Commissioner Q&A

Tue., Oct. 26, 2004

The Spokesman-Review

What would you fund with the recent voter-approved 0.1 percent sales-tax increase for criminal justice and public safety?	Do you support county neighborhood efforts at sub-area planning and will you provide the county’s Building and Planning Department more resources to help neighborhoods finish their plans?	Do you support making permanent the county’s Conservation Futures program to fund acquisition of open space?	Would you continue to fund septic tank elimination over the aquifer if the city of Spokane chooses not to participate in the program? If yes, how would you do that without the city’s financial contribution?	Which county departments’ budgets would you increase? Which departments’ budgets would you cut?
District 1
Todd Mielke: The money needs to go for criminal justice, period. The funds could be used to address an outdated communication system, an overcrowded jail with staffing levels for half the current inmate population, deputies spread thin in some areas of the county, and a Crime Check system threatened with reduced hours.	I support the involvement of neighborhoods in sub-area planning. The resources available will depend on the financial obligations we will face in public safety and state mandates on our criminal justice system. At a minimum, the county should host public forums to gather public input as the plans are developed.	This issue should be addressed by placing two questions on the ballot. The first would be to renew the Conservation Futures program. The second would be to make it permanent. Voters could then indicate whether the program has their confidence to be permanent or whether it should be reviewed periodically.	Absolutely. We must continue converting septic systems located over the aquifer to the sewer system. Without the city’s financial participation, the county should continue, even if it means at a slower pace. The county should also pursue all opportunities for state and federal water quality improvement grants.	I believe we have some pressing issues in the criminal justice areas that need additional resources. Additionally, I would like to see more resources for addressing unpaved roads. We should determine whether every program is focused, efficient and effective before deciding upon cuts or reorganization.
Linda Wolverton: Ballot language should designate how the money would be spent. Government has a responsibility to spend voter-approved money on whatever the voter believed it was approving. I would vote for the county’s portion to go strictly to criminal justice while we attempt to get at root problems causing crime.	Yes. The comprehensive plan would be a better document with the participation of business, stakeholders and neighborhood activists. By having the public involved, acceptance and knowledge of the plan would improve. I would have to be convinced that additional funding is necessary.	Yes. The voters have overwhelmingly approved it twice and it is an investment in the future of our community. As growth management’s influence makes our community more congested in the urban areas, it will be essential to have natural greenbelts.	Sewer projects were previously funded by creating Utility Improvement Districts. Under that system, assessments repaid the debt associated with each district’s cost of sewer infrastructure. We may need to revert to that. Most funding decisions will depend on priorities established in Priority Strategic Planning I am advocating.	Except for adjustments needed due to cancellation of contracts with the Valley, I would not make further cuts or increases with general fund money until elected officials and Information Services establish a priority-based plan to determine where technology and other adjustments could create savings without undermining services.
District 2
Bill Burke: We need to remember that this is short-term funding. The public supported it because it had a sunset clause and was designated for criminal justice and public safety. We should use this funding to improve public safety communications and to quicken response time when a citizen calls for help.	Yes, I do support such planning, but only where there is good neighborhood participation. Having limited county resources, existing neighborhoods will have a lower priority, and some sub-area planning will need to be self-guided. A plan is estimated to take two county staffers up to 18 months, and cost up to $50,000.	Soon, the Conservation Futures Program will come before the voters for consideration for a third time. I would encourage putting this issue on the ballot to first sustain this valuable program and then make it a permanent fixture of our annual budgeting process.	Yes. But the costs need to be shared between the county, the incorporated areas of the county, developers and homeowners, in order to preserve our affordable housing market. The city needs to be encouraged to continue its participation.	There needs to be a yearly evaluation. Things like state law, new environmental rules, local economic stability and citizens’ desires are always changing. I will take a common-sense budgeting approach, prioritizing community needs and matching our resources where we can be most successful.
Mark Richard: I need to do an in-depth analysis, but believe we must do a better job of keeping the components of public safety in balance. Communications, deputies on the street, prosecutors, defenders, the courts and jail space are all in need of attention.	I will support continued sub-area planning for those who wish to do it; and I will strongly encourage neighborhood dialogue for those who don’t. As for resources, I am concerned about our dwindling reserves at this point, but will not rule out additional funding.	Not by a vote of the commissioners. However, due to what appears to be overwhelming support for the program I will push for a dual ballot measure; one to re-up the program with a sunset and one to make it permanent.	Yes, however I am convinced that the city will continue to partner with us on this. I have no doubt that dialogue will produce a long-term commitment to preserving the quality and quantity of our aquifer to include continuation of this program by all jurisdictions.	None – yet. I will push for an independent audit and prioritization of services to identify overlap, eliminate outdated functions and strengthen those services of government the community finds important.