Legislative Meeting - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone and welcome to our April 13, 2026 uh 9:00 am strategic planning meeting. Let the record reflect that all we have four commissioners that are present. Commissioner French is traveling on county business. So, we have Commissioner Jordan, Commissioner Waldo, Commissioner Curts, and Commissioner Brooks. Um, and we will go ahead and get started. So, Max Barber,

morning. How are you? Um, going to start off this morning talking about um something we had discovered when we switched over to uh workday. Uh there was some unspent funds from 2016 on MacArthur for indirect funds that weren't um spent and there was a amount of um 160,000. I approached the board about a month ago and expressed that I'd like to use that to kind of do an exploratory of all of our justice systems and have an evaluation of it. And one of the one of the uh companies we had talked to was JMI who happened to be an expert in this. and so followed up with them and I will tell you that uh Rebecca is going to be the lead on this one to help go through it. We're pretty excited about that. So I'll let you kind of talk through it, Rebecca.

Great. Thank you. Morning, commissioners. Um so we did an introductory meeting for this project on March 26th. Um we have 12 departments across the county, basically all of them that touch um criminal justice functions um and had really good buyin. So we have stakeholders identified from all of the departments and I've also reached out to the city. So municipal court and Spokane PD have also expressed interest in joining. Um the first trip by our consultants from JMI will be on the 27th of this month and they'll start doing um in-person interviews with the stakeholders. uh to fill out questionnaires, get information on all of the data systems that are being used by the different departments, um document all of their processes, and then their deliverable to us at the end will be some highle maps of how all of these departments interact with each other. Um what systems they're using and some recommendations to sort of streamline processes. Um so, as Mike mentioned, MacArthur will be paying for the full cost of the project. So won't be um any burden on the general fund. Um yeah, we have great buy in. We'll expect to have preliminary report um the first week of August, which is actually we're already ahead of the original timeline that we had for this project. And that'll wrap by end of October. Any questions?

So I um Well, for me, so how much is the cost do we anticipate? It's $141,000 and then coming out of that fund. Okay. With 160. Okay. And then the I'm sorry. The residual amount of that um we're going to apply to the W binding. You remember we talked about that part of it. So, okay. That's what get allocated to and then um the scope of this one is just for the data. I guess I just want to be clear because we you know the safe and healthy task force there's lots of discussions on different assessments and all of that. So I just want to make sure what the actual scope of this one is.

It's clear primarily looking at the software that's being used but they're also going to document all of the different data touch points. So like what documents are being used as somebody is being adjudicated say and how those documents are stored and sent to the other departments. So, it's yeah, it's mostly looking at the interface between departments and how they're storing all of that information. Okay. And but it's also going to look at what the needs are, what what what we're not doing that, right? They'll make recommendations for for how we could improve or streamline the processes that we have in place.

Yes. Some of the incompatibilities and then also what's still being done by paper. It could otherwise not be done by paper. So, um, in looking at their scope of work, it seems pretty thorough and I've gone through the contract with Mr. Macy over here. We feel we're in a good place with that. So, you're going to probably see that tomorrow. Is that correct? On the uh Yes. Sorry. So, the resolution and the contract are both on tomorrow afternoon's legislative agenda.

Two additional facts, Madam Chair. Firstly, as Rebecca pointed out and Mike pointed out, MacArthur has given us specific authorization to use these indirect monies for this particular purpose. And Mike was very good about getting that documentation because we want to be sure we're uh we're uh we can spend the money. And secondarily, uh we are hiring JMI under the reasonable and prudent approach. JMI has done work for the MacArthur people. They are very familiar with this kind of a project. In fact, they did a similar project to the one they're doing for us for a a county in uh in Montana. So, in the resolution in front of you tomorrow, Mike is recommending that it's reasonable and prudent to hire JMI for this particular project for us. And from a legal perspective, uh I feel very comfortable in moving in that direction. Thanks to the team. I think this is really exciting. Uh glad to hear there's good buyin from the departments. Um I think it'll be it'll be interesting to see it all laid out and kind of what kind of a maze that map looks like and then maybe where the functionalities might be able to be streamlined. It also would be interesting, and maybe this is already part of your plan, to look at that map and then put dollars next to what each of those software systems cost because part of it might be streamline function and part of it might be streamline cost. Hopefully, that'd be the best case scenario, but we don't know until we go through the analysis. So, I'd be interested in that piece, too. But, thanks for getting MacArthur on board. And I know this is something we talked about last year of where could we fund this. Uh so glad to see it moving forward.

And then also a tie in will be to um meet with Dr. B and his team because they're doing kind of the data look on the safe and healthy challenge to let them uh know the scope of our work and how it fits in with their plans. So

yeah, that was going to be my question. And I'm excited about this because it'd be nice to get ahead of all these 12 departments asking for new software, which I think they all have at one point or the other. Is juvenile part of the Okay. One of the 12. And so I guess one other thought would be what about the customer exper? What about people who are trying to engage with the court system and find out like when their hearings are accessing their documents? because I've heard from community members that it's there's also some clunkiness from a customer perspective trying to access the courts and access documents and know where to go and uh so anyway I was just wondering if if they might also interview people who have been um you know in the family law court or something and try to um navigate some different challenges is because I think that we always need to think about the user. There's many users and some of those are folks who are trying to access justice.

Um, so it's not currently part of the scope of work to do that kind of individual interviews, but I will say the the interview is mostly just to start going through their questionnaire and documenting all of the different um documents that they interface with. So it will be looking at as somebody makes requests, what form are they using? How was that form filed? How does it come back to them? So they'll certainly be a consideration. Um and if we want to look at incorporating that into the scope of work, I think that's something that we can talk to the consultants about potentially.

Maybe I just would chat with them. Maybe in Montana there was I don't know if they did that or if they looked at like the outward facing parts of the system too, but Okay. I've heard that there are some things that are easy to find and some things that aren't. And so I'll definitely something to look into. Yeah. Thank you.

Is the I'm just thinking about kind of what the task force may recommend on data. Um, I I would assume that if there's a recommendation from the task force on data, it may be more about like how how data is kind of pulled out to look at the performance of the criminal justice system. Is that kind of beyond the scope of this? It's more of a a streamlining efficiency within the county. Okay. Yeah. This is more of an image. Good. And then, you know, a linear linear look at it. So,

yeah. I wonder if there's any ability as as these systems are being mapped out to also think about how easy it is to kind of pull data on a systematic level from these different systems so that from a policy standpoint the commissioners could be saying you know how's the how are the continuences at in court or uh how long are different cases taking those kinds of questions. So, I don't know if that's outside of what you've envisioned, but it'd be another interesting thing to look at if possible.

