spokane
Valley uses about 40% of the resources; and that the City of Spokane wanted to join about three years ago
since their provider SpokeAnimal changed their services. Mr. Mielke said the current facility is not large
enough to accommodate the needs; and several meetings have been held to discuss options and at one of
those meetings, they came up with a list of questions:
1. From a financial perspective, are there operational cost savings in a regionally combined animal
control operation versus each jurisdiction pursuing its own program?
2. Is there any way to fund a capital expenditure for a combined facility without going to a public
vote?
(a) Could current operations absorb the capital cost of a combined facility?
(b) If the answer to (a) is no, could the individual jurisdictions contribute other funds to cover
the annual capital cost payments?
3. In pursuing a combined facility, would there be savings by purchasing a pre-existing facility and
remodeling it, rather than constructing a new combined facility?
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2011 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council:
I
Commissioner Mielke said last November they came back with answers to the questions; moving on the
assumption that SpokeAnimal was getting out of the business, they determined there would be a savings
of about $400,000 in moving to a regional operation; that they tried to figure out how to have a facility
without going to the voters, and determined they would have to take animal control down 40% to be able
to make the bond payments, and if that occurred, he said, Animal Control would not be able to fulfill their
mission; which led to the question, could jurisdictions absorb the cost of bond payments on a proportional
basis said jurisdictions indicated they could not absorb that in their current budget. Mr. Mielke said there
is a lot of empty real estate on the market and along with that, the idea of renovating existing land; he also
explained they use a geat deal of water on the inside of the building which necessitates floor drains,
water proofmg, and several other challenges. He explained that the Task Force went to the Traders Club,
a group of commercial realtors, to ask them to develop a short list of areas that meet the stated criteria;
and based on the cost per square foot; if we buy the properly and build the facility, it would be about
$13.8 million, or rounded up to about $15 million; or an alternative of $9 to $10 million to remodel a
purchased site, one he said they found near Havana. Mr. Mielke said they tried not to go to the ballot, but
e�austed all their options. He further explained that on a$10 million bond ballot fmanced over nine
years, it would result in about $8.00 annually for a$200,000 home. He said the City of Spokane asked
them to hold off on ballot timing until they can detertnine if they would seek an excess levy; he said they
decided they would not, so the Board of County Commissioners started moving forward to plan on a
November ballot. Commissioner Mielke said the ballot assumes the $15 million, and would be used
exclusively for replacement of a regional animal control facility and automatically end in nine years or
less. Commissioner Mielke said they received some comments that until the City of Spokane agrees to
sell that property, it would be good to have them go on record in support of this; and said Mayor Verner
sent a letter regarding the conditions on joining a coalition; and he explained that the Board of County
Commissioners voted to endorse the Mayor's letter to go forward with a coalition.
The group discussed the figures on the spreadsheet distributed by Commissioner Mielke, which shows the
financial impact for each jurisdiction; and Mr. Jackson said the conect amount for 2010 for Spokane
Valley is $314,000. Continued discussion included mention by Commissioner Mielke that he will
reconcile those numbers, and mention by Mayor Towey that it appears we would be subsidizing the City
of Spokane even though the contract states there will be no subsidizing. Commissioner Mielke said the
subsidy would go away once the bonds go away, and at an interval such as six years, a recalculation could
be done if warranted; and said if the City of Spokane doesn't join, that would be an enormous difference
as opposed to subsidizing. Commissioner Richard said he has a concern that some of these numbers are
based on assumptions; and regarding subsidizing the City of Spokane, stated frankly that wouldn't every
jurisdiction want that option; and said he is not comfortable with Spokane City agreeing that after the
bond retirement they'll pay their fair share; and said everyone should share in the risk and the reward.
Regarding the timing, Chair French said they put this on the ballot knowing there is still some work to do
before perfecting it, and that the Board has the option of removing it from the ballot next Tuesday if they
can't feel comfortable the major partner is on board, and said he is willing to pull it off the ballot; but
their first alliance is to the existing partner; that solving the City's problems doesn't mean we subsidize
them; but said if the City of Spokane Valley doesn't feel comfortable, he'll remove it from the ballot.
