HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2009 04B Minutes 01-20-2009 Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee x'' 13
*a
a rr C rt� am f G # e worJi ` s : : .� A z), -:4
CouncilIntergovernmentaCIOCations Comm
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
2:00 p.m.
CED Large Conference Room
Council present: Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Rick Ensey
Commissioner: Mike Leita
City staff present: Dick Zais, Bill Cook, Michael Morales, Joan Davenport
County staff present: Vern Redifer, Steve Ekstedt
Discussion regarding .3% Criminal Justice Sales Tax '
Mayor Edler asked what is the County's intent regarding the .3% tax initiative for 2009.
Mike Leita reported that he had talked to Sheriff Irwin about it recently and that we all
agree if the tax were to go away it would be catastrophic to our law and justice budgets.
He continued, saying that more importantly, . it seems to be working. The County
Commissioners will support the initiative and plan to have it on the November 2009 ballot.
They are getting their team together and will contact the cities .soon for input on how to
approach the community. Mayor Edler asked if there had been any discussion_about
increasing the tax to .4 %. Commissioner Leita responded that he does not believe the .1%
0 will be combined with the .3 %. The County is still discerning how the other .1% could be
utilized.
Development standards — County proposal
Vern Redifer recalled that at the last meeting Joan Davenport made a presentation on
behalf of the City. Then it was the County's turn to see if they could come up with a model
to address the capital facilities needs, predominantly regarding streets, in the West Valley
area.
Vern said that he added information to the material that Joan presented to include past ,
projects and road projects that the City and County already agree on. He presented a map
with all of the information: past projects, road projects already agreed upon and projects
that need more discussion. He also exhibited a spreadsheet that uses the cost model of
$1 million per lane, like the City's model, but is broken down in more detail. He noted that
the City and County are doing a.good job of creating a Growth Management Act Capital
Facilities Plan with this process. Commissioner Leita added that the information presented
by the County doesn't necessarily present solutions but is the essence of what the County
believes both the City and County need to do.
Vern asserted that the struggle is to find a way to finance capital facilities. The first aspect
he set out to determine was how much does the government pay for capital facilities and
0 how much comes from outside sources. He coined the term "grant $" as money that isn't
contributed by local government. He considered three categories in making a
determination from the County's 2000 — 2007 construction experience: the cost ratio for all
of the County's roadway construction was 63 % (County) to 37% (grant $); the cost ratio
for arterials only was 50% / 50%; and the construction done in just the analysis area was
51% (County) to 49% (grant $). Dick Zais asked if this information is for road construction
only — no sewer or other infrastructure. Vern affirmed that this information was for road
construction only.
Vern then spoke about projected increases in construction and road maintenance costs.
Then he explained about the methods that the County has in place to deal with increased
costs: the County road levy; the County gas tax; and interest. He also gave information
from the County Assessor's Office about projected assessed value growth rates in the
analysis area. He reviewed various scenarios including what might have occurred if the
City had not annexed and what the current conditions are due to annexations. He
concluded with the scenario of going forward from 2007 under the current conditions. He
asked the question "Does the County have the funds to finance the capital facilities ?" and
he answered it . "Yes."
Vern then suggested three options: 1. City continues present annexation policy (City
grows, takes on road obligations); 2. City discontinues present annexation policy (City
does not grow, County builds roads); 3. Annexation agreements — Maximize the process
and be GMA Compliant (City grows, County builds roads). Vern suggested that the first
two options are extremes. He said he thinks that Option 3 offers enhanced opportunities
through joint planning.
Mayor Edler thanked the County for their presentation and said he appreciates the
process.
The discussion will continue at the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee. The
next meeting will be Tuesday, March 3, at 3:00 p.m.
Approved
.41/ c7Q(( 7(q
- _
Dave Edler, Chair Date
0