Yeah, definitely. Any other questions? Thank you, Rebecca. Next, we're moving on. It's kind of a micro barber this morning here. Moving on to the EPF process and that's for central public but so the exciting process and um so we're going to look back and not familiar if any of you have actually taken place or part of an EPF process. So it's just going to be kind of an overview of it. you look at the agenda if we're going to be talking about the overview um what the RCW does say about it the need for a planner uh determination of how we get the 10 sites EPF committee and it's appointed by the board of county commissioners I'm going to take you through the series of steps that is necessary to arrive at the top three sites which is the functional analysis qualitative analysis that rolls up to the weighted analysis that ultimately comes up with the final sites. So, uh, next slide, please. So, the purpose of it is to site those facilities that no one wants in their backyard. You know, the, you know, um, whether it be a cemetery, whether it be a sewage treatment plant, you know, a correctional facility and so forth. And then as a part of it, once it's done, the jurisdictions cannot preclude preclude it. They can condition it, but they can't preclude it. And so the process basically boils down to identify potential sites, 10 sites um and then developing the criterion weights on how to evaluate those sites and uh and do the analysis on them and then perform the multistep which I was talking about for analysis which includes the functional, qualitative and the weight analysis. I'm going to pause and let Jim kind of tell you how we got here in the first place. Well, I think it's

important for the board to know that the Washington state legislature in 2002 mandated that cities and counties sit down and come up with an essential public facilities sighting process. And so we did that in Spokane County. All the cities and the county sat down and we all executed an interlocal agreement. And the interlocal agreement uh sets forth the process that Mike is going to talk about. And the reason this is important is and then once we adopted this agreement, the legislature mandated that the counties and cities include it in their comprehensive plans. So Spokane County and the city's comprehensive plan include the essential public facilities sighting process that Mike is going to talk about. And also, as Mike alluded to, the state legislature identified certain facilities as essential public facilities which you are required to go through the process on. And as Mike's overhead identifies, one of those is determined a local correctional facility. So that's why in this particular case, if the county moves forward to identify a a new uh justice center, if you will, we're going to have to go through this particular process to site it. Next slide, it's going to begin with with the hiring of a planner to help us through this process. It's a very a very complicated process. It requires somebody with the expertise to do this. And so we have a couple of of options that we can do and that's to go out for an RFQ which is likely going to take about five weeks or we could go under reasonable improvement and use someone who's

already done this that work with the county government on the EPA process. There's a couple of options that we can do on on this that we can come back to later on this conversation. We should point out that I know that there's been a lot of dialogue with Watcom County and uh I have and Mike and I will be having conversation with the planner in Watcom County who assisted them in their EFP process. And the reason we want to call this gentleman is because he may be very well someone who we could hire from Watcom County to assist us. Um, as Mike alluded to, we have gone through the EFP process on three occasions before and in each instance we used a very seasoned planner whose name is Jim Kova. I have had conversations with Mr. Kova and unfortunately uh because of his present status he's not interested in being hired by the county but he did commit to work with whatever planner that the county should hire to assist in EPA process. Mike and I also had dialogue with the county planning director because we thought possibly he would have someone on his staff, but as we all know, we're getting ready to finalize our updated comprehensive plan. And so, uh, the planning director indicated that at the present time, he did not have any staff that he could assign to assist us in this particular project.

Okay. Okay. And then uh Jim, can you do so you'll recall when we were doing the uh measure one? Yeah. Could ask just so the individual you were mentioning from Watcom County, is that a planner or That is a planner. Okay. Yes. And I finally got a hold of them because I I understood they went through the process also to site their new I'm not even going to use the word detention silly. And so I wanted to find out a little bit more about that uh particular process and and if they hired someone from outside or did it from but it was an in-house plan. Okay.

My understand that's my understanding but I'll confirm that when I talk later today. But what has changed from measure one that has us going back out for the process? And I'll let Jim kind of talk about the city regulation that has changed that that now will make it a requirement for it to go through that process. The city and the county as we all know have the ability to adopt interim ordinances and they adopt an interim ordinances to uh uh sort of have an opportunity to study the particular issue before finally adopting the ordinance. Uh in March of this year the city of Spokane adopted an interim ordinance which was effective immediately and the interim ordinance addressed two topics. Firstly, the ability of a uh a private property owner to lease or sell their particular property for the purposes of uh housing individuals who uh uh you may be arrested by um what's it mean? ICE by ICE. And so that was one thing. But also in that ordinance, which was unbeknown to me or or to county staffers, they they made a change in their present uh ordinance. Before this particular interim ordinance, the county had the legal ability to site a a new justice center uh in the general commercial zone and other zones of the city without going through the EFP process. we had to go through an additional use permit, but we didn't have to go through an EPF process. But when the city adopted this new change, uh they included in their interim ordinance. Now, if you're going to site, if you will, a correctional

facility, uh within the city of Spokane, you have to go through the EPA process and additionally a conditional use permit. and uh and that's a standard in in in other counties, but in this case, the city modified their ordinance. And so uh that's why if the board of county commissioners based upon a recommendation from a task force or on your own want to move in this direction, Mike and I want to be sure you're aware of the nuances of the EPF process. send out and the most critical one is the process itself adopted by the city and county suggests it would take approximately 180 days to to go through the process. Now, I think Mike Farber and Rebecca and I are going to try to shorten that as much as possible to the extent we can do so and to not jeopardize uh uh walk walk working through the system itself.

Can you remind me when when when was the beginning of the last EPF process? When did that start? 12. Yeah. 2012. Okay, thank you.

We thought, Commissioner, about possibly going back to the 2012 one and updating it, but I I think we'd all recognize that that's some 14 years old. And that particular EPF process was focused only on a uh rural site, an urban site, not a rural site, an urban site. And so as we move forward, as Michael explained, this new EPF process is going to look into a rural site and an urban site so that the ultimate decision uh considers both options. Okay, questions. In the 2012 version, how many sites were reviewed?

Yeah. Is 10 like a magic number? Okay. 10 is suggested. Yeah. All right. Yeah, those are all good questions. And and and Mike and I and Rebecca has looked at this issue. It says up to 10. We always have said 10, but we may only be able to come up with eight sites and and that's what we use. We may not have I mean, we just may not have 10 that would meet like the needs. Um but if we have to do 10, I guess we can Yeah. pick 10. It's up to 10. Yeah. If I could piggyback on that, does it have to be 10 properties that we own? No.

So, you can just pick a property that is owned by a private individual and say, "We'd like that site examined or does there have to be some sort of reasonable ability to purchase the property? How does how does that how does that work?" Explain that on the next slide and maybe we get we'll answer all these questions. All right. This happened like twice two weeks ago, too. It's like next slide, Josh. Stop.