Discussion turned to whether to remove it from the ballot; that if the City of Spokane came on board later
there could be different negotiations; and mention there is always the chance such a ballot issue would not
pass. Commissioner French said he needs to know before Tuesday whether or not to keep this on the
ballot; and individual councilmembers said they were for keeping it on the ballot, with Councilmember
Grassel adding that she has some issues with some of the data and figures, but agreed to keep it on the
ballot as well.
There was a break at approximately 11:12 a.m., and the group reconvened at approximately 11:23 a.m. In
the interest of time, it was determined the goup would discuss the jail, followed by the Milwaukee right-
of-way next, then the Transportation Benefit District.
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2011 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council:
I
3. Jail
Commissioner Richard explained that he has been working on this project for about the last five years;
that it involved remodeling, re-tooling and restructuring to separate the project into two pieces: a
community corrections facility downtown next to the retrofitted jail; and then locate a more secure
detention facility off-campus; and said they brought the projected cost down to $199 million from a high
of about $265 million; he said it required finding a remote site, which was located in the west plains; and
said the site required an amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary to access sewer and water; and said
they are moving toward that amendment; he said that initially they felt the situation was an emergency as
they were releasing some prisoners from the detention facility, but the Board withdrew the emergency and
the amendment proposal and are putting the land use amendment into the ten-year amendment process,
with a goal to have it completed at the end of the year; he said they were immersed in critical reforms in
the last four or five years to manage the population and expand alternatives to incarceration; and said they
feel they are doing that and buying time through those efficiencies without having a complete crisis due to
a lack of facility; that they are going through the land use process and still examining other alternatives to
locate the detention facility elsewhere; and said they got a conditional use permit for the community
conections for the retrofitting downtown without triggering a need for a new parking garage; and said the
City Hearing Examiner approved the proposal without the need for a parking facility, which would save
about $20 million; that there is a two-year window on the conditional use permit so the clock is ticking
and they're moving forward; and said they will try to bring something in 2012 or 2013 depending on how
things go.
4. Milwaukee Ri t-of-Wa� date
Mayor Towey gave some history on the Milwaukee road and the controversy over the years on who owns
it and to what purpose would it be used; he said the County owns the property; and the focal point of the
County and of the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) was to preserve the area for future mass transit; he
said he hasn't talked to anyone in Spokane Valley who doesn't want the road extended; but the issue
remains, and said he feels Spokane Valley, the County, and STA should sit down and determine a
reasonable plan for this property to enhance the area, and to work together to preserve it so all citizens can
use the area. Councilmember Grafos said he proposes we start together to develop that into an asset by
making it a shared use path, starting at University and going to Liberty Lake; and to maybe get some
construction companies to help with some of the ground work, and of course, to involve STA. He said
there should be no impact on zoning, and suggests an asphalt path with vegetation on both sides.
Commissioner Mielke said he feels that is a great idea; that their job is to determine how to connect
communities in the county, and said there are some big expenses in projects in right-of-way acquisition,
but said he sees no reason why we should not use it today; he said he sees it as a long-term asset as a
region, and feels no reason why it should not be used on an interim basis for aesthetic value.
Commissioner Richard said that it troubles him that in the last couple months, STA withdrew its high
capacity analysis of that area, which, he said, is one of the reasons the County had been waiting; that he
thinks STA belongs in the conversation, but we need to be careful not to let one entity drive the agenda;
that STA had committed to do the analysis to determine if that's even the right corridor; and said he's not
convinced that is the case and STA's decision to withdraw from that analysis further convinces him; he
said he feels there is a need to request STA to make that determination so we can choose the best course
moving forward; that we need to press STA to do the analysis and determine if that's the corridor to
preserve; and in the interim; maybe go with an easement agreement; and he stressed the need to converse
with STA. Councilmember Grafos suggested the idea of getting the property owners to develop the back
of their properties, and agreed with the importance of involving STA. Chair French stated that STA
indicated that this is not the right corridor for light rail, and agreed with the needed conversation with
STA to determine their plans so the County can make appropriate decisions; and said he is fine having
staff work on that transition to see how it works. Commissioner Richard reiterated that STA needs to
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2011 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council:
I
complete the analysis or determine the area is not a working priority; and he and Chair French agreed they
have no objection to Spokane Valley and County staff working on some sort of joint use agreement and
City Manager Jackson agreed it is feasible to start working on that, and to come back to council with
questions and to start the process. The group appeared to be in agreement to start working on a joint use
agreement.
