The URL can be used to link to this page

2007, 07-10 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Councll Nfeeting #119 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:00 p.m. ~,U CITY IIALI, AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor Council Requests All Electronic Desico be Turned Off During Council !Meeting CALL TO ORDER: M OCATION: Pastor Darrell Lundby, Holy Trinity Lutheran Church PLF'.DGE OF ALLEGLIhCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF -k(;ENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRFSFNTATIO`S: C0NBUTTEE, BOARD, LIA SON SUNIN ARY REPORTS: ~iAYO)R'S REPORT: PUBLIC COSTMENTS: Except where indicated below for 'public comment" this is an opportunity for the public to speak on any topic. Whcn you come to the podium. plea-c state %our name and address for the record and limit rcmarl+s to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Counciltrnmber may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following Claim Vouchers: VOUCI IF:R LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCI IER AMOUNT 06-22-07 12007-12092 $346,127.95 06-29-07 12095-12140 $1.650.761.57 GRAND TOTAL. 1,996.889.52 b. Payroll for Period Ending June 30, 2007: $250,695.93 c. Resolution 07-011 Extending Cable Franchise d. Minutes of June 26, 2007 Regular Council Meeting e. Minutes of June 19, 2007 Council Study Session Meeting f. Minutes of Juno 18, 2007 Special Joint Council/County Commissioner's Meeting NEW BUSLNESS 2 Sccond Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-011 Amending Credit Card Limits - Ken Thompson [public comment) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-012, Shannon Avenue Street Vacation (STV-0207) - Karen Kendall [public comment[ 4. Proposed Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Compensation Policy - Mike Connelly [public comment] Council AgcWa 07-10-07 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 PUBI IC COMMENTS Except where indicated above for "public comment" this is an opportunity for the public to speak (in any topic. \k%cn you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Advisory Vote Requirements - Chris Bainbridge 6. Initial Legislative 2008 Agenda - Dave Mercier INFORMATION (ONLY: 7. Commute Trip Roduction (CTR) Intergovernmental Agreement - Morgan Koudelka 8. Street Nlastcrl'lan - Steve Worley EXECUTIVE SFSSION: n/a ADJOURNNIFYT FUTURE SCHF_DVLE Regular Council Afeetings are generally held 2nd and 4°h Tursdays, beginning at 6:00 p.m Council Study Sesslam are generagr held 1" r and 5th Tuesdays; beginning at 6:00 p.nL Other Teentutive Cncontin , 3feetine.eEvents: NOTICES Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special anoistance to accommodate physical, hearin& or other impain=ts. please contact the City Ctcrk at 0091921-1000 as wan as possibic so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 07.14-(17 Regular Meeting Page 2 of CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07-10-07 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER 4s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 06-22-07 12007-12092 $346,127.95 06-29-07 12095-12140 $1,650.761.57 GRAIN]') TOTAL, $1,996.$89.52 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Brad Johnson ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 0612212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 12007 6/13/2007 000658 SPOKANE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Appleway rt of way CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY VS SP( 250.00 Total : 250.00 12008 6/14/2007 001358 CAREERBUILDER.COM CB00622291 ADVERTISING 6 PRIORITY JOBS 1,950.00 Total : 1,950.00 12017 6119/2007 000645 ECONORTHWEST 9057 41207 PROJECT 7005 PARTIAL PMT 27,686.00 Total : 27,686.00 12018 6/21/2007 000724 FAULKNER, JASON June Payroll Svc JUNE PAYROLL SERVICES 400.00 Tota 1 : 400.00 12019 6/21/2007 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE May sales tax SALES TAX PORTION OF MAY 200) 434.24 Total : 434.24 12020 6122/2007 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC 38240 41579 CITY CONTRACT NO. 07-001 SWEE 141,472.41 Total : 141,472.41 12021 6/22/2007 000335 ALTON'S TIRE INC. 6-26041 OIL CHANGE ON 05 DAKOTA 46.86 Total : 46.86 12022 6/22/2007 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL SERVICE, INC. 14720 JANITORIAL SERVICES - SHERIFF': 2,082.17 Total : 2,082.17 12023 6/22/2007 000030 AVISTA UTILITIES June 4, 2007 STREET LIGHT/SIGNAL POWER 20,204.91 Total : 20,204.91 12024 6122/2007 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG - 2nd QV Cell Phone APR-MAY-JUN CELL PHONE REIME 105.00 Total : 105.00 12025 6/22/2007 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY, INC. 8823475 SERVICES FOR CENTER PLACE 381.75 Total : 381.75 12026 612212007 000101 CDWG FSK0100 41708 MONITOR, CABLES, MOUSE 3,906.45 Total : 3,906.45 12027 6/22/2007 000863 CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORP. 023565 41285 CONTRACT #06-017 CENTURY WE: 857.37 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0612212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 12027 6/22/2007 000863 CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORP. (Continued) 023580 41587 CONTRACT NO 07-012 CEN.WEST 175.18 Total : 1,032.55 12028 6122/2007 000729 CH2MHILL INC. 3605208 41588 CONTRACT NO. 07-011 CH2M PLAP 2,832.00 Total : 2,832.00 12029 6/2212007 001371 CHRISTOPHER, VALERIE Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Tota 1 : 50.00 12030 6/22/2007 001373 CINQ-MARS, LISA Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 .12031 6/22/2007 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 50610 COFFEE SUPPLIES/SERVICE 124.96 Total : 124.96 12032 6/22/2007 001355 COVENANT CHURCH, C/O KEN PETERS Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT- EVEP 1,080.00 Total : 1,080.00 12033 612212007 001368 CUB SCOUTS, PACK 420 Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 12034 6/2212007 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 224716 40448 DAVID EVANS LOS ANALYSIS 2,406.93 224917 FINAL SHORT & LONG SUBDIVISIO 5,643.00 Total : 8,049.93 12035 6/22/2007 000060 DENENNY, RICHARD' 2nd Qtr Cell Phone 2ND QTR CELL PHONE ALLOWANC 105.00 Total : 105.00 12036 6/22/2007 000059 DEVLEMING, MICHAEL Expense Reimbursemen TRAVEL FOR SUMMER RETREAT 81.78 Total : 81.78 12037 6/22!2007 001369 DISTRICT 13AA, C/O CYNDI STEVENS Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 12038 6/2212007 000010 FEDEX KINKO'S OFFICE SERVICES 28970039599 BINDING OF 14 BOOKS . 60.05 Total : 60.05 Ie: 2 , vchlist • Vo c er List Page: 3 0612212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank :Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount 12039 612212007 001370 FLUNO, JULIE Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 12040 6/22/2007 001352 GALVEZ, LAZELLE Refund - Cancelled REFUND DAMAGE DEP - EVENT C/ 80.00 Total : 80.00 i 12041 6122/2007 000839 GENERAL FIRE EQUIP. CO. 0019102 SVC CALL Q CENTERPLACE ON FI 124.89 ' Total : 124.89 ,j 12042 6/22/2007 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM H. 2nd QV Cell Phone 2ND QTR CELL PHONE ALLOWANC 105.00 ! Expense Reimbursemen TRAVEL TO ASSOC OF WA CITIES. 767.86 ! Total : 872.86 1 . 12043 6/2212007 000007 GRAINGER 9380258740 41461 INFRARED THERMOMETER W/ LAE 65.81 ' 9383651768 41461 SURVEYOR VEST 74.93 r' Total : 140.74 12044 6/22/2007 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 159252 PERMIT CTR - COLOR COPIES 204.42 j ' 159253 PERMIT CTR - BLACK/WHITE COPII 5.48 159285 PERMIT CTR COPIES 175.90 159365 FINANCE - FINAL COLOR COPIES 190.47 159366 FINANCE - FINAL BLACK/WHITE CC 85.31 159367 HR10PS COPIES - COLOR 86.09 159368 HR/OPS COPIES - BLACK/WHITE 67.61 159374 'PARKS & REC COPIES - COLOR 1,415.86 159375 PARKS & RECS BLACK/WHITE COF 237:25 159377 COUNCIL/WEST WING COPIES 27199 159385 ENGINEER COPIES 179.71 159480 COMM DEV COLOR COPIES 1,409.51 i 159481 COMM DEV BLACKIWHITE COPIES 334.73 Total : 4,666.33 12045 6/22/2007 001359 HAMPTON, JENNIFER Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 354.75 Total : 354.75 12046 6/22/2007 000009 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 42435632 41699 NEW SERVER SYSTEM 4,646.99 Total : 4,646.99 Page: 3 •vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 4612212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount .12047 6/22/2007 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 55117 PHOTO ID CARD 23.89 } 55119 PHOTO ID CARD 23.89 55120 PHOTO ID CARD 23.89 j ` 55124 PHOTO ID CARDS (2) 39.10 Total : 110.77 !12048 6/22/2007 001366 INLAND EMPIRE, MORGAN HORSE CLUI Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 '12049 6/22/2007 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 112500.0 WATER USAGE: 13504 E MIRABEAI 166.00 Total : 166.00 12050 6/22/2007 001264 JIFFY LUBE 2327 263710 OIL CHANGEBTTRY 2003 CHEVY cl 179.91 2327 569820 OIL CHANGE: 2003 CHEVY S10 PIC 52.10 Total : 232.01 ;t :12051 6/2212007 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 0046190 41409 PROJECT NO. 70-06-088 3,484.08 Total : 3,484.08 ,12052 6122/2007 001356 KEHL, NATALIE Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 214.75 Total : 214.75 :12053 6/2212007 001364 KISMAN CONSTRUCTION Refund REFUND ON PERMIT FEES 115.75 Total : 115.75 X12054 6/22/2007 000635 KUHTA, SCOTT Expense Form MEAL REIMBURSEMENT: FIB CON; 37.99 ' Total : 37.99 ,I 12055 6/22/2007 001374 MARSHALL, JEANNE Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 :12056 6/2212007 000069 MERCIER, DAVID Auto Allowance AUTO ALLOWANCE: JULY 2007 400.00 Expense Reimbursemen TRAVEL TO AWC ANNUAL MTG IN' 104.41 ' Total: 504.41 12057 6/22/2007 001367 MITCHELL, AMBER Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 i ! Total : 50.00 e: 4 vchlist Vo' Li t uUtler s Page : 5 0612212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley • . + Bank code : apbank J Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount -12068 8 fz'887-8843541 -MGRL -eACF291VOl Eb R_`and-Bemage-De 0. ' ' 1 JC lb AtAmSGUrn-)L-I TA•(ZV tt(o~16-1 (QG t! Total: 50.00 !12059 6/22/2007 000062 MUNSON, RICHARD 2nd Qtr Cell Phone 2ND QTR CELL PHONE ALLOWANC 105.00 Total : 105.00, • '12060 6122/2007 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 15334 41687 INTERNET CONVERSION 181.04 15335 41687 CISCO GBIC 1000 BASE T FOR SEF 345.42 Total : 526.46 12061 6f22/2007 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC July Rent JULY 2007 RENT 28,433.09 Total : 29,433.09 12062 612212007 000911 NOTE, INGA Expense Form TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT 578.56 Total : 578.56 ' ;12063 6122/2007 000036 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN, DEPT 56 - 3878854600010 OFFICE SUPPLIES - LEGAL 31.02 966118332000 MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES - IT 40.15 Total : 71.17 12064 6/22!2007 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 389038721-001 41696 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLIC WORK 165.93 389038984001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.20 41696 389443704001 OFFICCE SUPPLIES - ADMIN 98.74 389643084001 41705 LIME COLORED PAPER 3.59 389914736-001 41707 COPY PAPER 140.36 • Total : 426.82 12065 6122/2007 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER May Remittances MAY 2007 - STATE REMITTANCES 61,325.14 Total : 61,325.14 12066 6/22/2007 000512 OFFICETEAM 18378339 SERVICES FOR JOYCE FONTAINE 552.75 i 18802577 SERVICES FOR JOYCE FONTAINE 478.50 Total : 1,031.25 112067 6122/2007 001334 OLYMPIC FOUNDRY INC. 0000173211 41697 GRATES & MANHOLE COVERS FOI 794.14 Total : 794.14 Page: 5 - :,vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 ;06/2212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley ' . Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount !12068 6/22/2007 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 42307 41677 ST & SW MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 6,109.15 I Total : 6,109.15 :::12069 6/22/2007 000494 PRO PEOPLE STAFFING SERV INC. 23,023 SERVICES FOR BRETT JOHNSON 552.80 Total : 552.80 12070 6122/2007 001161 PROVISIONAL STAFFING SERVICES 3008-0500015351 SERVICES FOR MATT KUSHNER 1,023.20 Total : 1,023.20 1 a ;j 112071 6122/2007 000322 QWEST 06132007 ACCOUNT # 509-921-6787 511 B 43.07 Total : 43.07 12072 6/22/2007 001365 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Refund REFUND ON PERMIT FEES 105.00 Total : 105.00 12073 6/22/2007 000341 RICOH CORPORATION 07073562536 REGULAR PMT: PERMIT CTR COPII 412.68 • is . 07073572739 REGULAR PAYMENT: HR COPIER 238.92 Total : 651.60 • 112074 6/22/2007 001231 RIGHELLIS PC 1019 41494 CONTRACT NO. 07-077 RIGHELLIS 449.50 ' Total : 449.50 1 12075 6/22/2007 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY 2nd Qtr Cell Phones 2ND QTR CELL PHONE ALLOWANC 105.00 ' Total : 105.00 112076 6/22/2007 001372 SO PINES SPACE, 2ND GRADERS _ Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 i Total : 50.00 12077 ; 6/22/2007 001357 SPARKS, APRIL Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 250.25 i Total . 250.25 `1 ;12078 6/22/2007 000230 SPOKANE CNTY AUDITORS OFC, RECD 530606 RECORDING& FILING FEES 580.00 Total : 580.00 ,a i12079 6/2212007 000308 SPOKANE COUNTY PROSECUTING, A71 5/07 Crime Vic Fund. CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 932.78 Total : 932.78 i 12080 6/22/2007 000658 SPOKANE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Transcript Invoice CITY SPOKANE VALLEY VS. SPOK/ 18.00 . •L ^--.e: 6 i f ~l1 vchlist \ "f Voucher List . Page: 7 10612212007 8:45:33AM Spokane Valley .s j_ . . Bank code ij ' 'it 12080 '112081 12082 1'. 