So, what we um the first is determining what sites would be eligible under under the potential 10 sites. And so what we intend to do is use the basic criteria from the the 2012 and combinations of any of the prior needs assessments that identify the the size um the acreage that would be necessary for both an urban and and uh for the downtown site or somewhere in the downtown area. um if we're not able to generate it through the GIS, which is going to be our first first goal, we could potentially run an ad in a newspaper that could ask for that as well, which you know is certainly something that we could do. And then we do allow that 10day response period for that. Then it would be necessary for the planner and I and team to sit down and evaluate the sites just to take off. Let's say we have 12, 13, 14 sites just to narrow it down to our focus to the one that would be the most appropriate. So, um I will pause there because that's the next step that would take place once the planners on board. So, the justice center criteria, for example, might be um a an urban site, how many acres you need? A rural site, how many acres you need? How close to the freeway? just some general parameters that you look to to come up with approximately 10 or more sites. And then as Commissioner Karns alluded to, just because you got a site there, you got to be sure the person is interested in in making that site available, whether it's a public site or a private site. And so we're not we're not going to waste excuse me, we don't think it's good expenditure of resources to examine sites that are not available. And so that's what Mike the planner and the planner who we hired will look at each

site and is this just because the the the our process picked it up. Is it really a good site? Is it too far removed from the freeway? Uh or whatever access points. Does it have water and sewer? just some general things that we have to look at next to a school or you know some of this is there uh with our with the growth management act is there requirements for water and sewer uh well what do have to be inside the UTA

um you asked you as a really good question number one u as Mike alluded Firstly, whatever site the county commissioners select for this new justice center, it can be located there regardless of any provision in the comprehensive plan or in in a development reg. So getting back to your point, we believe you should have public sewer and water to adjust the center. So I that's going to be one of the criteria that Michael will allude to when we go through the functional quality and quality analysis. So your question is a good question. One of the sites that we selected in the second round many years ago didn't have public water to and so that was a site which we decided not to use. That was the medical lake site. Correct me Mike? Is that not correct?

That it had water but not sewer. Sewer. That's right. So it had to drop off and that's what kind of had us going to another EPF to kind of replace the site that we originally selected. I want to say one I'm pardon I was just maybe you're getting to this on the next slide but like when you narrow it down to the three I'm assuming then you start running then you start running more cost consideration numbers one of the transport cost if you have to do any sewer or water upgrades those types of things

so it suggests criteria that you got from the RCW itself that you can use for crit criteria for going through it. The board can also add as the owner and operator the last time they' add added two which is the cost to operate it and then all the other cost anything else identified that would cost the county more money. So those things can be identified through the criteria and being an eliminating factor in the finance three. So those are things that we can look at there as well. Any more comments on that? Can you just speak to the role of the planner kind of how you see the planner interacting with staff?

That's an excellent question. Unfortunately, Mr. Kovville was fabulous. The planner has to not only assist the staff in preparing the notices and and the public participation, but here she has to be able to communicate well at these meetings with members of the public. And that's why it so critical as to the planner that we get to assist us. Uh because public participation is a huge part of this process. And so as Mike goes through the remainder of the slides, he'll identify some of the public participation format. For example, the first thing you do when you when we file your application, we have to publish something in the newspaper advising that the board has filed an application. Here's all the opportunities for public comment and input on it because that's what's so critical about the EPF process. So the appointment of uh the EDF committee and that's selected by the board to what that composition looks like. The prior one didn't use endusers of the jail. It had um the prosecutors involved. It had public defenders involved. It had account architect involved from facilities. It was primarily county staff that were the composition of this selection committee and also be added to that whatever the board would like to see on that committee and then u you can pull it together. I think the last committee had nine members if I remember correctly but it could be a composition of whatever the board elects to have it be. Uh the purpose of it in the role is to do the rating and evaluation of the sites and to rank them one through 10 or one

through eight or whatever the combination of it is. It also if they're involved with three public hearings that we have to have and they're invited to to be there and available for comment and talk to that to the cit. So what we would want the board to do is to kind of help us guide on what you would like to see on the committee and what the composition of the committee should be. So that will be one of the roles that we'll be asking that we have moving forward. So if a private person wanted to site an essential public facility, he or she is the committee. But when the county moves forward or a city to site an essential public facility, you can designate someone else if you will other than the one person to do it. And that's what uh we're recommending in this particular case. And then whether or not you have users, we have members of the task force. We've got members of the uh of the community uh or or uh even users is up to the board. We would recommend not a huge committee and and I say that because uh remember they got to meet and they got to make decisions and uh this committee for the most part makes recommendations. So, as I look at this, they're not probably subject to the Open Public Meetings Act because they don't act on behalf of. Now, I say this carefully because when a committee does one of three things that are subject to the Open Public Means Act, they act on behalf of, they take public testimony, or they take public comment. And unfortunately, the courts, as Matt and I know, hasn't given any direction as to the latter two. Uh, all we know is if they have if they act on behalf of an entity, they're subject

to the Open Public Media Act. if you make recommendations, you're not acting on behalf of, but we really haven't spent board members, the other two elements of that, and that's something that that Matt and I will be doing uh as we move forward on this issue uh to assist the uh the committee that the board ultimately sets up and they will recommend three finalist sites that the board ultimately picks those. to your point about acting on behalf of and then the board picks the final site as well. Correct.

Commissioner, you're exactly right. We wear two hats where the applicant and the county commissioners always play a part in the EPA process. You come up with three sites and then you give it to the applicant and the applicant makes the final decision. So yes, uh you quicken what you're saying and Mike and Rebecca and I have a slide on that later on. Next slide, please. We'll try to cover all the B here commissioners. Yeah.

So, um let's talk about the function now. That's the beginning of it. Um we evaluate the semifinalist which are the how many sites that we begin with and um we also through that process we hold a county or um a workshop or public participation opportunity for them to to give input. When we set up a meeting, it's noticed it's look the last one we did. We're all in this room here. We'll probably do the same thing in the evening and try to make it available for the public the best that we can. The committee completes the function announce on the top 10 or eight or whatever semi-finals and then the publication triggers a 30-day comment period and a 14-day requirement for us to respond to those comments. And so as we go, we'll give you an example next time. Here's kind of the example of the C the beginning criteria for the functional analysis. You'll see th you know and transportation capabilities, the availability of utilities to your point Mr. Waldrip. I mean all those things are basically to figure out if we've got a viable site you know and where it's located and equitable distri distribution and those type of things. So once that is ranked um there is a a number assigned to each one of these criteria and once a member is assigned to it the committee that is selected by the board will sit down and go through them and give ranks to each one of those and once the ranks are done then it will they'll come up with a total and they'll kind of set them up in an initial priority which is one through whatever that the number is. So I'm gonna pause there and see if there's any questions on the functional part of it.

You might want to add Mike, the functional analysis is usually an objective analysis.