5. Transportation Benefit District (TBD)
Regarding forming a Transportation Benefit District, Commissioner Mielke reported that to form a
district, the Board of County Commissioners must pass a resolution; and said they would like indications
of the various jurisdiction's view on this; that people want to see a plan before committing to a district;
and asked whether we want to come together and try to develop a transportation maintenance plan to
cover those needs on a regional basis, and said he is working on sending a letter within the next week or
so, to ask if Spokane Valley is interested in participating in a group that would sit down for a period of
time and try to develop a transportation maintenance plan to take to the voters; that it would likely take
nine months to develop a proposal to take to the voters; and that the Board would ask the same question
to the other jurisdictions; that once the Board gets input, the Board would pass a resolution that no fees
would be assessed without a public vote and the purpose would be to develop a plan; and if there was no
plan by the end of the specified time, the district would be dissolved. Mayor Towey said he would like to
finalize the City's 2012 budget before making a decision about a TBD, as well as determine the
conditions of the roads and of the needed revenues; that the City has not determined if it needs a TBD, but
does not feel there is a pressing need, and Commissioner Mielke acknowledged that jurisdictions are
finding themselves in a deficit in terms of road preservation. Chair French suggested revisiting this topic
after the first of the year after Spokane Valley has passed its 2012 budget, and Mayor Towey said he
would be comfortable with that.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at appro�mately 12:12 p.m.
�.
T omas E. Towe , Mayor
ATTEST:
� � ^
istine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2011 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council:
I
No. Il- o _ _ _ _ _ _
-
7�f7 ___ _
BEFO�E Tf�' �DARp oF G I CpMNIISSIONF.R,S
OF SFOKANE COUN'I'Y, WASHIIVGTON
IN TI� MATTER CONCERNING A JOINT )
N�ETII�TG OF TI� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ) 1�TOTICE OF
COUNCIL AND THE SPOKANE COUNTY ) SPECIAL MEETIl�iG
COMIVIISSIONERS )
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,
Washington, pursuant to RCW 42.30.080, that the Board of County Commissioners will meet with the City of
Spokaae Valley Council at a Special Meeting
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2011, AT 9:00 A.M. AND ADJOURNING AT NOON.
Spokane County Fair and Expo Center
Conference Facility at the Expo Complex
404 N. Havana Street
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
The purpose of the special meeting will be for the Board of County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council to
take "action," as that term is defined in RCW 42.30.02Q on the following items:
1} Solid Waste Alliance — Irnerlocal Agreemecrt
2) Animal Control
3) Milwaukee Right-of-way
4) Transportation Benefit District
5) Jail
The Board of County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council reserve the right to consider but not "take final
acrion" on any other item of concern to either entity.
Any person may appear at the time, place and date of the Special Meeting and obseive the acti�(s) of the Boerd of
County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council. No public testimony will be received. Staffmay be asked to
respond to questions.
DATED this 26' day of August 2011. BOARD OF COUNTY COMI��IISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHIl�TGTON
ATTEST: �� ss
AL FRENCI� q �$ � . o
. . o � • y� G,�,���
m
Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board •'• �'
� s�. a�'
��
AGENDA
Spokane Regional Council of Governments
Spokane County Fair and Expo Center
Conference Facility in Expo Complex
404 N. Havana Street
September 9, 2011
10:00 A.M. — 12:30 P.M.
This meeting will be preceded by the opening ceremony of the 2011 Spokane County
Interstate Fair. We wish to invite you to the ceremony which will begin promptly at 9:45
A.M. Please join us at the Main Entrance to the Fair and Expo Center, just north of
Avista Stadium and at the east end of the main parking lot.