12083 12084 J y~ 12085 12086 12087 .12088 i~ . 12089 Ei v 112090 i~ . i~ ,12091 tF ~ ,i •;I apbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 612212007 000658 000658 SPOKANE COUNTY SUPERIOR COL (Continued) Total : 18.00 6/22/2007 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE MAY 2007 41575 CONTRACT NO 07-003 LANDSCAPI 8,715.71 Total : 8,715.71 6/22/2007 000701 SPOKANE-KOOTENAI REAL ESTATE, RE 2007 R.E.R.C. Report 2007 REAL ESTATE REPORT (SPRI 75.00 Total : 75.00 6/2212007 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 34240 EMPLOYMENT & LABOR SERVICE 554.20 Total : 554.20 6/22/2007 001353 TAYLOR, ROGER Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT - EVEI' 200.00 Total : 200.00 612212007 000063 TAYLOR, STEVE 2nd Qtr Cell Phone 2ND QTR CELL PHONE ALLOWANC 105.00 Total : 105.00 6122/2007 001024 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST 65563335-001 41466 T-SHIRTS 76.53 65805683-001 41466 T-SHIRT 110.71 Total : 187.24 6/22/2007 001248 USK.H, INC. 1008700-001 41624 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THRU, 1,200.00- Total : 1,200.00 6/22/2007 001180 VANESSA BEHAN CRISIS NURSERY Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 412.25 Total : 412.25 6/2212007 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 0002-001425.01 ELECTRIC BILLING FOR STREETS 195.92 0004-000755.01 ELECTRIC BILL FOR SIGNAL LIGHT 196.21 0005-016348.01 ELECTRIC BILLING ON TRAFFIC LI( 72.43 0006-033021.00 MONTHLY ELECTRIC & WATER US. 21.63 Total : 486.19 612212007 001354 WA - DSHS Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 435.00 Total : 435.00 6122/2007 000061 WILHITE, DIANA 2nd Qtr Cell Phone 2ND QTR CELL PHONE ALLOWANC 105.00 Total : 105.00 Page: 7 J'vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 306122!2007 8:45:33AM Spokane Vallev . Bank code : apbank Noucher 1,12092 s j 78 78 1 ~I .t t' Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 6/22/2007 001362 ZEUTSCHEL, HAROLD Refund Recording Fee REFUND OF RECORDING FEES SH Total : Vouchers for bank code : apbank Vouchers in this report Approved: Bank total : Total vouchers : Amount 2.00 2.00 346,127.95 346,127.95 J I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, 11 that the materials have been furnished, the services i rendered, or the tabor performed as described herein .1 and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am : authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. i 'j Finance Director Date :i - - 8 i . Ken Thompson, nonce Director vchlist Voucher List P age: 1 06/2912007 9:31:26AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # • Description/Account Amount .12095 6126/2007 001280 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 0216963 EXEMPT PLATES 2007 CHEVY COL 32.75 Tota I : 32.75 12096 6/26/2007 000568 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER, D.E. Right of Way Deed RIGHT OF WAY DEED - APPLEWAY 97.52 Total : 97.52 12097 6126/2007 001276 RANDALL, DAVID 1155 41582 FINAL BILL-PROJECT #07-002 2,160.00 Total : 2,160.00 12098 6/27/2007 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER June 2007 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES PAl 1,367,180.18 Total : 1,367,180.18 12109 612912007 001351 ADAMS ELEMENTARY, C/O CAROL MO R.Refund Damage Dep REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 50.00 Total : 50.00 12110 6/29/2007 001081 ALSCO LSP0232941 MATS FOR CITY HALL $ BLDG SPA 64.20 Total : 64.20 12111 6129/2007 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY, INC. 8827316 SERVICE FOR CENTER PLACE 383.86 Total : 383.86 12112 6129/2007 001022 CARR SALES CO. 836646 LIGHTS 116,64 836647 LIGI4TS 48.87 Total : 165.51 12113 6129/2007 001139 CATS EYE EXCAVATING, INC. 161 OCTOBER 2006 EXCAVATION SERI 5,647.37 Total : 5,647.37 12114 6/2912007 000101 CDWG FS03058 41710 MONITOR 257.84 Total : 257.84 12115 6/29/2007 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 50897 COFFEE SUPPLIES - CITY HALL 166.73 50908 COFFEE SUPPLIES-CENTER PLACI 148.10 Total : 314.83 12116 6/29/2007 000537 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN 224914 41286 SPKV000O-0008 6,040.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0612912007 9:31:26AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 12116 6/2912007 000537 000537 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, II` (Continued) Total : 6,040.00 12117 6129/2007 000152 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB70610270 REIMB ROADWAY MAINT OFF SYS' 8,695.46 RE-313-ATB70612071 REIMB ROADWAY MAINT OFF SYS- 21,232.61 Tota I : 29,928.07 12118 6/29/2007 000278 DRISKELL, CARY Expense Form MISC TRAVEL EXPENSES 226.67 Total : 226.67 12119 6/29/2007 000028 FARMERS &,MERCHANTS BANK 5476750000d05045 M DEVLEMING M/C 108.17 5476750000005052 D DENENNY M/C 60.00 5476750000005060 S TAYLOR,M/C 19.78 54767500000051269 D WILHITE M/C 30.00 5476750000011217 D MERCIER M/C 46.96 5476750000011225 S GOLMAN M/C 571.02 5476750000011563 N REGOR WC 41.84 5476750000011829 AGENCY M/C 1,152.79 5476750000011852 AGENCY M/C 1,050.95- 54767500000144114 S PASSMORE M/C 179.47 5476759000001037 K THOMPSON WC 466.99 Total : 3,727.97 12120 6/29/2007 000009 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 42445853 41706 UNIVERSAL RACK/BAYING UNIT 484.36 ' 42446551 41706 COMPUTER RACK AND PERIPHERe 1,289.08 Total : 1,773.44 12121 6/2912007 001275 JERRY CHAMBERS CHEVROLET W396 07 Chevy Colorado 41580 1GCDT13E578232742 21,563.62 Total : 21,563.62 12122 6/29/2007 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 0045700 41166 STREET MASTER PLAN 11,818.05 0046287 41166 STREET MASTER PLAN 33,746.70 Total : 45,564.75 12123 6129/2007 000069 MERCIER, DAVID Expense Form ICMA CONFERENCE REGISTRATIO 575.00 Total : 575.00 12124 612912007 000062 MUNSON, RICHARD TRAVEL REIMB AWC SUMMER CONF TRAVEL REM 922.77 t1e: 2 i J vchlist ~ Vou ui, List Page: 3 0612912007 9:31:26AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 12124 6/29/2007 000062 000062 MUNSON, RICHARD (Continued) 12125 6/2912007 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 64421 12126 6/29/2007 000512 OFFICETEAM 12127 6/29/2007 000554 OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERV 12128 6129/2007 000997 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 12129 6/29/2007 000415 ROSAUERS U-CITY INC. 12130 6129/2007 000172 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 12131 12132 12133 12134 12135 18857834 6704478 SR24152001 623552 623556 658121 VLY0705 6129/2007 000658 SPOKANE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FILING FEES 6/2912007 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER- 010020000600006 6/29/2007 000323 SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES 017022/067022 0316081081608 042903/115953 6/29/2007 000324 SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DIST. #3. 475-1495-00 612912007 000311 SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. 0602678198-7 0141276664-3 Description/Account Amount Total : 922.77 STAMPS FOR COMM DEV 576.88 Total : 576.88 SERVICES FOR JOYCE FONTAINE 697.13 Total : 697.13 ANNUAL PREMIUM - D MERCIER 857.50 Total : 857.50 CENTERPLACE ELEVATOR MAINT. 291.62 Total : 291.62 WELLNESS COMMITTEE SNACKS 51.51 SNACKS 8.98 DAYCAMP SUPPLIES 14.46 Total : 74.95 STREET MAINT/ENGINEERING INV4 73,767.58 Total : 73,767.58 FILING FEES: SPOK VALLEY VS. VI 200.00 Total : 200.00 2005 VOTER REGISTRATION COST 80,585.27 Total : 80,585.27 105 N BALFOUR RD-SEWER 78.80 11423 EMISSION AVE-SEWER 255.19 2426 N DISCOVERY PLACE-SEWEF 781.95 Total : 1,115.94 1508 S WOODRUFF RD 90.90 Total : 90.90 DATA CONNECTION CARD MAY 15 420.32 CELL PHONE MONTHLY BILLING 832.22 Page: 3 vchlist - 06129/2007 9:31:26AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 12135 6/29/2007 000311 SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. (Continued) 0602678198-7 12136 6129/2007 001206 SWANSON'S REFRIGERATION RESTf 21532 12137 6/29/2007 000646 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEOPOST POST Postage Wire Transfe 12138 6/29/2007 001024 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST 65631588-001 12139 6/29/2007 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 0007-017753.01 0008-010790.01 0010-003488.01 0011-010826.01 12140 6/29/2007 000061 WILHITE, DIANA Expense Form 36 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 36 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director PO # Description/Account Amount DATA CONNECTION APR 15-MAY 1 420.32 Total : 1,672.86 COOLER REPAIR Q CENTERPLACI 269.13 Total : 269.13 REFILL POSTAGE METER 3,010.00 Total : 3,010.00 41466 BLANKET PO 213.23 Total : 213.23 MONTHLY UTILITY BILLING 19.31 MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLING 67.89 MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLING 139.99 MONTHLY WATER & ELECTRIC BIL 39.95 Total : 267.14 MISC TRAVEL EXPENSES 395.09 Total : 395.09 Approved: Ken'I'hompson, -inance Director ("2-f -n 7 Date Bank total : 1,650,761.57 Total vouchers : 1,650,761.57 Pa91 ' 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07-10-07 Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ information City Manager Sign-off: ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Payroll for Period Ending June 30, 2007 X GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Gross: $ 167,661.51 Benefits: $ 83,034.42 TOTAL PAYROLL: $ 250,695.93 STAFF CONTACT: Brad Johnson ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 07-011 Extending Cable Franchise GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Cable Act of 1984 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance establishing franchise fee approved 3/31/03; Memorandum of Understanding on terms and conditions to participate in the regional cable advisory board approved 9/16/03; Resolution 04-015 Regarding Cable Franchise Renewal Proceedings, Resolution 06-017 continuing the cable franchise agreement through March 5, 2007 approved 915/06; and Resolution 07-011 continued the franchise agreement through June 5, 2007. BACKGROUND: Cable franchises and the franchise renewal process are regulated by the federal government. The Cable Act of 1984 allows for both a formal and informal renewal process. The City assumed the County's cable franchise agreement with Comcast upon incorporation. The agreement was due to expire on September 5, 2006 and was previously extended to March 5, 2007. The City is currently negotiating with Comcast through the informal process. Staff has presented Comcast with a draft agreement for review. Comcast representatives have indicated that they would like additional time to review the document. The attached resolution allows Council to continue the terms and obligations of the current franchise to October 9, 2007. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Resolution 07-011 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City has budgeted $674,170 in cable franchise fee revenue for 2007. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS Resolution 07-011 DR.AYr CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 07-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKA 41 VALLEY, SPOKANE COU-,NqY, WASHINGTON, INIPLEMENTING A CONTINUATION PERIOD FOR THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE WITH COfMCAST CORPORATION IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WAS.H1i 1GTON FROM JUNE 5, 2007 TO OCTOBER 9, 2007. . WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (hereafter "City") is a local franchising authority, and the local cable television operator, Comcast Corporation (hereafter "Comcast"), operates in the City under a cable television franchise first approved September 5, 1991 as Spokane County Resolution number 91- 1247 and binding on the City following incorporation on March 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, Spokane County Resolution number 91-1247 granting the cable television franchise adopted and incorporated by reference Spokane County Code Chapter 7.40, which then became part of the franchise; and WHEREAS, on or about September 30, 2003, a letter was submitted by Comcast requesting renewal of the cable television franchise under both the formal and informal processes; and WHEREAS, the City and Comcast are proceeding in good faith in their negotiations regarding renewal of the franchise; and WHEREAS, the franchise was continued by agreement of the parties from September 5, 2006 to ~ March 5, 2007 to continue negotiations for renewal; and . WHEREAS, the franchise was then continued by agreement of the parties from March 5, 2007 to June 5, 2007 to continue negotiations for renewal; and WHEREAS, the parties continue to negotiate in good faith to complete the renewal process, but have not been able to complete it to date. Both parties believe it is advantageous to continue to negotiate through the informal process currently underway, and believe this process will be completed by October 9, 2007; and WHEREAS, the parties are in agreement that Comcast will continue to operate its system under the same terms of the franchise during this third continuation period; and WHEREAS, the City desires to implement a continuation period for the franchise until October 9, 2007 to allow sufficient time for the parties to complete the renewal process; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF SPOKANTE VALLEY, WASI-fFNTGTON: Section 1. The expiration of the cable television franchise first approved by the Board of County Commissioners for Spokane County on September 5, 1991, Spokane County Resolution number 91-1247, and binding on the City of Spokane Valley and Comcast as the successors in interest to the franchise, was originally set for September 5, 2006. The Council approved Resolution 06-017 on \ September 5, 2006, which continued the terms of the franchise to March 5, 2007. The Council approved Resolution 07-001 on February 27, 2007, which continued the terms of the franchise to June 5, 2007. The Resolution 01-011 Cable Franchise Continuation Page 1 of 2 DRAFT City Council now continues the franchise to October 9, 2007. This continuation period is done pursuant to Section 7.40.050 of the Spokane County Code, which was incorporated by reference into the franchise. Section 2. Nothing in this resolution waives any legal or contract rights the City may have, the same bci.ng expressly reserved and preserved. Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption. Adopted this - day of July, 2007. Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 07-011 Cable Franchise Continuation Page 2 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 26, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 118'e meeting. Attendance: City Staff Diana Wilhite, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Dick Denenny, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Jackson, Parks & Rec Director Bill Gothnaann, Councilmember Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Rich Munson, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Gary Schim.mels, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Deputy Mayor Taylor gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmember DeVleming. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded mid unanimously agreed to excuse Conncibnember DeHemingfron tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGEINDA: After City Manager Mercier's suggestion to amend the agenda to consider a question of acquiring a tax parcel, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to amend the agenda to add item A'5a, a motion consideration to acquire mineral rights to a particular tax title parcel. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, mid unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUAIMA.RY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended a Solid Waste meeting the first of the month; and that in the City Hall offices, there is an amended comprehensive plan "highlights" and he encouraged Councilmembers to look at the high points or hot spots; that he also attended an SRTC meeting a few weeks ago; and attended the "Relay for Life" cancer walk at the East Valley Field. Councilmember Denenny: said that he attended several Health District Budget meetings; and an STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting where they are reviewing RFP's (request for proposal) for a director. Depute Mayor Tam: explained that he attended Spokane City's Council meeting last night; and two _ weeks alto attended the monthly Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting, and that it appears tourism is doing well in the area. Council Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRA17 Councilmember Gothrnann: stated that he attended the recent joint Council/Board of County Commissioner's meeting; and attended a Need and Seed subcommittee meeting where they discussed forming an Edgeclift Neighborhood Center at Pratt School, which facility could house various programs and training sessions. Councilmember Munson: reported that he also attended the joint meeting with the County Commissioners, where the Commissioners were asked to come up with a list of capital projects that the. County and the City will be looking at for the next several years rather than have various bond issues and sales taxes here and there; that at the STA Board meeting he attended, the 3/10'b of a sales tax increase was discussed, and at that meeting he made a motion to place on their September docket, a motion that would recommend a one-tenth of one cent reduction in sales tax for STA for one year; that he also attended a GMA (Growth Management Association) Ad hoc and steering committee meeting last week, where they are working to come up with County-wide planning policy changes. Cotmcilmember Munson also mentioned that he attended an AWC (Association of Washington Cities) annual meeting in Tacoma and was honored by the group to be elected president. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the Joint Council/County meeting; attended a reception for retiring Pastor Ian Robertson; a Washington Roundtable Business Leaders meeting in Spokane; the GMA meeting; a Washington State University Advisory meeting; and the Greater Spokane, Inc. meeting, where they thanked its for participating in the site selector program. PUBLIC CUNOJEENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public continents. Joe Schutz, 2706 South Early Dawn Jane, Spokane Valley spoke concerning the issue of panhandling and aggressive begging, and in particular "illegal solicitation by pedestrians of automobile occupants," some of which, he explained is being done by volunteers for charitable purposes; and that he feels these actions are illegal, a nuisance, and a traffic and safety hazard. He mentioned the previous correspondence given to Council via the City Clerk, and said he was disappointed that he has not been provided any answers for the reasons for non-enforcement of the statutory requirements. Mr. Schutz also handed the Clerk a copy of his written comments given at tonight's meeting. Mayor Wilhite indicated staff will read the material and contact him regarding his concerns. No other public comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following Claim Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCIVER AMOUNT 06-01-07 11835 -11874 $276,647.22 06-07-07 11875 -11937 $201,188.43 06-13-07 11938 -12006 $1,579,023.29 GRAND TOTAL. $1.876,858.94 b. Payroll for Period Ending June 15, 2007: $183,371.87 c. Minutes of May 29, 2007 Special Study Session Council Meeting d. Minutes of June 2, 2007 Special CounciUStaff Retreat e. Minutes of June 5, 2007 Special Council Meeting C ^ aa:*:, ng to r inaneial .fan€ gement-]?"eies Mayor Wilhite asked that item IF be removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed separately. It was then moved by Deputy Agayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent agenda as amended with the exclusion of Item F. Council Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 1F: Additional to Financial Management Policies Finance Director Thompson explained that he asked that this item be included on the agenda to address the issue of accounts payable and payroll approval, which is sought generally every two weeks. Mayor Wilhite added that she feels it helpful to have an additional review, rather than just the Mayor, which means having two signatures rather than one as sign off for these matters; and for those rare occasions when a check must be disbursed immediately, staff could call ahead for approval. There was discussion on the wording of a motion or to send this back to staff for further refinement. Councilmember Munson recommended this policy proceed as all councilmembers have the opportunity to review documents on claim vouchers, and have the opportunity to ask questions of staff. Councilmember Munson also stated that as Councilmember DeVleming is absent tonight, he (Mr. Munson) felt that Councilmember DeVleming wanted to streamline the process by having just the one signature; but that Councilmember Munson said he feels this is an important oversight function of council. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded mid utnanimously approved to authorize the distribution of funds by the City with appropriate signatures, and for tithe sensitive invoices when cowicil signatures are not available. To reiterate, Mr. Thompson said the process is that departments approve invoices, they go to finance wmd the Mayor for review, then to a second elected official for review; and if the check is time sensitive, it will be released. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanintoutsly approved to adopt the attached financial management policies sections F-2 and F-3. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Finance Ordinance, 4 07-011 Amending Credit Card Limits - Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded i to advance Ordinance 07-011 intending the Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 2.65.020 to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson explained the three proposed changes: one additional "whereas" clause; to change the limit from $3,000 to $5,000; and use the correct name of the form used to report credit card charges. Mayor Wilhite invited Public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Oppose& Norte. Motion carried 3. Proposed Resolution 07- 008 AdontinQ 2008-2013 Transportation 1mnrovement Plan - Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor 1;gylor and seconded to adopt the 2008-2013 six year transportation improvement plain as presented. Mr. Worley explained that this is the annual 1711' for the next six years; and that there are a few minor changes from what was presented at the public hearing, which changes are noted on his June 26, 2007 Rcquest for Council Action form. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 1066 C Empire: said he was disappointed with the delay of the Mansfield project; that there are too many lights on Pines and traffic is awfid; that the project needs to be done, to which Mr. Worley responded that we are still working on obtaining the property right-of-way. MT. Lazanis also mentioned that from Trent to Williams north, there is irrigation blocking the view and that it is a hazard. Mayor Wilhite suggested Mr. Lazanis complete the form and leave with staff so that staff will have the address of the area in question and can research that issue. No other public comments were offered. Vote by acclantation: In Favor.- Unanimous. Opposed: Alone. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Pool Concepts - Mike Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to accept the design concepts for Park Rood, Terrace View, and Valley Mission s-rvirnnting pools as presented in the report. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson said the goal is to have the new features complete when the pools open next summer, and added that the existing pool shells will remain. There was some discussion on budget impacts, and what needed improvements. Mr. Jackson said that each of the pools will receive improvements to the bathhouses such as improving accessibility in order to bring them into compliance with current codes; and Council Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT that there will be options included in the bidding process, and when Council reviews the bids, Council can determine at that time whether to include those optional items. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Austin Appeal Findings of Fact and Decision - Mike Connelly Councilmember Munson brought up a point of order concerning this item; and City Attorney Connelly explained that Councilmembers Munson and Schimmels have recused themselves from this issue and will not participate in the discussion or the vote. City Attorney Connelly said that the document is drafted as per the Council discussions at last week's council meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, to approve Resolution 07-010 adopting the findings of fact, conclusions of lmv, and decision. Councilmember Denenny mentioned the scrivener's errors in 92 and #4, and Attorney Connelly acknowledged that staff' has already changed those on the final document for signature; which final document will note which councilmembers have recused themselves or are.absent. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. [Councilmembers Schimmels and Munson recused themselves.] Motion passed. ADDED ITEM S.i - Motion Consideration to Acquire Mineral Rights It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to acquire the mineral rights related to tax title parcel 45207.0726 for back taxes of S18. 00; and associated transfer fees and to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the transaction documents. City Manager Mercier explained that the County has offered this transfer to jurisdictions prior to putting the area up for auction; and that we were just notified late this afternoon of this parcel between Willow and Farr; and that the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to take up the matter at their July 10 meeting, therefore this is the last Council meeting prior to that County meeting. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments - were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Furor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments; no continents were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Regional Transportation Concurrency - Glenn Miles Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) General Manager Glenn Miles went through his PowerPoint presentation addressing regional transportation concurrency. He explained that local jurisdictions have the responsibility to ensure transportation concurrency with development; and the SRTC has to ensure from a regional svindpoint, that the regional transportation system meets concurrency; that the definition of transportation concurrency is "the statutory requirement to ensure the necessary transportation investments to maintain an acceptable level of service are constructed or implemented along with gro,,vth and development," given that there are a number of years in which to make that happen, and that it makes sure our transportation system maintains a certain level of service. He further explained that the SRTC Board, which is comprised of elected officials from this area, asked them to develop an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a regionally based transportation concurrency system in all or a portion of Spokane County; recognizing that some of the more rural areas would not necessarily need to be a part of that, but certainly it would include the metro area and that a consultant was hired to complete the study. NU. Miles said that through a series of technical memos throutltout the year, they explained what they are trying to accomplish. In looking at the mix of transportation choices people have, Mr. Miles said that multi-modal is defined as where you look at several different modes of transportation rather than a single mode of transportation; a multi- modal in the Puget Sound region could include single occupant vehicles, HOV (high occupancy vehicles) lanes, and public transportation such as buses and light rail. Council 'Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Miles also explained the legal assessment of what would be required as per the Washington St, statues and regulations to provide sufficient bases for a regional concurrency system; and that since there is no joint regional authority provided in the statutes, an interlocal agreement among jurisdictions and agencies would be required; and that agreement would include the process of parties' participation and the process in determining the nexus and proportionality test to ensure a "fair share' in the implementation of a program of regionally significant projects crossing jurisdictional boundaries. In response to Mr. Mercier's question about cities charging the same rates for traffic impact fees were there to be an interlocal agreement, Mr. Miles said that currency is not a traffic impact fee; that a traffic impact fee deals with growth and development to help meet the needs to address a particular program or projects; and that concurrency is the benchmark to determine if the level of service requirement has been met; but how that is achieved brings into account the different ways of raising revenue to meet those concurrency requirements. Mr. Miles also said that there are current deficiencies in the Spokane Valley's transportation system now, which is the public's responsibility to fix; and that it is the growth and development's partial responsibility under concurrency to make sure that it doesn't fall back in the future once that problem is fixed. Mr. Mercier asked that if this then means that all of the current deficits in our transportation system represent a concurrency problem which would be the public's responsibility to address; to which Mr., Miles agreed; but Councilmember Munson expressed concern on how to accomplish that. Attorney Connelly suggested that one way to capture that would be an impact fee by way of building permits as opposed to subdivision development. Mr. Miles added in response to Councilmember' Munson's concerns about previous mitigation fees required for certain projects; that that would be an acceptable means to address concurrency as it was done as part of a project approval; so when dealing with platting a subdivision, there are likely conditions put on that plat for approval, and that's when you're trying; to make the capital improvements necessary in order to mitigate that future development; but dealing with in-fill is different from platting a new subdivision. Mr. Miles continued by explaining his slides on the different "tech memos." Mr. Mercier asked that if the new legislation provides for concurrency with state highways, does that mean it sets the stage for the prospect that individual city jurisdictions will have to meet their regional concurrency needs before their individual jurisdictional needs? Mr. Miles said that both would have to be met. Mr. Mercier continued by asking that if we have a concurrency system that has to balance the state system needs with our own need, would that mean it would likely change the projects on the six-year transportation improvement plan? Mr. Miles said it could change depending on how successful we are in partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation in being able to get funding at the state level for some of the state projects. Even if state funding were successful, Mr., Mercier stated that the City would still have to come up with its share of the project, and depending on when the state project was scheduled, it might require cities with limited resources, to direct funds towards those projects; to which Mr. Miles concurred. Mr. Mercier said that this could mean that this city's agenda for transportation improvements comes out of this Council's hand for control because we may have a commitment to direct funding for projects that are calendared based on state fiinding and allocation of costs to the City; rather than what might be the operational goals of the community. «r. Miles added that sometimes between jurisdictions where one jurisdiction adopts a land use and plans to put in a transportation system that aims toward the city, that growth and development occurs and the City of Spokane Valley says that we don't have the transportation system to accept all of your traffic, and therefore the City would be in a position of saying that until we address these projects across jurisdictional lines, there is a question of whether they could demonstrate concurrency at the regional level because that impact crosses jurisdictional boundaries. At the end of the PowerPoint presentation, after going over the recommendations, Mr. Miles said that a sig=nificant finding is that to make a regional transportation concurrency management system work, it requires each agency to share some of their control and authority in order to achieve something that has a greater good for the community; and that presentations are being made to local jurisdictions to determine if the will is there to create such a system. If the will is not there, he explained, the feasibility study is Council Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT' complete and the status quo will be maintained until the legislature addresses this problem; but if there is a collective will, the SR.TC Board has agreed to move toward working on the short-term priorities with the local jurisdictions. Mr. Miles asked Council: "is there an interest to support a regional transportation concurrency system?" and he said he does not expect or need an answer tonight. Discussion included the regional concurrency committee defining concurrency within the entire metro area for regionally significant roadways, and that some would be within the City of Spokane Valley; that regional state concurrency requirements are defined by state statute; only those agencies signing the interloeal agreement would be party to that effort; that Spokane Valley's 20-year transportation plan must identify transportation concurrency needs at a regional level, and the implementation of that plan is at the City's discretion. Mr. Miles said that the consultant feels that the current system has several concerns; that there have been some incidents where some agencies' needs are not being addressed, and they take the problem to the growth management hearing board and challenge the adjacent jurisdictions for not meeting concurrency. This proposal is an attempt to collaborate to identify and address those issues early so that everyone works together to solve the problems rather than take those matters to the hearing board or court. Mr. Mercier said that it appears there is a sequence problem in that the short term priorities are significant topics to be addressed; and he feels it would be difficult to answer the question of "is there an interest to support a regional transportation concurrency system" until the short term priorities have been sorted through; so if the question were "is there an interest to support further assessment of a regional transportation concurrency system which would allow committee formation to deal with the short term priorities;" that might be easier to consider. Mr. Miles said what they are trying to address is that they don't want to spend limited public resources to go through developing the committee and various options, if a jurisdiction says they are not interested. Mr. Miles said they are not asking local jurisdictions and officials to make a definitive statement if they are "in," but are they "in" enough to go to the next step to see if we can make system work. In response to Mr. Mercier's question about how many communities are needed to move forward, Mr. Miles said such decision would be made by the SR.TC Board; but if the major jurisdictions are not interested, he said he would not recommend moving forward; but his Board would like the opportunity to try to fix concurrency at the regional level before the State moves forward with any mandates. Mr. Miles also stated that they would need agencies' answer to the question of interest, by August or September. Councilmembcr Denenny said he is interested in starting a level of interest. Councilmembcr Munson said there has been some progress made in joint planning, that he would like to have at least an idea of how long it will take to complete the study; and that lie doesn't want to jeopardize the current progress made while this system works its way through to completion; and based on reluctance by municipalities to move forward on joint planning, he'd hate to see current negotiations stopped while we wait to see what happens with this system; and that the SRTC study should be done concurrently with current negotiations. Mr. Miles said he would not support stopping everything until the study is completed: but if people look at this study as a good-faith effort to try to get to the next step and work forward ratification of those joint planning area agreements, then it is a concurrent process and something that he would support. INFORMATION ONLY: Item 7, Comcast Cable Franchise Continuation, and Item 8, Departments Reports were for information only and not reported on or discussed. EXECUTIVE SESSION: n/a Council .Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT It was rrroved by Councilrnember iWimson, seconde,-l, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting: 06-26-07 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: - , 1VDNU I'ES l CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Present: Councilmembers: Staff: Diana Wilhite, tMayor Dave Mercier, City Manager mike DeVleming, Councilmember Nina Regor, :Deputy City Manager Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson; Finance Director Rich Munson, Councilmember 'Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Gary Schimmels, Councilmember (arrived 6:45 p.m.) Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Rick Van-Leuven, Police Chief Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Absent: Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Greg Bingama.n, IT Specialist Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Mike Thompson, Fire Chief Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Roll Call: Deputy City Clerk. Acosta called roll: all Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Taylor and Councilmember Schimmels, who would be arriving later. It was proved by Councilmember lllunsvn, seconded and taranimously agreed to excuse Deputy et'Iayor Taylor from the meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Devleming, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. Employee Tntroductions: Parks and Recreation Director Jackson introduced Greg Smith as the new Maintenance Worker for CenterPlace; Finance Director Thompson introduced Lisa Combs as the new Accounting Technician in the Finance Department; Building Official Martin introduced Patricia Prince as the new Office Assistant 11 in the Permit Center; and City Attorney Connelly introduced Amy Pagano as the new Legal Intern. Council welcomed the new employees to Spokane Valley. ACTION ITEMS: 1 Confirmation of Mayoral Appointments: Student Advisory Council 2007-2008 School Year - Councilmember DeVlemint; Councilmember Devleming explained that the procedure to appoint new students to the Student Advisory Council is to make the selections of the incoming group at the end of each school year. It was moved by Councibnember Devleming, seconded and unanimously agreed to confirm the Mayoral appointments to the Student Advisory Council as listed: Garrett Evensen, University High School; Chaylee Cline, Central Valley High School; Alexandra Hagen, East Valley High School; Allison Isaac, West Valley High School: Chase Baxter, West Valley High School. 