It's a little easier than the qualitative analysis we're going up next. The public facility sighting process adopted by all the entities identifies those particular functional qualities. right in the document. It says you you should consider the following and then you add to it. And I think Mike and Rebecca and I learned that we added correctly two or three for the last functional analysis, Mike, if I recall. And those came up as a result of of input from the committee themselves or from the public. So we come up with these criteria, we advertise them. The public has the right to say add this one or take it away. Then the board of county commissioners and the planning person look at those and then make a recommendation to the board as to whether or not we need to do anything or not do anything. And uh if if someone comments on it, as this is alluded to, we have a 14-day win. We the the board of county commissioners uh based upon a recommendation have a 14-day window to determine that. For instance, someone comes up with a new criteria and all of a sudden board says, you know what, that's a good criteria. We ought to add that. But you got to be careful about adding it uh and when you add it because normally speaking their input takes place uh before the selection uh before the weights are added to it. So these are just the ones which the the uh cities and town and and county agreed to initially and they're still in everyone's comprehensive plan. So the the planner then these are the required and then you have additional that we would decide upon hopefully at

the beginning not later but the planner then works with to gather the information on all these different does it meet this does it meet that you know for each site and they're running those different scenarios and looking at the land use and okay so they kind of create like a an overview for each site. That's exactly right. Yeah. And then the committee then uses that information to rank to create the rankings. Okay. That's exactly correct.

And each then site will have a number associated with it by the committee and the site that gets the highest numbers are the best sites if that makes sense. Five means it satisfies the size you want 100%. Four means it's not quite big enough but it's pretty good. one means it's not large enough to site. So those are the numbers that you that you use to uh when you look at each site based upon this criteria and the weight associated with it. So, if we don't know yet how large of a facility or if we're going to continue to use some of what we have here, how do those considerations be taken into, you know, if we're going to continue to use

um do you look at the current um downtown detention facility and go, okay, we do in combination with the three or four needs except that that's we've already done.

Okay. So, we are going to ask for each but then we'll do an evaluation of all the past iterations of it and make some recommendations going forward. But we feel pretty comfortable the size and acreage is not going to change that drastically that we couldn't start evaluating sites for that. for both more of a lower uh security or higher security scenario because right now we have a higher security and a lower security facility.

We don't know yet how this you know what we will or could build or what do we you know we're waiting for recommendations and looking at all of our options. So it may be that you know we can reuse some of what we have but we need to build some new or it may be that we need to start completely you know like build completely new I so like you're going to have to look at all those different scenarios for acreage some of the recommendations going to come out of the safe and healthy castle it's just going to be at the end of May I believe they got that better be

in but there's a lot May 31st It did migrate from May 1st to 31st. It does take time. I guess my point is so some of that information will flow in several all of it. So, but I think when we did measure one, I mean, a lot of that was taken into account as as to what we were doing downtown if we were to stay downtown. So, correct me if I'm wrong. This is really looking at, you know, not what's going on inside it. Um, it's really just looking at is there space

and and I I think we have a pretty good idea the space that we would need if we were going to go be from these other analysises that were done if we were to go vertical versus horizontal, all of that. I mean, we've got a really good idea of that, which is what what we need to do this piece of it. I'm pretty confident that we have it we have it laid out well or not through the iterations that you could make your best what the size of the so which will allow us to be large.

No, no. I I would indicate in 2008, Mike, when we did the first essential public sighting process when I had black hair, it was um I had hair actually the three finalist sites for the uh urban area, one was downtown, but two were in the and other cities or the unincorporated area. So, you don't know what's going to come out. But I think Commissioner Burks, you're correct. the kind of things you're talking about security are really in the needs assessment that we're going to have and any facility whether wherever it's located is going to have to address those. I think Mr. Boulder

whether it's more of a mental health facility or if it's lower level or higher level you know you're going to need a certain amount of space and so you can consider that. Okay.

Okay. Next slide please. So from the fun functional we go to the qualitative and it kind of is a repeat of the first process only the criteria has changed and the weighted for part of it. You can see up there it measures the political economical legal social impacts more of those um you know those type of details rather than just the generalized one which can turn a buckshot analysis part. it under goes the same same things, same steps. We also have that 14-day period where we're going to respond in the public comment. We will open it up to u public participation as we had done in the other one. So any questions on the qualitative?

I think the next slide shows some examples Mike which is pretty. So the these are some of the criteria. So, it's a more refined look at what we're doing. Both pointed towards some of those uh specificity of of details that we have to have moving forward and and and these criteria board members that we're looking at right now are all the recommended ones in the EPF process. But again, we can add to it as a result of committee recommendations and public input. And then of course, we wait, we'll wait them one through five again. by being it satisfies the criteria the best one it doesn't satisfy the criteria. I want to say one other thing board members I'm not aware of any city in the in Spokane County that's done an EPF process. To the best of my knowledge I think only Spokane County has done it with regard to a detention facility. And the reason I say that is because the county commissioners are involved in an essential public facility which wants which is going to be located in any city within Spokane County. So we're the only entity that's ever really done one of these before, if you will, board members. There may have some other counties in the state of Washington that have, but we're we're the only county that's ever done one. And uh and that's why when you see a lot of those words up there, they're words that were put in in 2002, but we need to kind of revisit them to be sure we're doing it accurately. Questions on this? Pretty straightforward. Yeah. Next slide. Then it comes to the weighted analysis. And this is where we combine the

functional and the collocative together to break the top three sites. Uh so we do start off with the semifinals then we will our way down to the preferred sites based on the weights and what comes out of the weighted amount and then the final one will be held uh in front of the public hearing like this where we reboard the top three sites for the board of county president. Remember, you take the scores from the functional analysis. There'll be a number with each site, the qualitative anal, the number with each site. You put them together, and then the sites that have the most points are the top sites. And um and the county commissioners, when you have the top three sites, you're going to sit with two hats on. One, you rank the sites one through three. If you weren't the applicant, you give that ranking to the applicant and then he or she determines which site they want to prefer. But in this particular case, when you hold your public hearing, you're going to not only be the applicant, uh, but you're going to be the county commissioner. So, you're going to hold a hearing on the top three sites, elicit public testimony. There's some other factors that come into play, and then you're going to determine the preferred one site. The preferred one site that uh you're going to select and the key is preferred here. And the next slide will indicate why it's preferred at this point in time or the following slide. So the final selection, the board will hold at least one public hearing on the top three preferred sites and I'll have public comment for that on the sites. While they're identifying um which those they are uh are preferred and which ones we want to move forward both as the

owner and operator of the facility. County staff and planner will uh contact all three sites and reconfirm their availability. that's something that has taken place. Then followed that we'll have the environmental checklist along with SE funds and then the county will work uh work with the host jurisdiction to work through those processes it i.e. industry use per whatever is moving forward with that part of it. We don't complete the se for process. That's why I said the final site is the third site and then we do a sea process if you will board members before it's the final site because the sea process can kind of bog things down.

Yeah, we could find something on there that would not make it sit. I was going to say just vaguely recalling what happened in Watcom County. I think they had several finalist sites or you know top three when they went to ballot measure and then I think they found out after that their preferred site had some environmental challenges or wetlands something like that. So they had to go in a different direction. So there's definitely precedent for that sea being uh important at the end but you just kind of have to go through the steps and see what you find.

