The Splash
Oct. 6, 2011 • 17
cover story
Statewide initiatives:
Submitted graphic
The drawing released in September shows the proposed new SCRAPS facility, should it be relocated to a retrofitted warehouse at Havana Street and Broadway Avenue in Spokane
Voters to decide on SCRAPS levy By Kelly Moore Splash Staff Writer
A countywide ballot measure will meet its fate this fall as Liberty Lake voters join in deciding on a levy to replace the current Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS) shelter with a new facility to provide increased capacity for homeless animals at a more central county location. With levy funding, SCRAPS looks to renovate a Spokane-owned warehouse
LEADERSHIP Continued from page 16
council-manager government have transitioned the opposite way in the history of the state. “People have said that this is how we were founded, so it should stay that way,” Munger said. “To me, 10 years have passed, and we are experiencing dysfunction in city government. Perhaps that’s a sign that we should reevaluate things.” She said an example of the dysfunction is Council discussions appearing and reappearing or disappearing from the agenda without an action or decision. “A city manager can clarify issues and confirm they are addressed,” Munger said. “In my mind, a council of elected representatives selecting their own leader
at Havana Street and Broadway Avenue for an estimated cost of $10 million. According to materials presented at a county-held press conference, the proposed levy would equate to about $1 per month for an owner of a $200,000 home for a maximum of nine years. Should the levy pass, the City of Spokane is prepared to join the regional program — a move county representatives said would decrease operational costs for current partners like the city of Liberty Lake. Spokane currently contracts animal control services with might diminish the amount of conflict we currently have between the legislative and executive branches.” Schuler disagrees. She voted against adding the proposition to the ballot before community members took matters into their own hands with a petition. “I think that is driven out of frustration,” Schuler said. “I know there are people frustrated with the pace of things at City Hall, and they blame that on the fact that we don’t have a city administrator. … If you have a strong mayor and the strong mayor does their job managing the staff, you don’t need a city administrator.” Schuler, along with Council members Judi Owens and David Crump, voiced their opposition to the change when voting to keep it off the ballot. In fact, just about all the Council members who voted (and failed) to move the proposition
SpokAnimal. SCRAPS currently partners with unincorporated Spokane County, Cheney, Millwood, Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley. An informational town hall meeting will take place at 5:30 p.m. Oct. 12 at the County Commissioners Hearing Room located on the lower level of the Public Works Building at 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane Mayor Mary Verner will join County Commissioner Todd Mielke and SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill at this meeting. to the ballot with a resolution have said they think the change is a bad idea. "I didn't think it'd be appropriate to take a stance in opposition if that meant voters wouldn't get their right to decide," Council Member Josh Beckett, also a mayoral candidate, told The Splash shortly after the vote. “I believe we need to have a strong mayor form of government, and I haven't heard a valid argument otherwise.” For more information on the proposition, voters can attend a candidate forum at 6:45 p.m. Oct. 13 at the Meadowwood Technology Campus. Representatives on both sides of the proposition will be on hand to answer questions. Munger will represent the “yes” position, while Owens, who helped choose Liberty Lake’s form of government more than a decade ago, will represent the “no” side to Proposition 1.
• Initiative measure 1125 concerning state expenditures on transportation This measure would prohibit motor vehicle fund revenue and vehicle toll revenue from being used for non-transportation purposes. It would require the Legislature to set tolls and would provide that a toll on a particular road or bridge, including the Interstate 90 floating bridge, could be used only for construction, operation or maintenance of that particular road or bridge. • Initiative measure 1163 concerning long-term care workers and services for elderly and disabled people If the Legislature amends certain statutes governing long-term care for eligible elderly and people with disabilities in 2011, this measure would reverse such amendments and reinstate the prior law. For the long-term in-home care program, it would provide independent audits, increase fraud investigation, and cap administrative expenses. It would also clarify that long-term care workers are covered by applicable law. • Initiative measure 1183 concerning liquor: beer, wine and spirits This measure would close state liquor stores and sell their assets, including the liquor distribution center. The state would license private parties to distribute spirits and to sell spirits in retail stores meeting certain criteria, subject to specified training and compliance requirements. The measure establishes licensing fees for sale and distribution of spirits based on the licensee’s sales revenues. It would change some wine distribution laws and allow non-uniform wholesale pricing for wine and spirits. • Senate joint resolution 8205 concerning the length of time a voter must reside in Washington to vote for president and vice president The Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment on repealing article VI, section 1A of the Washington Constitution. The amendment would remove an inoperative provision regarding how long a voter must live in the state before voting for president and vice president. • Senate joint resolution 8206 concerning the budget stabilization account maintained in the state treasury The Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment on the budget stabilization account maintained in the state treasury. This amendment would require the Legislature to transfer additional moneys to the budget stabilization account in each fiscal biennium in which the state has received “extraordinary revenue growth,” as defined, with certain limitations.