• Welcome & Review of Meeting Agenda
❖ Facilitator: Commissioner Mark Richard
• Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Update
❖ Jim Falk, Planner, Spokane County Building & Planning Department
• Regional Animal Control
❖ Commissioner Todd Mielke
• District Spokane Public Facilities District Completion Projects
❖ Mick McDowell, Board Member, Spokane Public Facilities District
• Spokane International Airport Updates
❖ Larry Krauter, Director, Spokane Airports
•"Conversation on Improving Small Business Climate & Increasing Jobs"
❖ Chris Cargill and Paul Guppy, Washington Policy Center
• Roundtable Discussion
❖ Facilitator: Commissioner Mark Richard
• Adjourn
SIGN IN
AUGUST 31, 2011
MEETING PURPOSE: Joint Meeting - Spokane County 8� City of
S okane Valle
NAME JURISDICTION REPRESENTED
��v l'�r�� S�x��� C���
L r,��lG c� �.. ��
T'o �t o w�- s o ko....�. v�.//
/� �
� �,�y/m� EGS `� *
^ l' 1 1
i� //
(L�� �. /f � t � � r
do
� ��"�
�6�llila� .,�aC .
- v
� .
'�. �a�ro
C� �� u-�. ' ` ,.
M �'Jar I�vdJt � � s?� v� ��G v�, �E'
�oN•►I �oHwsN � r
SIGN IN
AUGUST 31, 2011
MEETING PURPOSE: Joint Meeting — Spokane County � City of
S okane Valle
NAME JURiSDICTION REPRESENTED
/�I/K� Sf�O� CI7Y D�' �S/�i�I� V�QI�1,�
t��w:c� ,�--- .. '�aorc.�.�.a. Co
��RR� t,� '' � �*� Co � �,�c�
Ja�v� ��o�� J�°�;��' '` J'C
�C� @r �rK�'►'I ��'� `'�,��ib�,r �/ �
�—'� � j��� m c� nn a�!Q n ��� ��
, .���
Cc� GL, ✓ p� - C_ �F
� , � __ .
� �C,��� ���`�
1 l ��
T 'R -
Cas[ � -�
i�,�3 ���a�l'� �iJ S �� � �
2 `"�?/t
��� l �/1�� � sPo. �� J
SIGN IN
AUGUST 31, 2011
MEETING PURPOSE: Joint Meeting - Spokane County � City of
S okane Valle
NAME JURISDICTION REPRESENTED
/7t�tc S'/''.a�is� -�.;w �� ...�r S3�i�� Cv�i'
�i4 r � SP�l4t• .G'GLEY oL� c�
� ` `"
,-
, � � �
��c `l l � C�� - s"�
` ��`� �c � 1�9E�
� o `�RYo �,��� .�od R,oAes
/ j ,.
. ��c-l��:�'r� C� 7�G _ -'�
���� �
�� ���. c��
i
�''s
�
�pa ��o
��� �..�._�...Y._____.�_�_.F- v���
UFFiCE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONL•RS
TODD MTELKE, IST L71STRICT • MARIC RICHARD, ZND DI3TRICT • AL I"RENCH, �RD D[STRIC'I'
Date: August 30, 201 I
To: Fellow Legislators
Re: Spokane Caunty Principals for Formation and C3peration of Salid Waste System
Dear Fellow Legislators:
A couple of jurisdictions have rey��ested t(iat I provide them with a statement af the Board's �hilosophy in
canjunction with the formation and mana�ement of the new Solid Waste Management Altrance
("Alliance"). Below is a general outline of tt�e key principats that tbe Board vsed as the faundation of the
Alliance and should govern its future management:
1. Provide the best technology in solid waste disposal at the most affordable eost to the rate payer.
2. Provide for equitable representation of' members and their constituents on the Altiance Board
3. Contract out to the privale sector to the greatest extent possible al1 aperations.
4. Minimize the financial burden ta the Alliance members.
5. Employ minimal staff consisting of an Executive Director, C�ntract Adminisbrator and
accounting/billi��g services as required.
6. A11ow for decisions related to utiiity taxes ta be controlied by the individual jurisdictions and nat
the �111iAnce.
7. Ensure vendor contract terms pravide flexibility to adjusc to the latest technola�iss as they
become cnmpetitively avaiiable to the region.
8. Use vendor contracting process to aequire assets for tlte system as oppased to incurring debt to be
borne by che Alliance or its members.
9. Minimize any exposurt to Alliance rnernbers' general funds.
10, Minimize financial exposure to Alliance members for an}� start up costs.