Yeah, that was interesting for them. um they were surprised by it, you know, this because they had bought the property long ago and so had the property and as they did that. Yeah. Um okay, couple questions for me is how long does this process normally take and how much does it cost? Is that on another slide? No, I don't. Sorry, I don't have that one. Uh

just checking. So we'll show you a timeline slide that we do actually have. As far as the cost, we're still exploring the cost of the planner and come back with a detail on that. So one more slide. That's it. That's the end of it.

We have the time there. That's on record and this is kind of a you know it's the process itself is supposed to take 180 days but we will look for opportunities to condense the schedule where we can and and those kind of process the beginning of the schedule will probably be how we select the planner whether or not we go out for an RFQ which we want to right away or do we go reasonable proof that would be our first uh selection and then from there you could see approximately how each one of those steps go through. the timeline Decemberish for the final part of it and then we will explore the cost they know down what the planner would cost and we'll come back with that there a couple considerations today one is the methodology for us selecting a planner. Two would be um the application and making application for the EPF and then three would be what is the composition of this committee look like for the EPF selection committee. So those are kind of three things that I'll leave you with today and follow your direction from that. I think at one of the task force meetings I think commissioner you asked if um if we needed the planner to fill out the application. Rebecca, Mike and I have met with the planning department. The planning department under the policy is charged with

preparing having an application form for us to fill out. Rebecca, Mike and I have looked at the application form and we believe the application form can be filled up filled out by county staff. Uh, and we don't need, if you will, a planner to do that. And so we we don't know the board's appetite to move forward, but we've actually prepared um a resolution. If the board wanted to act tomorrow, the next time you act will be I think in first meeting in May. Correct me, Rebecca? And so, but we can wait until May, but um because I know we don't like to bring items on by leave, particularly when they're of some significance. And and some might argue that filling out an application to trigger the EPF process for a new justice center. And incidentally, that's what Mike and Rebecca and I have identified it as. I think that's what I'm not sure what you want to call it, but that's critical. Um uh so but we're ready to uh we have a resolution if the board wants to move on it now or wait until May 1st.

Um I think it's I would I would like to just have the county staff putting together the application so that way we're not spending money on a consultant to do that um or planner. Um and if if for some reason you decide you know it was too quick and I mean it's just it's an application. it's not that we're investing too much time and energy into um I know it takes time to do that but but then we're starting the process and starting to get going. Um we can always I mean even with the you know looking at how you want to do request proposals or or what you want to do for the planner um I mean again we can do that part today we're not signed a contract yet. So, I I don't have a problem doing those two things and having it be on the today's 2 o'clock. Um the committee, I think, is going to take a little bit more thought than just uh having having us think about it today. Um I certainly don't want the committee to get too big because then you can't make decisions that's too big. Um but you know understanding with with different jurisdictions that may be part of it uh you know it could end up being in your areas. I think it's important to have at least one representative from the two large jurisdictions. So but that's that's all I mean that's just me talking. That's all that I would want to do. I mean we already have a whole public you know process going on with the safety healthy task force. there is going to be a public process with this. Um, you know, but it's truly the county is the one that has to do this. Um, so I wanted to be people within the system, our system that are the stakeholders. Um, so just my thoughts. So I I don't know that we're ready to make a position

making today and then on the uh planner we'll go back and it may be in the form of do you not exceed amount you know and we'll look for that and try to bring that back for you that we make it make a decision. Okay. So, so the second you have or the time um you have a a resolution set for us for starting the process the application. We'd have to bring it on by leave, madam chair. It's not on the agenda tomorrow, but you'd have to bring it on by leave uh today and then the clerk would do an additional agenda and add it by leave. It's not on the agenda.

So, can we have you start the application process without it being a resolution? Yeah, you can. Now we can get the application ready to go, Madam Chair, and so that it's all ready to go May 1st. This be the first on your 2:00 consent agenda. We can do that. Correct. Okay. Then then I think if you can start the application working on that behind the scenes, you can work on getting what we need to do for a planner behind the scenes and then have us be ready to um put the resolution together appropriately to come back at first. that that way we're not delaying um but but we're not getting too far ahead of ourselves.

Are you looking at is it April 28th? Is that the Tuesday that week? I think do we meet April 28th? Oh, we do. We'd be ready, Madam Chair, for April 28th on the consent agenda. Yeah, I think as long as we can start the the preparation work on the application, that's okay to do it on the very benign board members. most of the answers are not not known at this point in time. And so and as I say, we we met with uh the planning director to talk about it and he's actually assigned someone already once we formally move it forward to to assist us.

I was just going to weigh in on my personal feedback on the other question about the planner and you know this is this is kind of a an anticipated time frame, right? But things could shift either way. And so I was just looking for any um reasonable opportunities to expedite certain things you can't and we might just run into reasons that things get longer than we want them to be. Which is why it makes sense to me to kind of hustle as much as we can in the beginning with some of the preliminary steps, particularly hiring the planner. Um, so I like the idea of reaching out to Watcom County. Maybe Jim Kova has some referrals. Maybe we reach out to the city of the valley or the city of Spokane planning folks to see if they've got ideas. So my my request would be work the phones and try to ask for names and try to do as much vetting as we can in a shorter window and see if we find that that option that we all feel comfortable with. I think that'd be a best case scenario because I just worry about losing a month, month and a half on waiting around for applications when that's time we could save ourselves that we may we may need later or might uh benefit us later. So that would be my personal take on that. And then in terms of the committee, I think we should just continue to have some further dialogue on that and and I think it'd be good to get some input from the valley and the city and others. I agree. We don't want it to be too big. We we may need some level of of other community stakeholders than just the county. Uh but ultimately we want them to be able to meet scheduling is a hard thing. Um so I think we can strike the right balance there between having having some good uh input and representation while also having it be effective and to be able to

get the job done. I think one of the keys is that where it'd be nice to have an elected on their staffers that are available through this process takes time to make the meetings and and those type of things. We'd want to identify staff people probably not elected. Yeah. And I don't want I think because of Jenny's comment too, but it's you know a public meeting at that point. So I think it's really to it's it's the people that are using the system that need to help us to inform the electives.

Okay. Anything else for us? Thank you. Can I just ask one quick thing on identifying this planner? Um yes, I would get on the phones, call around, see if there's some recommendations. Do we just have to do like a qualifications just identify a qualified individual? It's not a request for proposals or what what do you what do you think you do? We might already have a list of qualified planners at the planning department.

