 |
Heated e-mail exchanges, a scuttled meeting and an anticipated state auditor’s ruling have capped a week’s worth of drama between the city of Spokane Valley and Spokane County officials.
What will hopefully bring some clarity is a state auditor’s opinion on whether or not the city owes the county $2 million in back fees for law-enforcement services.
The declaration was expected to come Tuesday at a special meeting at the county courthouse. That gathering was canceled, however, after the county officials phoned City Hall to report that the representatives from the auditor’s office were not ready to present their findings.
Originally, that report was going to be given at a joint city/county meeting to be held at City Hall on Wednesday. Those plans, however, tanked after Mayor Richard Munson refused to place the topic on the agenda.
“(Council members) are not authorized to talk about it – period,” Munson said Monday, adding that by statute administrative concerns are handled by city staff while policy matters are handled by the council. Until the findings are presented to the city manager, who would then brief the council, it would be a legal violation to even look at the state’s findings.
“I don’t know why the commissioners can’t understand that,” he said.
While attempting to set up the agenda for the proposed Wednesday joint meeting, county board Chairman Todd Mielke became frustrated with Munson’s stance.
“At this point, we believe we are attempting to collect from a client that has defaulted,” he wrote, adding that it was the most pressing item the two groups need to talk about. “It’s like dealing with a renter who makes a series of monthly payments at less than what is owed.”
Spokane Valley administrators have continued to pay the county 2007 rates for law-enforcement services – a move that the county’s attorney termed a “breach of contract” – because they believe they have been double-billed for the handling of prisoners between 2004 and 2007. County officials, on the other hand, say that by shortchanging them, they are unable to fully provide budgeted amounts for raises or other expenses.
According to a forensic accountant hired by the city, Spokane Valley’s position was correct. The state auditor was commissioned by the county to go over the same set a numbers. As of Wednesday, it still wasn’t clear when the examiner would report to the commissioners.
On Monday, Mercier sent a letter to Mielke addressing the “breach of contract” charge, saying that, in light of the forensic accountant’s findings, withholding the payments is “both appropriate and necessary due to the absence of county corrective action in calculating indirect costs under the agreement.”
Munson said Monday the council and commissioners still must meet soon to discuss critical topics such as snow removal, solid waste, and wastewater and jail services.
Spokane Valley officials have yet to find a temporary or permanent snow-removal contractor after county commissioners informed them in January that they would no long plow city streets after Oct. 15.
“Resolving that issue is our No. 1 priority,” Munson said.
After the conclusion of Tuesday night’s study session, Munson noted that it’s interesting that since the auditor’s report was not ready, there was no reason to cancel Wednesday’s joint meeting and some of the other topics could have been discussed.
“We could have met after all,” he said.
Munson also penned a letter to the editor (which appears on page 1 of Section 2) that he hopes clarifies the city’s position. In the end, he says he and Mielke both actually want the same thing.
“We are willing to enter into mediation if we cannot resolve our differences,” Munson writes. “All we ask is the county be equally willing to allow a process that we have both agreed on to run its course so we can resolve this situation.”
|
|
By
Mike Huffman