These key principals define ttte gouls of tlle t3oard in the formation of tl�e Alliance organization. Tl�e
details will obvious(y be shaped hy the A1liance Board after the inter-tocal agreement is agreed to by
future members.
If you should need additionul inforniati�ii, please contact me at �7?-2265 or by email at
afrench(cr�,spokanecounty.org.
The Board looks fonvard to warking ��ith you an this exciting op�ortunity for the regian.
Sincerely,
A1 French
Commissioner
Spokatte County
I 11G VG�EST BROADWAY AVENUfi • �POKANE, WASHIIVGTON �)�)���)-OIOO
(Stl9} �47i-2?GS
� � � �
� � �+- � .�
U � j � � �
._
(a .� > +�
O �' � U � � �.
� _ � 0 �, _ -� � tn �
O � L �.-- � � > > � .0
� � � � p Q � C,�j � �
N O L �� V .� O � pC�
.
Q C.� U � }' � � -�
�
O � � � � .� � � � � _
N N � }' � U
�.� O �Q� � � ���
� � _,,� � � 0 � `�' �' � � �
N � �.� — 0 � U � .�
_ � � � � � � � � � �
�Q (� .� •� 'Q � � � ��.-+ N � _ �
� � ([� � � � � — V �
tA > L v. � p ���' v� O
� }' � Q. � � � � � � � � V
C� O .�-' � • � �
� � U � � � N C�• Q�� N N
� � �O �� Q �� „�, � �.� �
� � � � � V
��� p'� °:_ ° O_ ��c�
�° � �,�, � � � � � � � �'
� �� N � � � Q o �
.�. U Q'+
.� � '� � �V � � � � U � R� V
� � (�„) � `� U � � .V � � ��
C � � � � � � � � � C � t�
� .� � � � Q � � 'i � .� �� O
�c� �._ O � � � U
�._� ��U c�—•—,� ���
� �- �- t6
O � � � � � ^ � ��
LL tn > — V Q m _�. -�
.
� (�j M
.. ,,...-.�, .. ..,,-e�nR����..,.n.,�-m'kRaR...,rr.sr�an+.ss*e+. ...�reea.e�n=.�.- .AmN--.�:*�°r^ .TM° . ., .. . .. .. . . .. �... . . .. T ^..�+.m„'..-...�e+^ . .-�a*`�T"" , ,. , .�-�...—s1*^nxe , ... ... ,..,.. a•.�..r.....,...wzT.-� m .M+w ,.,..
• �
l
ma s e er an
Councii supports maYor's offer on reglonal systen�
By Jonathan Brunt
jonathanb@spokesman.com,
(509)459-5442
A unified regional animal con-
trol system won important,
though qualified, support on
Monday from city leaders.
The Spokane City Council vot-
ed 6-1 to endorse Mayor Mary
Verner's stance on a proposed
nine-year county properly tax
that would pay for a new animal
shelter for the Spokane County
Regional Animal Protection Ser-
vice.
Vemer has told county com-
missioners that she will back the
tax if the county agrees to let Spo-
kane join the system for the same
amount the city is paying its non-
profit provider, SpokAnimal
C.A.R.E., this year (about
$561,000) plus an amount to ac-
count for inflation. Tke county
would keep the city's dog and cat
license revenue.
"Thisway,we have control over
our own destiny, at least for nine
years," said Councilwoman Nan-
cy McLaughlin.
The Spokane County Com-
mission already placed the tax,
which is expected to cost the own-
er of a$100,000 property about $4
to $6 ayeaz, on the November bal-
lot
How to provide anunal control
services has long been a predica-
ment at City Hall, especially in the
past decade after SpokAnimal of-
ficials noiified the city that they no
longer wanted to be in the role of
dogcatcher. In response, the City
Council voted in 2008 to joitt
SCItAPS. But that deal fell apart
the next yeaz after city voters re-
jected a public safety tax that in-
cluded money to expand a
SCRAPS shelter on Flora Road.
In the years since, city and
county officials decided to pursue
construction of a new animal con-
trol building rather than expand
the SCRAPS facility, because it
lacks sewer service, has poor ac-
cess as a result of a rail line that
crosses Flora and isn't centrally
located.