I think we've had dialogue with the with the purchasing department in that regard. We wanted to see if they had something we could look to at the state level or something else. They did not. So, uh, and when I've had conversations with planners, I'm interested in, have they ever done an EPF process? Are they familiar with the policy itself? I'm interested to know how they communicate with members of the public. Do they have depth in their staff yet? Because there's a lot of documents that have prepared and presentations that have to be made. And so, those are some of the things that Mike and Rebecca and I discuss, if you will, Commissioner Vald, when we're looking for it. What we did do is I found the RFQ that we had in 2008 when we harmed

and so we've got some stuff to to look to to move forward. Okay. Thank you. Did you get everything from us that you needed? Yep. Yep. We got it.

Okay. Look very good. Appreciate it. Okay. We will let you guys make some changes in uh seats and we'll have Doug with parks. Hey, good morning commissioners. That just might be helpful to have in mind the area as I uh have an update for you. Uh you may recall um asking staff and I um to look into the option as to um keeping the uh dog park open out there at Gateway Park. Um, and I know Ronnie reached out to DOT, uh, but oddly enough, uh, I think as I'm the contact for the existing agreement, DOT tracked me down last week and, uh, ask, "Take me to your leader." They were really wanting to visit with our CEO. And so I was able to arrange for a meeting um with Jeff and I where we met with uh Charlene K or Shark K who's the regional administrator for the eastern region and Tom Brash who's the assistant regional administrator um with development for our region out here. Um we discussed the county's interest in exploring options to keep the dog park open. Um, in looking at the big picture, Shay had explained that several organizations had expressed uh an interest in the site. Um, most of the players we're all familiar with, uh, Washington State Department of Fish and

Wildlife for the wild uh, watercraft inspection station that's out there now. Uh, we have Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services related to the Patricia Sim Dog Park. We have Spokane County Parks related to the continuation of our Centennial Trail lease, which is the red red dots. There's a separated um lease where uh the this site has served as a a trail head, if you will, to the Centennial Trail that extends through there. And then Spokane Transit Authority has identified the site within their long range plan as having a potential uh potential location for an interotal intermoal facility. Uh which did which um again Washington State Department of Transportation had reached out and confirmed that that's still within their long range plan. So the state is uh happy to work with all interested parties to undertake a planning process to develop a new plan for the site keeping in mind all of the different parties interest which could be used to negotiate new leases down the road uh which would need to be applicable under the current code of federal regulations. and they explained this uh planning process to really come and look at it and and take the time to work with all parties. They estimated that would take about 12 months to complete. So, in terms of looking specifically at an option in the interim to keep the dog park open while the planning effort takes place, uh the clearest path forward would actually be for the county to resend the termination and to continue to operate under the existing agreement uh with no change. And I'll explain kind of the thought and reasons behind that. Um, alternatively, uh, given the county's

notice of termination, the state would first need to finalize that termination, which would involve having the parks department go back and restore the site to the uh, similar state for which when we took it over. So, we added additional fencing for the dog park. We'd have to remove that. We'd have to remove signage for the dog park. It would be kind of a clean cut to end that agreement. Um and then any change or any new agreement um would have to be done under the current code of federal regulations which look very very different than what was in place when we were able to get our lease in back in 2006. So under the current regulations um it would look they've indicated would likely look very different could involve say a fee in

just want to make sure we resend and go back

effectively that would be the the cleanest and most cost effective way. um the current agreement instead of a a payment or or a fee for use of the land we provide the care and maintenance which is open to the public and serves the community in lie of payment. So um we're looking at either following through and terminating and if we do so there really isn't a path short of rescending to to keep the dog park open. Um or we could look at um again rescending it, continue on um operate it for another year while the planning process takes place, working with all the different partners looking at that longer term big picture new lease. And uh as far as uh to that regard, uh Jasper was very helpful and we've put together a draft uh letter. Again, this is just for your consideration if you'd like to go that route. Um, that I will share. And as far as cost implications, um, county parks, we've we've taken a quick look at this. Of course, uh, couple different thoughts. Uh, we've identified that 32,000. Certainly, if we have the 32,000, uh, we can make it work and maintain the same level of service. If there's not funding or limited funding, another option could be to shorten the park season by two weeks and living with the funds that we have in our budget. That could be another path. And then a third kind of in progress. We could also review uh we may have some potential savings. Uh we had an early departure of our project manager one position that was funded through June of 26 and uh we're still working through how

to complete projects but there there are certainly some potential savings in wages anywhere from 10 to 19,000 to the general fund that we might be able to relocate and help towards this effort too. And again that it's thinking out loud and all pass then. So what I'm hearing just going to reiterate is that it's just will be better. This is the letter that would resend our termination. um to do that. So during that 12 months that they're going to take then we would look potentially we could look at other options as well. I mean is there any other place we could put a dog park out there?

Certainly. We just haven't costed it out. um if it it it we can certainly cost that out if that is something that that you're interested in. We we don't have potable water um readily available um to my knowledge on the other sites. That's but we we own the 22 acres there and the 2.5 acres. So that certainly is something that we could look at, but we would just want to cost that out. We have not priced that out. Our our goal, of course, has been to reduce our overall operating cost, but that's an option, too. So Doug, when we talked about this last time, uh, and I I've spoken with some individuals who regularly use the park, they and I I think it was mentioned that at best our potable water is sporadic on on how well it is operating, right? You said there's there's issues. I've I've had other I had some users of the park say they've never seen the water work out there. Um, how about our two 2.5 acre property there? If we fenced in 2 acres of it and just called it good, we pay for some fencing there. We moved the dog park there. I mean, cuz I mean, it the way you're describing what DOT is, how the way they're acting, I mean, it's like my god, with friends like these, who needs enemies here? I mean,

I think they're trying to be helpful. It is. So, I'm sorry if I've articulated, but it's I mean but it's if we don't want to do it, it's like then pull the fencing out, put it back the way, how about we pull the fencing out, we just fence in something on our own property, we no longer have to care for their property because that's where the big expense was coming in of the $32,000. The majority of it was us taking care of their property. Correct. The water system, I think, is the most costly that that's component of I don't think that is what was conveyed a couple weeks ago. It was that we have we are taking care of their property. Correct.

Yes. We're helping to care for the property there. So that could look very different if STA is a partner in the bigger picture. But that that's years down the road that STA would put something out there. I mean that I can tell you I'm on the STA board. That is not something that's happening soon. No, I understand. Oh yeah, I think her thought was just to develop a master plan and then

that would just look ahead knowing that that wouldn't happen for many years down the road. But it would allow some time for again for that to stay in place uh while that planning is done and completed. I just asked what if we were to just move the dog park onto our property that we own. We can cost out what that what that might look like and happy to do it. I mean, I'm Yeah, we just have a price price that out.

I still think we have to rescend what we have right now. And we might have to for a year. Yeah. and then we'll have time to shift it over onto our property. That way we're not in a situation like this in the future. Absolutely. It would provide us time to look at all kinds of options, including a relocation of it or uh retaining it. Either or. And if if we're going to spend money taking care of a property, I would much rather it be a property we actually own than someone else's property. Sure. But it Yeah.