2 Motion Consideration: Austin Hearing Deliberation and Decision -Mike Connelly Since Councilmember Munson was absent from the hearing, he recused himself from discussion. City Attorney Connelly explained the options of Council to deliberate as they make their decision are to affirm -J or to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner in whole or in part. The key issue is whether or not the Meeting Minutes: 06-19-07 Page I of 8 Approved by Council: roadway in question is public or private. He then outlined the rules Council needs to follow when making their decision. To reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner, Council must find that the Hearing Examiner engaged in an unlawful procedure or failed to follow the prescribed process, his decision was an erroneous interpretation of the laws, it was not supported by evidence that is substantive, it was a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts, or it was outside the authority of the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Connelly explained this is not a time to take any public testimony and that if they come to a decision, he asked that the decision be explained in detail; and that a majority of the Councilmembers must be present to make a decision. Councilmember Gothmann explained that as he reviewed the materials, he wanted to find out when signs for the project were posted and what kind of notice was given regarding the extension of Maxwell wrest of Bell. He said it appears the first time notice was given on changing Bell was January 22nd when a revised map that included Maxwell Avenue was received. January lOth was the date the sign was posted in the neighborhood, therefore it was 12 days after the sigii was posted when the city received a revised map. A. hearing was held around February 8th. He said it would seem to him inadequate notice was given to the neighborhood and to those who would be concerned. He noted that evidence showed Ms. Pollard knew of the Maxwell problem at the time of the hearing; however, he feels we owe it to our citizens to provide adequate notice and he does not feel that happened. He feels the Hearing Examiner failed in his decision. Fie further stated he has a motion prepared but he would like to wait until hearing from the other councilmembers. Councilmember Denenny stated if information given to the Hearing Examiner is of fact at the time of the hearing, his understanding is that they can only look at the information that was presented to the bearing Examiner and unless there was falsification of information, then they cannot take into account whether or not another procedure should have taken place. Mr. Connelly noted it gets complicated because they are talking about two different things. Flora Road is not before this council. It is a public road and purported to be a public road and that issue is not before the council. If Council is convinced there was an unlawful procedure or failure to follow a prescribed process or if they feel the finding that this road should be a public road is not supported by substantial evidence, then they are allowed to reverse the decision. He notified Council he could not give any other guidance. Councilmember Gothmann again reviewed the timeframe for notice given that included Maxwell Avenue as part of the plat. Fie stated it was not until January 31st when a staff report mentioned for the first time that Maxwell Avenue was included. Sign posting and mailings were on January 10th. Therefore, the notice given did not include Maxwell Avenue, and he said he does not believe adequate notice was given; that the I•fearing Examiner thinks this is a minor detail, but he believes it is a major enough detail to reverse that portion of the decision. His opinion is to affirm everything the Hearing Examiner did with the exception of that portion of the plat that includes Maxwell. Councilmember Denenny commented that his struggle is that the Hearing Examiner had to base his decision on the information he was given. If this information wasn't given to him at that time, then he did not act erroneously. However, if more information can be presented to the i-learing Examiner, then they could approve the decision with the exception of Maxwell or send it back to the Hearing Examiner and have him look at it again. Mr. Connelly asked Council if there are specifics to the criteria they are looking at and referenced the criteria on the RCA to establish their decision. He instructed Councilmember Gothmann to determine which criteria lie is looking at to base his decision. Councilmember Gothmann indicated No. 1 on the RCA: The Examiner failed to follow a prescribed process unless the error was harmless, due to the fact insufficient notice was given. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to ratify the decision of the Hearing Examiner with the following exception: delete the extension of Afaxwell west of Bell.fi•oin the approved plat. Meeting Mimics: 06-19-07 Page 2 of 8 Appmved by Council: Councilmember Devleming stated it seems like a reasonable solution if it works. Mayor Wilhite stated the fact that the notice given, according to the timeline provided, was not adequate and was not the prescribed length of notice for everyone to know. Councilmember Gothmann stated the notice given did not have Maxwell on the plat, so the residents who looked at it did not know it would include anything west of Bell. In the hearing, the Hearing Examiner was given the revised map that included Maxwell. Councilmember Devlcming agreed with the Hearing Examiner as to the level of significance of this particular issue, but he believes Councilmember Gothmann has sound reasoning. Vote by Acclamation: Ira Favor: Unanimous Opposed- Alone. Motion carried. Mr. Connelly said he will drag the Council's findings of fact and have them ready for the next Council meeting. 3 Motion Consideration: Pending Litigation - Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly told Council they have signed the Findings and Order confirming the judge's decision which denied the City's motion for Summary Judgment. The lawsuit concerns Appleway unimproved right-of-way. Spokane Valley filed an action with the court asking that its ownership interest: be ratified by the court and the County filed counter-motions asking that their ownership be ratified by the court. The court ruled the County's motion should be granted and the City's denied. The decision now for Council is whether or not to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals, and he informed Council it is a decision to be made fairly quickly in order to comply with time constraints. It was moved by Councilinernber Denenny and seconded that the City of Spokane Valley file an appeal of the Superior Court Decision in the matter of the City of Spokane Valley v. Spokane Cowity regarding the Appleway right of way. Councilmember Munson said lie thinks they are making the right move and that it is an important move toward the development of the City Center. Councilmember DeVleming said he thinks this has been a tough situation and lie encouraged staff to continue to work toward coming to a solution to get to what the City wants and also what the County wants. Councilmember Gothmann said this has been an issue for five years and it is continuing. He thinks this is the best way to handle it. Mayor Wilhite. stated that when the County purchased the piece of land she thinks they thought it would be a roadway, but now she does not know what they are planning to do with it. She agreed with Councilmembers this is the best thing to do. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed None. Motion carried A£-Vlotiot .Coiisid`erat►oii Clear0athA6FJJT-'-" ,rc :1+1cGorniic Planning Manager McCormick gave information regarding the focus of the ClearPath report being the City Center portion of the plan and staff is seeking direction from council with regard to moving forward with City Center portion of project. Mr. McCormick said that Mike Ragsdale and Rob Larson are here to discuss the plan and answer any questions Council might have. The Gibbs report provides an overview of the review he did on the ClearPath plan and project. It was moved by Councilmember :damson and seconded to authorize staff to proceed with Phase 2 of the ClearPath LLC. scope of services regarding City Center real estate. Mike Ragsdale and Rob Larsen of ClearPath briefly reviewed their report, indicated they did an assessment and found the council and key staff and stakeholders have alignment on the overall purpose of the project - to create a sense of identity and community for Spokane Valley. There was some hesitancy in the depth of the community support due to the fact some people are not aware of the project. The library must be a part of the project. The City -needs to provide the leadership, not the Library or the property owners. There is a broadly held sense that there is extensive community outreach to keep them informed of the progress. (Councilmember Schitnniels arrived at 6:45 pm) Meeting Miakaes: 06-I9-07 Page 3 of8 Approved by Council: Everyone seems to support the location of University and Sprague as the City Center. It is historical and physically a good location for the City Center. lie indicated there has been some cluestion about the immediacy of retail and residential in the marketplace today. Their recommendation is to further evaluate what type of product should go there. The purpose is to create a sense of community, but the vision is not clear regardin(r* how much residential, how much retail, what it will look like. He said they are not concerned with that yet, indicating it will come with planning. However, it needs to be developed rapidly due to the library being on a tight schedule. They continued by explaining they believe the City needs to embark on a parallel path, and needs to authorize entering into a discussion on both sides of University to attempt to clarify the ability to gain ownership control of east side; recommend some kind of option procedure, parallel to that, and should pursue interest of property owners on the west to be the developer; encourage the City move aggressively to put a deal together with the f=ire District and with the Library, and said that the library deadline is September. They said if we cannot meet the library's need, we will need to back up and reevaluate the plan because the library is essential, and that we need to identify the needs of the City to get a footprint. He encouraged the City move expeditiously to meet the deadlines as well as with the Appleway projects. Councilmember Munson inquired as to the timeline. Mr. Ragsdale indicated the timeline is driven by the library to meet their ballot measure by September. They need to know the site where they will be located. Councilmember Munson asked if ClearPath will be asking the developers of their ability to do the project. Mr. Larsen said he spoke with Hartland and the property owner and both indicated they do not see themselves as the developer, but the property owner. They are interested in offering their site to the City and jointly seeking a developer. ClearPath would parallel that conversation with the owners on the east side. Mr. Ragsdale clarified their recommendation is to move forward on both sides of University and wants to encourage the City to keep an open mind regarding working with the property owners on both sides. Councilmember Denen.ny asked for clarification regarding whether the recommendation is for direct City acquisition or partnering with someone. Mr. Larson indicated the intention was that property owners on east side wish to sell the property and the property owners on the west side want to partner with the City in the development. Councilmember Munson stated that in the initial report Gibbs hadn't completed his work yet, but indicated that retail and residential was possible and probable; however the indication from the report is that "possible" was used more than "probable." Mr. Ragsdale stated there are several types of retail opportunities available. One is a Town Center with more shop space and local merchants that creates a dynamic where there is quite a bit of square footage.. Mr. Gibbs is saying that traditional retail will work on this type of project but he had the caveat that the emerging idea of the Town Center could work, because it would be the first in the area. He would like to pursue thoroughly and thoughtfully, so that at end of the day they could say this is the preferred plan for the area. City Manager Mercier directed Mr. Ragsdale to page 11, second bullet point, and asked him to explain "key" decisions that would be made by appointed City staff. Mr. Ragsdale said he would like a "go-to" person for quick answers. They also found the need for additional employees for this project, and would like the City to provide a person with clout to be able to make these decisions. Mr. Mercier asked that ClearPath provide a list of the types of decisions this person will need to make. He then asked for explanation on last bullet. Mr. Ragsdale explained that as the City begins the preliminary negotiations, there is a chance some property owners may want to go in another direction. If this occurs, ClearPath may turn to Council and ask that they put some kind of moratorium in place to maintain the vision of the MasterPlan and the project. Councilmember T)eVleming asked what kind of decisions the stiff person would be charged with making. Mr. Ragsdale said policy decision would go to council, but envisions process questions may be answered by staff; for example the library proximity to City Hall or decisions on performance. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment: node given. Meeting Minutes: 06-19-07 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: Councilmember Munson said he believes Spokane Valley should go on to Phase 2 but he is concerned with the disconnect between the Gibbs report and the Echo Northwest report about what will go in there. Mayor Wilhite stated she is concerned with the month of September, and stated she hopes the second phase report comes before September and that she would like a timeline. Mr. Larsen indicated their intention is to have the Phase 2 report: done by August. Councilmember Munson stated August 14 is the last day to put anything on the ballot. Mr. Larsen indicated the library defined September as the date to select a site for the library. Mayor Wilhite stated Council has worked hard against doing moratoriums and encouraging development without those measures. Councilmember DcVleming agreed that getting agreement and creating partnerships are better than moratoriums. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Motion carried. S~ oftoneC~''osisidera[ioii Gibbs`Plarinit,' oup inc. --7-' Nlc`C rint'ck Mayor Wilhite stated that staff pointed out the need to have the Gibbs Planning Group further look at the type of businesses and development to go in to the City Center. It was moved by Councilnaetnber Munson and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement with the Gibbs Planning Group in an amount not to exceed $25,000 plus direct reimbursables for services regarding City Center development, and to include the agreement in the second 2007 budget adjustment. Councilmember Gothmann said we need to recognize the work o the Gibbs group and thinks Nye are very fortunate to have him working on this project. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment: none given. Mayor Wilhite said she feels we need to delve further into the Gibbs report and its disconnect with Eco Northwest. Councilmember DeVleaming stated he is concerned with some of the assumptions in the Gibbs report and that no other major retail will be developed within 15 miles of the subject site, suggesting that is a substantial statement because that area includes Spokane and Post Falls. Councilmember Munson said he felt they were talking about a City Center retail, but it is not defined. Mayor Wilhite asked if we commission the Gibbs group to do this study if he will come in person to give a report to Council so they can ask questions? Mr. McCormick said it is anticipated that as the initial project starts up, Gibbs and Clear-Path will meet in mid-July to get questions answered. Vote by Acclatnotion: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:22 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. RTGtILAR ST1J'DV SESSION ITEIMS: -Mike Jackson 6. ORB Presentation, Outdoor P ols _ Park and Recreation Director Jackson explained he has been working with OU Architects to design the renovation on outdoor pools; and that Jeff Anderson of 0813 is here to present the plan. ORB has come up with a plan that came in under the $1.6 million budget. If council is ready, the next step is to take the ideas and put them into a formal motion for next week's agenda. Mr. Anderson explained it was the decision of council to use funds to add amenities to existing pools. They had four community meetings where they presented current trends in aquatics facilities and tried to spark imagination. The meetings were causal and encouraged questions and input from kids. Consensus was not surprising as to the most popular features. -By adding different features to the pools there would be added benefit to each and increased usership. The pool facilities themselves would not add increased usership on their own and there would not be a need to add additional parking or bathrooms; however, we ' do need additional lifeguards. He recommended upgrades to current bathhouses to bring them up to code, such as accessibility/access. Security was an issue that came up during meetings, related to vandalism, Meeting N- inutes: 06-19-07 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: loitering after hours, and trespassing. They also came across water pressure issues and the filtration systems would need to be addressed. The highest demand is to have a 50 meter competition pool for the community; however, he reiterated this is not part of the scope for this particular project. Another issue i' was to extend the season for pools and he recommended that be considered in long range pool planning. Councilmember Gothmann commended ORB and Spokane Valley staff in their efforts to listen to public input. He recommended building a separate mechanical room and running additions separately due to current capacity of current pools filtration and flow rates. Councilmember Munson stated there is always a challenge with one group getting one amenity versus another and asks if it is possible to have other options at other pools and possibly more than one feature. Budgetary issues limit what and how much we can do. Councilmember Gothmann asked about the usership at three pools. Terrace View has about: double of Valley Mission and Park Road. A spray park was not incorporated in the plan, but was a fourth idea presented at the meetings. It has no depth of water, but rather a pad with color and toys and it does not need to be within pool enclosure although that is recommended. Features that are included in a spray park can be incorporated into other pool features. M.r. Jackson said he believes having something at each park will help to get people out to the different parks; and research suggested people will drive to different locations for the different features. The goal is to get as many users as possible, multigenerational, with multi-accessibility. Mayor Wilhite commended ORR on distribution of ideas and working with the community and businesses to compliment what is already there rather than competing. She thinks this is a good investment and would like to see an increase in family use. Providing shade and tables is a good way to do that. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to see prioritizing of different options so when it goes out to bid it could help in making a determination. Councilmember Schimmels questioned seeking additional parking. Mr. Jackson said he will take a look at adding additional parking. He also indicated there is an increase in people walking to the parks. They have a new Park Ambassador and part of that job is to tally cars in the parking lots to help gauge the parking situation. Councilmember Munson asked if we find one feature to be very popular, what is the capability in future years to add another feature to a park - physical challenges as opposed to financial. Mr. Jackson indicated there are property constraints. Valley Mission has the best opportunity for expansion and Terrace View would need to sacrifice park space, and park space is highly used, as well as comments they've received about not cutting down any trees. Parking is also an issue. Councilmember DeVleming indicated for future decisions he would like to see discussion on adding a pool in Greenacres. 7. Jail Issues - Rick VanLeuven Deputy City Attorney Driskell introduced Chief Rick VanUeuven, Lt. Mike Sparber and Jail Commander Jerry Brady. He provided background information as to what has gone on over the past four years and led to this point regarding the need for a new jail. Currently we contract with Spokane County for jail services. A pressing issue for Spokane County is an increase in inmate population. The jail was not designed to hold the number of people it currently has. They have added some facilities and moved some things around and changed some of the ways they jail people. Over the next 10 years they could anticipate an additional 65 inmates per year, causing large problems. The catch and release program was designed for third degree or minor offenses during times when the jail population is over 650, there is an emergency status for how people would be booked, taken to the station, and released for minor offenses. The rationale is the belief that they would be more likely to show up to court. It allowed police to gather information on perpetrators and fill in their database. The court is collecting information as to whether it has been effective in getting folks to show up to court. The Airport Board notified Geiger that they are discontinuing their tease in 2012. Geiger is managed by the Board of i Meeting Minutes; 06-19-07 Pagc G of 8 Approved by Council: County Commissioners and the jail is managed by Spokane County Sheriff, they are looking at how to consolidate that leadership. Chief VanLeuven said he recognizes this is a long-term process and a short-term fix is not sufficient. He is looking at programs to divert people out of jail and keep that population down. It is a collaborative effort that involves many people. Councilmember DeVleming has been to the jail and has seen how overcrowded it is. He asked if this is a council decision or will it come down to the voters. Mr. Driskell stated the County Commissioners are likely to make a decision and recognize they need die community support. If Council agrees with the need for a facility, whatever the proposal, they will need broad community support. Councilmember Munson said Spokane Valley needs to define what the role of Spokane Valley Council will be, other than support, such as paying the bills. He inquired as to what direction they are leaning toward, whether it be temporary buildings, a campus or another option and what does staff see as the final outcome. Chief VanLeuven said they sent out a Request for Qualifications to look at the proposals and access the needs. Mayor Wilhite said she would like them to report on the results of the RFQ's at a future Council meeting. City Manager Mercier discussed the timeline as far as going to a ballot measure before voters in November 2008, and asked if there is a sense of scale as to cost. Chief VanLeuven indicated in the neighborhood of $200 million dollars. Councilmember Munson stated we need to start listing and prioritizing these capital projects and get moving on them. 8. Crime Reporting Options - Councilmember_D_eVleminQ Councilmember DeVleming gave a history of Crimecheck use in the area. In 2004 Spokane and Spokane County revamped and then did away with Crimecheck. Crimecheck was replaced with a crime reporting center wcbpage and modified hours. He would like to bring back Crimecheck, but not necessarily staffed 24 hours. Crime reporting has been going down because folks aren't willing to go through the online process. He is trying to do sometlli.ng that will be acceptable to Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Spokane County, as well as outlying areas. His estimation is it would take 5120,000 to put a system like Crimecheck back into place. Mayor Wilhite inquired as to how other counties handle these types of calls? Councilmember DeVleming said he is not sure. Mayor Wilhite explained that the 2-1-1 was budgeted by the Governor as an i.nformat.ion line, a number the community would like to put into place. Councilmember DeVleming explained that is a number primarily for mental health. He explained whatever happens; a major component will be the educational element which is not included in the $120,000. That money is the portion to get the system started. City Manager Mercier asked if Councilmember DeVleming is looking for a financial commitment or simply gathering data to move ahead with the process. Councilmember DeVleming wants to know if Council is ready to make a financial commitment. Councilmember Gothmann suggested we look at other options for funding such as I/10 of I% taxes and that we look into planning with the County. City Manager Mercier asked for the incremental increase in cost and also asked Councilmember DeVleming to look into what the other 38 countries are doing in the suite to handle crime reporting. He thinks this would be helpful information to gauge Council's feelings on these proposals. Councilmember Munson said he is concerned with the educational process and is not encouraged it can be done. He would like to know what the cost is to educate the public. Chief Van-Leuven stated that Partners in Crime Prevention is looking for the opportunity to move forward and start educating the public. 9. Police Department Update - Rick VanLeuven Chief VanLeuven reported on crime trends and outlined the goals and objectives of the department The current objectives and goals include enhancing the identity of Spokane Valley Police Department, emphasizing department-wide strategies and goals, and development of informal recognition program for J employees. Meeting eNtinutes: 06-19-07 Pagc 7 of 8 Approved by Council: It was moved by Cowiciln ember Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:15 p. m. - 10 Miscellaneous Financial Policies - Ken Thompsqn In the interest of time, it was decided to move this item to the next council meeting. 1 1 Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor Wilhite There were no suggestions for changes. 12. Information Only Hall Request for Proposal Memo -Neil Kersten This item was information only and was not presented or discussed. 13. Council Check in - Mayor Wilhite: There were no Comments. 14. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier: There were no Comments 1✓XFCUTIVE SESSTO\;: none. It was moved by Councilmeinber Muison, seconded and unanimotwly agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Diana Wilhite, Mayor A"1'TEST: Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk N-lecting Minutes: 06-19-07 Page 8 of8 Approved by Council: DRAFT AMI Ri rES 1 Joint City Council/ Spokane County Commission Meeting Monday, June 18, 2007 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Spokane County Human Resources Training Room, Main Floor 1229 W. Mallon Avenue, Spokane, WA. Attendance: Ci , of Spokane Valley Spokane County Mayor Diana Wilhite Commissioner Bonnie Mager Councilmember Mike DeVleming Commissioner Todd Miekle Councilmember Bill Gothmann Chairman Mark Richard Councilmember Rich Munson Councilmember Gary Schimmels (arrived 2:02 p.m.) Guests: City Manager Dave Mercier Marshall Farnell, Chief.Executive Officer Deputy City Manager Nina Regor Ross Kelley, Director of Engineering & Roads Police Chief Rick Vanl..euven Bruce Rawls, Director of Utilities Deputy City Clerk Carrie Acosta Jim.Emacio, Deputy Prosecutor Planning Commissioner Gail Koegel Undersheriff Tower Bob Brueggeman, County Engineer Absent: Gerry Gemmill, County Operations Deputy Mayor Steve 'Taylor Bruce Hunt, Building & Planning Councilmember Dick Denenny Pam Knutsen, Building & Planning Ian Horlacher, Building & Planning Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board The meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m. by Chairman Richard. He asked if there were any comments or additions to the agenda; there were none. Joint Council/Commissioners Agenda Item: 1. Sales Tax for Public Safe and Infrastructure Spokane Valley Deputy City Manager R.eoor commented that she was at a meeting where this issue was discussed. During strategic planning they discussed the options primarily around transportation and financial challenges with rising material costs and inflation, and lack of federal funding and grants. Staff was asked to come up with funding alternatives. This began the conversation relating to transportation, although it looks like it may also be a public safety issue. They also had a preliminary discussion about the Valley's challenges and how they might partner with Spokane County to share strategies. Mayor Wilhite asked if the County is looking at an increase in sales tax and a separate fee. Commissioner Mielke explained a S20 tab surcharge authorized by the legislature takes effect July 21s' and requests that within the first six months, they have a plan for collecting fiords from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) and other interlocal agreements. It does not go to a public vote. Councilmember Munson asked if Spokane County will lead the TBD with municipalities legislating. Commissioner Mielke responded yes. Chairman Richard indicated they are not leaning toward anything yet, but it has tight titneframe. He would like to discuss the shortfalls. Commissioner Nfielke explained that they want to take a regional approach to transportation. For the first six months they want municipalities to get together to regionalize the program. Spokane County could opt out, the City of Spokane Valley could opt out, or both could opt in and move forward. Councilmember DeVleming asked if there are funds for building new roads. Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-18-2007 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Commissioner Miclke explained that the County has a road fund but it has a number of strings attached. For example, if they have a project that crosses boundaries, Spokane County into Spokane Valley, it is hard to get the project through. This other funding option would provide more flexibility across boundaries. The sales tax increase is time sensitive as far as putting something on the ballot. One-third of the increase is to be used for criminal justice, with 60% going to Spokane County and 40% to be divided up among other jurisdictions; 2/10 is still available to be used for any purpose but does go to a public vote. There used to be a 45 day notice requirement; however, with the change of the primary elections it is now 82 days. This means by August 14, 2007 we need to decide the ballot issues for the coming year. Infrastructure is one of the primary issues and coals for Spokane County and they need to look at the challenges. Commissioner Mielke wants to look at the broader issues such as stormwater rather than just roads. He said there may be more flexibility for the City and County to work together on joint ventures. Spokane Valley City Manager Mercier inquired as to how the $700,000 per year is divided. Commissioner Mielke stated it is divided to the jurisdictions based on population. Councilmember DeVle.ming asked if this increase takes place, would the distribution of fiords still be based on population and not miles of road in each jurisdiction. Commissioner Mielke responded yes, and Deputy Prosecutor Gmacio confirmed that the allocation model is based on population. Councilmember Munson agreed that both Spokane Valley and Spokane County face problems and challenges. Spokane Valley has been working on its Master Plan and has inventoried the condition of roads in Spokane Valley. Once that has been quantified, we will know what the City's needs for funds will be. First, data is needed as to what the annual investment would be in order to maintain the current condition of the roads, maintenance only, with no new roadways. He indicated he expects this report will give thorough and accurate data and should drive the strategic plan; however, that data is not available at this point. Ple is looking for something that targets maintenance specifically once we get the Street Master Plan. Commissioner Mielke mentioned the ability of jurisdictions to use the funds in more flexible ways, not just for roads, but for infrastructure. He explained where one jurisdiction may need roads, another may need stormwater. Councilmember Munson asked if there is an advantage to Spokane Valley going with the County rather than going on its own for additional transportation funding. Commissioner Mielke said the financial implications are not clear at this point. He explained the 1110 of 1% is distributed County-wide but with regard to the $20 surcharge the issue with i.nterlocal legislation provides the option to each entity to opt in or opt out. Vehicles are licensed in each jurisdiction. Rough estimation of revenue to the unincorporated area is $1.2 million; they are still waiting on those answers from the Department of Revenue. Councilmember Gothmann asked if it would be logical to tax vehicles and have those dollars go directly toward streets, indicating that is easily identifiable for the public. Pie pointed out that the disadvantage is that folks don't like to pay for things they can't see and it doesn't generate much revenue either. Mayor Wilhite indicated that another reason she would like the report back before going to the public and asking for money is so the Valley can show the citi7xns how much funding it needs and where the), will spend the funds. Local communities are being asked to fund their own community needs. People want to know what their benefit will be. In this case, this is a user fee that needs to stay in the community. Chairman Richard stated that whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, the Governor has made the message clear: more and more local municipalities need to partner with each other in maintaining infrastructure. They have talked about tolling and looked at other alternatives, but the reduction in federal dollars that help fund construction and maintenance combined with increasing costs make it challenging to keep up with the community demands. County Engineer Brueggeman stated that most of the granting agencies are financed through gas taxes at the state or federal level. Funding sources stagnate with the level of gas tax Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-18-2007 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT and with inflation. Grants have less impact on construction and do not go as far as they used to. Local \ agencies need to pick up a larger share of matching funds. Chairman Richard asked if this is caused by a reduction in the flow of dollars or stagnation. Engineer Brueggeman indicated it is largely stagnation and the fact that more local jurisdictions are competino for funds. Liberty Lake and Airway Heights are also competing for the same stagnant amounts of grants available. Spokane County has had the most aggressive Road Improvement District (RID) in the state. The County currently has a backlog of about 50 neighborhoods that have interest in Ries; they can only do three or four a year, so that means they have a couple decades of backlog for improvement. Councilmember Gothmann asked what the formula is for paying for the R.TDs. The County pays approximately 15% and the neighborhood pays the balance. If the roadway is a through-street, the County picks up more. City Manager Mercier suited Spokane Valley has the ability to create Local Improvement Districts (L•!Ds), but they have not actively pursued that yet. Councilmember Gothmann commented the County passed along a great roadway system to Spokane Valley. Councilmember Munson stated the bottom line is we need to get more. information. The August 14 date is the deadline to get things onto the ballot. Councilmember DeVleming said he doesn't want to go to the voters until we know what we will be paying for and where we will get the dollars. He suites! Council will need to hear the presentation for its Street master plan. That first discussion will be during one of the July meetings. Chairman Richard asked that Council have discussions about alternative Financial options and that they realize them in terms of revenue and the pros and cons so that when they are presented with the different needs they will have already discussed other financing options. The item they are looking to get on the August ballot is the 1/10t° of 1% sales tax increase. Chief Executive Officer Marshall Farnell stated there are various options for the jail facility. He indicated they need to get a plan that addresses location, expansion, and rehabilitation. 'T'heir goal is to put something on the fall 2005 ballot, and likely a bond issue for some of the funding. He said they are talking about a large dollar amount and they would likely need a special levy, requiring 60% voter approval for the bond issue. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the 9-1-1 system, the City's plans for the Spokane Valley City Center, capital expenses along with developing the Sprague/Appleway corridor and the City's need to have a long-term plan. He suggested we state each region's capital needs to show the taxpayers the overall vision and how it will be paid for. Councilmember Munson stated we need to provide good information to the public to justify asking for funds. Chairman Richard asked if there should be regional legislation for sales tax or a greater percentage of what currently goes to the state, whether we should ask for a greater return on the amount of dollars paying in. Where can we create more efficiency? Councilmember Munson stated the initial reaction from the state is what can be cut if you want more funding? Councilmember DeVleming stated if a larger percentage of sales tax is going back to the state, that could be a potential place to fill in sonic. of the gap. Therc has been some discussion on impact fees for transportation as another part of the solution. He would like to see more exploration in those areas before going to the taxpayers and asking them for money. Chairman Richard said he strongly understands why voters retracted the motor vehicle excise tax; they felt they were paying, for very expensive government services out of the vehicle licensing. He suggested giving the voters a menu of what the fees will pay for so they can see where their dollars are being directed. City Manager Mercier asked as a point of clarification whether the commissioners are asking Council to add 1/10 or 2/10. Answer: 1/10. Councilmember Munson explained the Valley's projections show us Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-13-2007 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT going negative in road funds in 2010, so these issues needs to be addressed. Every capital need has a dollar amount on it and it is not cheap; jail services, wastewater treatment, roads, public safety. Commissioner Richard suggested the group move on to discuss Regional Transportation Concurrency, agenda item 5, and get together again in July to discuss each municipality's top capital needs and the anticipated dollars required to meet those needs. Mayor Wilhite stated she would like to see the County's list of capital needs in writing, and Spokane Valley would provide the same type of list to the County, prior to that meeting so they can better address them. Mr. Horlacher, County Building & Planning, stressed the need to establish a long term capital facilities plan. He stated the money generated from the 1110 of 1% can be used to operate facilities. We are obligated to have statements "For" and "Against" if something is placed on the ballot to be included in the voters pamphlets. It could be there is not sufficient time to get something on this year's ballot. 