See SHELTER, A6
— __- -__ _ —___ .._. - -- -
__ ___.... __ --
� SHELTER
Continued from A5
Under the deal, the city
would sellthe countyland and a
building left over from a Hava-
na S�eet bridge construction
project over rail �acks near
Broadway. The city could kee�
the proceeds, though the land
and building were federall3
funded, as long as the money
gces to arterial street projects.
City administrators estimat-
ed the fair market price at about
$2 million. The county would
remodel the building into a
shelter and continue to manage
SCRAPS.
Councilman Bob Apple cast
the lone vote agauist Verner's
proposal. He said SpokAnimal
is willing to continue to be the
cit�s provider, and new taxes
aren't needed to keep the or-
ganization.
But others said the regional
deal is an opportunity to keep
rates steady and create a unified
system that would be less con-
fusing to the public. Spokane's
Internal Auditor Rick Romero
noted that SpokAnimal's rate
has increased to $561,000 this
year from $206,000 in 2005.
W/O Percentage
Investigations Without City
Percent
of Services
Forecast
Spokane County
Spokane Valley
Millwood
Cheney
Fairchild AFB
Liberty Lake
City of Spokane (1)
Total
19.611 %
18.342%
0.351 %
0.787%
0.000%
0.645%
60.267%
100.003%
Forecast
Cost
49.356% $245,100.10
46.164°/a $229,248.61
0.883% . $4,384,45
1.982% � $9,842.02
0.000% No longer involved
1.624% $8,063.71
$753,236.69
100.008% $1,249,875.59
Current Projected Adjust Adjust savings
Costs Savings excess to city
2010 Revenue
$401,422 $156,321 -$57,065.42
$375,460 $146,212 -$53,374.80
$6,872 $2,488 -$1,020.81
$8,084 -$1,758 -$2,291.47
$0.00
$12,166 $4,102 -$1,877.43
$561,492 -$191,745 $0.00
$1,365,496 $115,620 -$115,629.93
-$99,256.07
-$92,836.84
-$1,466.74
$4, 049.49
$0.00
-$2,224.85
$191,744.69
Final Cost
$344,356.17
$322,085.45
$5,851.19
$5,792.53
$0.00
$10,288.57
$561,492.00
$1,249,865.91
���..�.�w��:.�.��.��������,���.����l�.L�.li��:��3m�;� .�.;1,�-��������I;I��i��lli
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION supporting the concept of a regional animai control partnership
befinreen the City of Spokane and Spokane County.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane and Spokane County have pursued a long-term
Regional Animal Control operational and facility solution over the past severai years;
and
- WHEREAS, through the work of the CouRCil of Governments and the Joint
Animal Control Task Force a proposed regional operational and facility solution has
been identified; and
� WHEREAS, the key terms and understandings of that regional solution have
been described in the revised Statement of Intent letter (dated Friday, Aug. 26) from
City of Spokane Mayor Mary Vemer to the Spokane County Commissioners;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Spokane that
the Council supports the attached revised °Statement of Intent" letter dated August 26,
2011, from Mayor Mary B. Verner, City of Spokane to the Spokane County
Commissioners, setting forth the general terms of a regional animal control partnership
and supporting good faith negotiations on such terms.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON , 2011.
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
1
__. _ _
_ _ _
. t .a� � T~a �'�
. o �` ' �� '
.' +
r+ai+m
�,� ,1i ��
,.� AaM �,,o
City of Spokane
August 26, 2011
Honorable A1 French, Chair
Honorable Todd Mielke, Commissioner
Honorable Mark Richard, Commissioner
Spokane Cou.nty Board of Commissioners
1116 W Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
Re: ReQional Animal Control
Dear Commissioners:
My previous letter dated August 10, 2011 did not directly address the matter of annual
inflationary increases in rates to be paid by the City of Spokane. Therefore, I propose this letter
("Leiter of Intent") be substituted for my August 10�` correspondence as a preliminary
anderstanding between the City of Spokane and Spokane County with respect to fornung a
regional animal control and protection partnership.
This Letter of Intent does not create a binding legal obligation on the part of either the City or the
County, or on the part of any other person or entity, until such time as the parties execute
definitive agreements describing a11 of the principle terms and conditions under which the parties
will partner in providing a regional animal control and protection partnership. The letter is,
however, a statement of intent setti.ng forth the general tern�s of such a partnership and
supporting good faith negotiations on such terms.