So, wash, do they have a plan to maintain their own property after we sent them the notice? I mean, I it sounds like we should resend and we'll come up with a plan with all the parties and maybe that's relocating or or keeping a dog park, but like what is their plan to maintain their property? I would think they'd have some concerns about not having activity on the property besides the boat traffic.

Yeah, they're they're just they're in discussions with Fish and Wildlife for what it would look like once we leave. And so they're sorting that out um and trying to figure out what that would look like. So certainly if we remain another year, it provides them a lot more time to sort that out. It also allows the public to continue to utilize the facilities. And I think we we had one repair that took a fair amount of time to fix, but most recently, but outside of that, I think the water system's been pretty consistent during the season, hasn't it? Or we had several instances where it's gone down.

It's been sprayed. Okay. Is there a possibility that washd would help cover some of the costs of this or is it only seen as benefiting people at the dog park? I I think there where they're looking to invest is there would be cost and time and into that planning process to work with all parties and I think they would take lead in that. So they seem again interested and open to a longterm use that could that could serve multiple parties and interests and open to that. It just it takes time to work through a planning process like that. So if if we're asking and and expressing and exploring an interest in keeping it open, that's I think that's their thought and how that could best happen and remain under the existing terms because if we look to modify it, it triggers having to look at all these different federal um guidelines um the code of federal regulations that again may not be as favorable as the terms that we have now um is is what's been relayed.

Well, seems like we should resend and then we'll figure out a better Yeah. better process moving forward. But I appreciate the washds interested in looking at all the different options. But to your point, Commissioner Karns, I don't I mean, I'm on the SDA board, but I don't know if much will be able to be planned with STA, but at least they could be a future use. It may not be able to be determined in a year, though. But

yeah, I would say let's just resend, buy ourselves some more time, prevent a disruption from folks who use the park, look at the other options, see if there's a obvious alternative. Maybe there is, maybe there's not. And then as to the budget question, I think we just rely on unspent salary. You know, if there's any unspent funds within the current budget, that would be the first resort. And if that doesn't end up working out, we can revisit it later in the budget process, I would say.

Yeah. I don't know if you were I agree with the budget part of it, your statement, Commissioner. Um, you know, things will flex this year in your budget and we're talking about $30,000. Is that about right? 32,000. So, I'm sure we can figure that out if if we need to accommodate that at the end of the year with reallocating uh uh well sorry we use some REIT REIT for operations this year. So I mean we have different options that we could look to. So

on many of the emails we received from the public, u probably half of them referenced wanting to help support this effort, wanting to donate to this cause, too. And you I know when um you know, sometimes folks like that opportunity to be able to take ownership and really help, you know, kind of bring something like this to uh to a solution. So that may also be something we might want to consider.

Yeah. I think for people to do that, they're going to want to know what's going to be there so permanently. So, so I think for this next year, we need to figure out where, you know, we send this really look at our plan. You know, knowing knowing this is a big deal for our constituents out there. um you know what maybe some alternatives are because it sounds like at the end of the 12 months and DOT is going to renegotiate the lease and they're going to charge up more than where where we're at today potentially there there's certainly potential for that yeah they just need

so yes so I mean I think we've got to look at some alternatives as commissioner Karns was saying yes you know is there a section out there that we could fence off ourselves that's our property. Um, you know, that then not worrying about what the master plan is that that's up to the DAT and STA and all that and take ourselves out of that. Um, so yeah, and whether Yeah. and how we address potable water and that sort of thing, it would provide us with some time to do some planning that way. Is the well on our property? Nope. It's um the well is uh on the wash dot property I think parcel one if I'm not mistaken.

Okay. And near near the rest restrooms out there. It's not too far where it's about 100 ft away or so. Okay. And and we're charged with making sure that's up and running. Yes, we are. We have um employees that are certified have have the proper Yeah. licenses and certifications to be able to operate. part of a benefit that we're providing to the DOT. Yes, it's a significant benefit that we're providing. Okay. Um Okay. Uh this is not on our 2 o'clock for tomorrow, I don't think.

Oh, okay. Okay. Do we need to do it tomorrow or can you tell them that the letter is coming the end of the month? It would need to be tomorrow to get ahead of the termination date. So that that that's what we're up against because I believe you're all out the following week. So by doing it tomorrow, that's that's the only time between now and stay ahead of that termination termination date. The 21st of April.

Oh, okay. I think that's right. This letter it just talks about the October the 21st notice that we gave.

Oh yes, April 21st is when the termination takes effect. So in order to to be ahead of that, we would have it on your bley tomorrow afternoon. and they're effectively holding um a letter that would explain what we have to do to remove we're waiting to hear whether or not what our interest is this morning. So, I'll communicate to them that that's coming if that's something that the board is supportive of and would like to go that direction and that will keep it simplified and that will allow us to maintain operations over the next year while we work on a longer solution.

Thank you. They'll do it by tomorrow then. Great. Okay, I will relay that and thank you very much. Okay. And then if there's anyone has any changes to this um when we need to have that end of the day today. Okay. I just want to say thanks Doug and everyone for stepping up and and listening to constituents and trying to make something work. So, really appreciate you jumping in and and uh Thank you.

finding solutions for us. Yeah, pretty good. Appreciate it. Appreciate the opportunity.

Hey, Mr. Matio. She is Yeah, they're they're both here. a brief overview of the tiff process regard to Beacon Hill and and all these particular items which I've identified on the left hand side by number are

critical to the irregularity that Christa Rice has uh found a way to resolve. The first thing that's important to notice under item number one is the Beacon Hill TIFF was created in 2013 and as you're aware uh various entities have to agree to the creation of the TIFF but they don't all have to agree to financially participate. So that is as you see on the overhead this tiff was created in 2013 by the board of county commissioners and the time it was created Spokane County agreed uh the city of Spokane agreed and the decree here is fire protection district number nine agreed they agreed to create the tax increment district itself. Number two, when the district was formed, only the city of Spokane and Spokane County agreed to financially participate at the 75% level of the tax allocation amount. The key here is that Spokane Fire Protection District number nine only agreed on a case-bycase basis. For example, if a developer wanted to construct, if you will, a fire station, they may agree to participate at the 75% level in that public improvement, but they had to submit a letter to the county and to the treasur's office identifying a particular public improvement that they went on to participate in. So, as you'll see under number two, this was the first TIFF where a fire protection district had not agreed to participate at a 75% level, if

