 |
While still unsure whether it is absolutely necessary, the Spokane Valley City Council voted last week to make a “good faith” payment of $1.1 million to Spokane County in disputed fees connected to the two organizations’ public safety contract.
Council members were quick to say at the meeting, held in the morning hours of June 18, that they were still investigating whether the county double-billed the city for administration services in connection with the contract. They also did not rule out the possibility of mediation.
The council, however, was just as quick to point out they were happy with the service provided by Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich under the contract.
“This is about a dispute with the county,” said Council Member Bill Gothmann. “This in no way should reflect on the outstanding job the sheriff is doing.”
Munson said he began to lean toward paying the county after it was revealed earlier in the week that the state auditor’s office had declared that the city was using an “apples and oranges” approach to paying its over $15-million-a-year public safety bill. While the city hadn’t seen a copy of the auditor’s report, Munson was concerned about comments that the county was having “cash-flow problems.”
“This is the right move to make,” agreed Council Member Diana Wilhite. “We hope to move toward s swift resolution.”
Still, some council members were not happy with the county’s approach to reaching a resolution. Steve Taylor said it was an “extremely magnanimous” move on the city’s part in light of difficulty getting the two agencies representatives to the table to work on the issue.
Spokane County Board Chairman Todd Mielke, who was present at the meeting, said it was the city that has been slow to work toward a resolution. He added he hoped to talk about the contract at a joint meeting between the two governments in February, but the item was stricken from the agenda.
“I find that a hard way to resolve this conflict,” Mielke said.
Munson said, by statute, the council is not to be involved in contract details. It’s a staff function to work out the details and then bring the contract back to the council for final approval.
“Not one of us is going to be involved in negotiations,” Munson said.
In a letter July 25, 2008, Mercier requests that Marshall Farnell, county CEO, “engage municipal representatives in the discussion and process of defining a new billing methodology” between the county and city. Mercier said the county has yet to respond.
Council Member Rose Dempsey said she initially voted to withhold funds to the county but since has agreed to make the lump-sum payment and that the city should move forward with paying what the county thinks it is owed.
“It’s kind of like a husband and wife in divorce proceedings,” she said. “No matter what you say, it’s the wrong thing.”
|
|
By
Mike Huffman