The following are the general terms under which the City of Spokane is willing to partner in
providing a regional animal control and protection program: �
1. Both parties are willing to partner for a regional animal control and protection
program if voters approve a bond for capital costs of facility acquisition and
remodeling.
2. T'he City would agree to sell to the County the property situated at 1001 N. Havana at
a price that covers the City's cost of acquiring the property or the appraised value
determined by an MIA appraiser, whichever is less. The purchase price will be paid
out of bond pmceeds.
3. The sale of the property would be subject to the terms of leases in effect at the time of
such offer.
"Spoiaane — Near Nature, Near P�erfecY'
808 W. Spokanc Falls Btvd., Spokanc, Washingcon 99201-3335
Phone: (509) 625-6250 FAX: (509) G25-6563
4. The County will sarisfy itself with respect to the suitability of the property as a
regional animal control facility, including the adequacy of public right of way
attached to the property for animal control facility purposes.
5. The County would lock in rates the City pays for animal control services through
SCRAPS at no more tha.n rates projected by the Animal Control Task Force (e.g., at
$561,492), plus an inflationary escalator, during the term of years coinciding with
repayment of the voted capital facility bonds. There is no intettt by the City of
Spokane to have any of the current SCRAPS partner jurisdictions underwrite the costs
of the City of Spokane joining the current coalition.
6. The City and County will both commit to best efforts to increase revenues and
donations to support the operations and maintenance costs of SCRAPS in order to
meet the projected revenue targets determined by the Animal Control Task Force.•
The City of Spokane also agrees to reconsider its rate payments in the event that
revenues fall below the revenue targets determined by the Animal Control Task Force
in order to avoid any other jurisdiction underwriting the cost of service to the City of
Spokane.
7. Both parties understand that final property transfer agreements and contractual terms
for animal control service will be subject to approval by the City Council and the
Board of County Commissioners, and that such approval will be sought after the
election results on the voted capital bond are certified.
I believe these terms comport with our previous conversations, and ask that you take appropriate
action to secure concurrence with the terms from the Board of Commissioners. Once I have an
indication of the Board's support for this Letter of Intent, I will seek assurances of support from
a majority of Members of the City Council.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
� a,.,-, 8� V �.-�-�
Mary B. Verner
Mayor
,
,
. . l
Re lona
Anlma
Contro
g
❑ En a ed in 2008 — Married in 2011 ?
gg
❑ 2008 - Notice from S okanimal of Intent to Get
p
Out of the Animal Control Business.
0 2008 - Contract with SCRAPS for Animal Control
0 2009 - Recognition of SCR.APS Facility
Shortcomings
❑ 2010 - Formation of Regional Task Force
a 2011 - Identification of Ide�.l Facility/Location
❑ 2011 - A Sound Business Plan
• •
Re lona
l Anlm
a Contro
g
• •
Re lona
Anlma ontro
g
o Puttin the Business Case First
g
❑ Understand Market Rates
o Understand Difference Between Incremental Cost &
Fully Allocated Cost
o Understand the Value of Mitigating Risk
0
• �
Re lona
Anlma ontro �
g
❑ Ma or's Letter of Intent
Y
■ Count -wide Ballot Initiative — Not to Exceed
Y
$.OS 8/$1,000 For Nine Years
a C ity to P artner with S CRAP S at C ity' s Current
Operating Cost ($561,492) �
�
a O erating Cost Adjusted by CPI for Nine Years
p
❑ Cit to Sell Havana Facility to County at Marl�et Rate ,
Y
- Funds to be Used for Arterial Streets
❑ Havana Facility to be Modified by County at
Significant Savings over New Construction
• •
Re lona
l Anlma
Contro
g
❑ A Sound Re ional Solution
g
■ Unified Coun -wide Licensing System
tY
■ Lon -term stabili for All Re ional Cities
g tY g
■ One Central Location for all Services
■ Additional Ca aci for Shelterin /Ado tions
p �Y g p
■ Opportunity for Spokanimal and Humane
Society to Participate - Adoptions/Spay Neuter
■ Uniform Enforcement of Animal Control Laws
�
❑ Questions