you will, only on a case-bycase basis. And uh and I think that's really critical, Hill, because unfortunately when this information was transmitted to the treasur's office, which does all the work, we county staff didn't advise the treasur's office that the fire protection district was not participating except if they submitted something in writing. And they have never to date submitted anything in writing. Okay. So, unfortunately, because the treasur's office didn't know they haven't participated, the treasur's office treated them as though they were participating. And so, the treasur's office uh for the time frame involved here put If I can have you move up the scroll up just a little bit, Mr. Valencia uh did not distribute to the fire protection district number nine $4,000 $245. Instead, that money went into the tiff account, but it should have gone to the fire protection district because they at this point in time, they're not participating. So when Christa Rice or then to make this more complicated, the Beacon Hill developers have a reimbursement agreement with Spokane County. And under the reimbursement agreement at the end of May, at the end of November every year, we'd agree to give them whatever's in this particular TIFF fund, 95% of it to reimbursement for the reimburse them for their $6 million uh claim, excuse me, that we approve for public improvements. And so what needs to happen at this point in time is Spokane County uh needs

to take the appropriate action to reimburse the fire protection district the $4,024 which we should have paid them and that would reduce the amount of money in the fund which we're going to make uh available to the developers. So the reason we're here today is to tell you that legal counsel and the treasur's offices are going to take the appropriate action to implement what you see on that particular item. That is to say, we're going to uh uh allocate to the fire protection district number nine the $4,245 prior to the next distribution to developers. Christa, please correct me if if I've said that accurately. Y

absolutely. and and we thank Christa for all her work and fortunately this is just very unique and it's never happened before. Of course the fire protection district is very happy in this particular case because they get money back that they weren't expected. Now if I could ask Mr. Valencia to go to the next handout which is h a little bit more interesting and it's I call it the me works tiff and Christy that's the number that's how we've identified it isn't it well this one has some unique elements too firstly if you look at box number one on the overhead this particular uh tiff was created in 2002 and at the time it was created. You'll see that there were three entities that agreed to form the tip. Spokane County, the library district, and fire protection district number nine. They agreed to create the tip. But box number two, you'll see that the fire protection district did not agree to participate f financially except on a case-byase basis. But Spokane County and the library district did agree to participate at our 75% level. The district was created in 2002. That means the base year is 2003 and then we start 22 and then 202

and then the base year was 2023. And so the treasur's office starting in 2024 and 2025 should have taken money out of Spokane County's property tax because that's where it comes. Board members, the 75% and and we should have taken money out of the library districts. But we didn't. And we didn't because unfortunately although the board of county commissioners created the district in 2022, we forgot to let Christa know about it. Hello. And uh she is the key to how we uh how we implement the board's particular action. So in 2025, CEO Simmons said to Mr. Macio, Jim, I don't know anything about this tip. What's it all about? So, we of course got a hold of Christa and and Christa in 2025 realized that we should have been taking money from the county's property tax and the library district property tax for 2024 and 2025 and now 26. And it should have been gone into this TIFF fund which is going to be used by the developers to pay for public improvements which they put in. So if you look at the overhead, you'll see that Christa has identified the amounts which we should have put in the fund for 2024 and 25 from Spokane County which is 86,941.70. And for 2026, the amount that would go in from the county is going to be 65,000 71014.

So what staff is recommending is that for 2026 we combine all the money that should go into the TIFF account which is going to be a total of my eyes on is good. If you scroll down one more, Mr. Valencia. There we go. 156,65121. And so, um, and and some would say this is revenue neutral. And Tessa Sheldon is here to address this because this money should have gone into the TIFF account. Instead, it went to the county and we included it in our general fund or our other fund test that we might have.

It was the first receiving from the

so arguably we have that money so to speak if you will test did I say that correctly and so uh so in this particular case uh we're going to take it all out of the 20 26 tax allocation so that's what we're going to do with Spokane County a similar thing happened to the fire, not to the library district. They should have been contributing for 2024 the amount on the overhead and for 20 2025 and 2026. And so I think Mr. Rice has had conversations with Jason Link, their finance director, and he agrees that we can combine 2024, 25, and 26, but we have yet to confirm that with the the executive director, and we're waiting to get that information. So the reason I'm here today, board members, with regard to the meat works tip is unless I hear something from the board to the contrary, Christa is going to take the necessary action to implement taking out and we're 156,65121 from the tax allocation that we're going to get in 2026 and put that into the TI. fund where it should go. And if we receive approval from the library district, we retain the take the same action with regard to the 31,19868 which they should have been paying into this fund, but instead they bought it. And again, we won't do that unless we receive uh information and something in writing from the executive director of the library district. Christa, I probably not summarized this

as well as you would, but what did I leave out, Christa? And Tessa, do you feel and I know that we had conversations with your budget director and and Tessa, and I think Tessa, you feel comfortable, correct? So I don't see any action. Pardon me. Go ahead, Matt.

So just to clarify, so on the budget side, we had put we had put aside these dollars like we we uh we know that these tips are out there, but then the money never ca went through the treasur's office to to the recipients. Okay. So but the money is is was allocated So what happens when year after year you said okay this tiff money has to not be spent elsewhere it just is it just in a certain budget line item that remains does it just roll over into reserves I'm talking about

Tessa so we are money and we will be essentially paying that back out of We do count on our property tax to vary a bit from what based on things like that. So this is not

Thank you. I I think, Madam Chair, we've committed to work uh our our county staff more closely with the treasures office so that these irregularities don't crop up in the future and uh as we move forward. I will just ask the the other question to make sure that she's aware of the Liberty Lake TIFF which is different than these tips. Liberty, there's a lot of conversation on that. Yeah, we're very I tried. So that one. Okay. Okay, very good. Yeah, Miss Bryce does a fabulous job with fortunately she's on top of all this and this has to be informed.

Are there any other questions on this board members? Madam Chair, thank you very much. And then is has there been just a double-checking of all the other tiffs to make sure they're all good and we don't have Okay. And that's how we discovered West quadrant. There's others. Okay. Thanks. And I guess when we approved the tip, did we know that the fire district wasn't going to be part of it?

Yes, we did, Madam Chair. The the the resolution setting it up, they agreed to create it, but on a case-byase basis, as I alluded to, they may decide to. And uh and remember, we're trying to put legislation in front of the legislature where we expand the definition of a public improvement and put uh public safety items such as fire stations, uh fire trucks, and things of that nature to to give the the uh some reason for the fire protection district to participate financially. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Christa, for uh working for on it and Peppa. Okay. Um then that takes us to are there any other miscellaneous items to come before the board? We're all back from vacation, so I think they're just trying to get back. Yeah. Um so then I'll look to Mr. Fawsome. Is there any executive sessions? No. No executive sessions today, but we do have for tomorrow. The one we had planned for today uh was requested to move to tomorrow.

Oh, okay. Um and so I'm just going to look at tomorrow's schedule. Okay. Hopefully we can stay. How How long are all this going to take?

Estimated to be 45 minutes total. Okay, then we'll just try to be on time tomorrow to get through everything in the morning. Okay, very good. Thank you. Then with no other items to come before us this morning, then we will conclude our meeting this morning. Ajourn and see everybody tomorrow morning. And tomorrow morning we will be we will be back in our conference room. Correct. Yes. We we hope we hope so.