5. Regional Transportation Concurrenck Chairman Richard mentioned the Regional Transportation Concurrency Plan as a means to mitigate growth management on a regional level. The City of Spokane is working on an impact fee ordinance. He said the County has been approached and folks indicate they want the fees to be regional rather than by jurisdiction. They took the issue to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) who put together an analysis which looks at greater participation from the business and development community. Transportation mitigation fees will play a part in interlocals. When development moves into the County that has an impact on the City, there is a model in place to calculate the distribution of the impact fees. Chairman Richard stated the study is a methodology for determining a fee. It is not necessarily looking at concurrency, and the possibility of traffic count system inaccuracies should not affect the study. lie stated there needs to be open dialogue on this topic because he thinks it will be a very big issue. Councilmember Munson mentioned the concurrency issues are different among different jurisdictions. For example, the concurrency issues between Spokane County and the City of Spokane are going to be different from the concurrency issues between Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake. Chairman Richard explained that if the methodology for calculation of the fees can be consistent, those differences shouldn't be a factor. Council member Gothman.n indicated he is open to a parameter and discussing solutions to regionalizing concurrency. Mayor Wilhite said she will put this issue on a July Council agenda to discuss further. 2. Wastewater Treatment Facility Governance Commissioner Mielke reminded the group of previous attempts at establishing a single sewer system. There are a number of moving pieces that either create or limit the opportunity. Over the last two and one- half years, regulators and legislators have been looking at the watershed approaches and areas are either in compliance or they are not. To take a regional approach, the best entities positioned to take the lead are Spokane Valley and Spokane County. Because Liberty Luke wanted to expand, their decision was made prior to negotiations and they now need to bring their new facility into compliance. The City of Spokane has financial and technical challenges. Airway Heights has unique challenges regarding re-use, concern with the water table on the west plains, and a trunk-line they don't how if they own or are just using. He suggested the County and Spokane Valley determine what they want to achieve through wastewater governance; dependable service at the lowest possible rates, and using enterprise funds rather than general funds. Constituents want the most reasonable rates for providing service. An advisory group would be established to set the rates. An issue to be addressed would the use of in-house employees versus contracting out, with one objective being the determination of future operating costs and employee costs. They have looked at the issue of growth in the area and have discussed how to make a decision on future growth. They also talked about devising a business model. 1=1e said the idea was to -be specific with common objectives whether within interlocals or a stand-alone entity. With regard to accessing a utility tax to the system, there would be no utility tax; however, a jurisdiction could charge a utility tax to residents within their area. Rates established by the system would cover maintenance, operation and debt service. The group did not discuss a utility tax. Councilmember Munson asked if the costs are greater than Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-18-2007 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT originally thought, would the County take a portion of whatever utility tax another jurisdiction may have l put into place for their rate payers. Chairman Richard suited that has not been discussed by the County, but doesn't think statutorily they have the ability to do so. Under bonds they will be required to raise the rates in order to pay the bonds. He stated the County doesn't have that authority so that has never discussed. Commissioner Miekle discussed the handling of interdepartmental transfers and stated enterprise fiends are stand-alone entities, so the system covers its own cost or contracts with an outside entity, but would not do any interdepartmental transfers of funds. Councilmember Munson asked how to go about formalizing that type of an agreement and where we are in that process. Commissioner Mielke said our next step is to submit a technology plan and have it approved by Ecology. Ecology needs to implement the TMDL. He said we should be very close to sitting down and formalizing operational agreements. City Manager Mercier inquired as to Commissioner Mielke's best guess for an Ecology timeline. Commissioner Mielke indicated it is a moving target. It is likely the `I'NtDL would not be approved until the beginning of 2008 - at least six months. Most of the reluctance to engage in specificity came from the City of Spokane. Some of the issue was in how to deal with utility taxes as well as how to treat Spokane's asset, their wastewater treatment plant. If Spokane were to become part of the regional plan, they would want: to be compensated for their treatment plant. This is a key clement in progressing with any kind of regional discussions. Mayor Wilhite stated this is an important topic to get moving on; and she suggested Spokane Valley join with the County and move forward, then ask other jurisdictions to join. She said she does not want to wait until others are ready before proceeding. Commissioner Mielke said the plan should allow for flexibility for others to join later if they choose, but he agrees the County and Valley shouldn't wait for them. Chairman Richard said they are contemplating bringing in Maxwell HDR (an engineering agency specializing in wastewater systems); he asked if they need to wait for approval of the TMDL or can they embark upon that now? Utilities Director Rawls stated the Department of Ecology isn't telling anyone when the TNtD.L will be released for public comment. He said once released, the public comment process can take a long time. Mayor Wilhite asked what they will do about governance. Utilities Director Rawls said the T1vf.DL is out of their hands right now. Commissioner Mielke would like to take discussion and create a written document: and initiate the process before soliciting other jurisdictions and move forward. The design-build-operate process is moving forward and they are not waiting for Ecology to approve before beginning that process. He stated they are still moving forward, seeking permits, and working on the final approval for a facilities plan; they are proceeding as though everything will be successful rather than waiting. He said the look to be on-line in 2011. Convnissioner Mielke and Utilities Director Rawls said they will put these thoughts in writing and will have that prepared by July 18, 2007. They will add that to the list of topics for the July Joint County/City meeting. 3. Contract Services Mayor Wilhite inquired as to how things are going with the Valley/County contracts. She asked if everyone felt they were working well together, if there are aspects anyone would like to address, and if the County still wants to contract with the Valley. Commissioner Mager stated as she was talking with folks in their Road Department, there was concern they are taking on too much when they combine the services provided to Spokane Valley through contract as well as providing services to the County. Commissioner Mielke stated he has two concerns: (1) He wouldn't support transferring a service from the County to the Valley; and then being asked later to take it back. He does not want to be in the position of hiring staff, then laying them off, and (2) the level of service provided. He said typically, incorporated areas have a higher level of service than unincorporated areas. He would be concerned in contracting with Spokane Valley if the level of service fell below whatever the standard for Spokane Valley is - due to the fact that it is "Spokane County" named as the service provider. For example, Spokane Valley was Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-18-2007 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT contemplating lowering their level of service on snow plowing, adopting a lower level than what the County currently has with regard to residential streets. Councilmember DeVleming asked what determines what the level of service is, and who it is that decides. City Manager Mercier explained there is a certain amount of mythology and semantics involved in the discussion of levels of service. Some is in relation to what comes first: there is no hard and fast number of inches of snow needed before sending a plow or a "4-inch" plow because it is based on forecasts, etc. Chairman Richard gave street sweeping services as an additional example and whether Spokane Valley wanted to take sweeping away from the County or contract it to a private agency? "bile summer maintenance was taken off the County contract due to a three-year schedule of transition. Chairman Richard stated he believes the County is interested in contracting with Spokane Valley. He would like to make sure doing so is a win-win situation for both and that the County is recouping its costs. He said it is beneficial to contract with the Valley because it is beneficial to Spokane Valley. As a long-term strategy that may need to come to an end. He asked how long it would take for the Valley to take on this project. City Manager Mercier said he thinks the contracting is going fine, that the concerns are being dealt with as they come up. He asked as a point of clarification if the County is looking to establish an end-point in the future. Chairman Richard indicated the contract is ambiguous. He asked that staff agree to revisit the contract and determine if it is a transition plan or an on-going contract with no end clause. There is a difference in viewpoints as to its interpretation. Councilmember DeVleming said he would like to see long-term contracting between the Valley and County. He would like to see if arrangements can be made for long-tern provided it benefits both sides. Councilmember Munson said the time to make changes is when times are good. tf the County wants to contract with the City, he would like to look at long-term contracting, but if not, he thinks Spokane Valley needs to look at other avenues. Mayor Wilhite said she would like to continue this discussion. Chairman Richard suggested he meet with Mayor Wilhite and members of staff to continue the discussion prior to the next meeting to clear up any mixed signals regarding the contracting and getting back into alignment. A Break was called at 3:40 p.m.; and at 3:45 pan. the meeting reconvened. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Chairman Richard and Mayor Wilhite agreed to drop item 4a.) Joint Planning Agreements from the agenda and give an update instead. Chairman Richard said the County is ratifying their interlocal agreement and it is the goal of the Board to have reviewed the draft interlocal agreement for the July meeting. The Board has the draft. Mayor Wilhite requested the Board provide any changes to Council in writing prior to the July meeting so they can be reviewed. Councilmember Munson asked that they look at the draft as a template, not as the final document; it is a start to the conversation. The Board's agreement with Spokane Valley that will be used as a template is based off the Moran Prairie Aquatic Facility project. Chairman Richard said he is concerned about the Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Hunt gave a snapshot as to where the County is and an update on the Comprehensive Plan. State statutes require updates on the Urban Gro%vt:h Area (UGA). Spokane County took it upon itself to update its UGA every five years. Planning directors have been working on updating the plan and are hoping to have a report in the next few days that will summarize where they are now and what it will take to finish the job. The data is updated quarterly or biannually. Hopefully they will then be better prepared to answer the questions of the public. Councilmember Munson mentioned he felt early on there was not a problem of time, but a problem in process. He said they were constantly reinventing the process and things were not codified. Now he is excited they are using the Ad-hoc committee. He said they took a positive approach to solve the problems and move the process along. Commissioner Mielke said the subcommittee members met earlier that Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-18-2007 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council-. DRAFT morning to talk about establishing a well-defined process, regardless of timeline intervals. He said they need to know what they need to do, by what timeline, and if the timelines are not met that cannot handicap the rest of the process. The law gives a timeframe for annual amendments. Jurisdictions within the urban core impact each other so there needs to be a definition of what triggers when to do an update if it is to be less than what was previously agreed upon. Chairman Richard said he presented a matrix and menu of options as to what could be used as different trigger points as well as annual measurements that would "trigger" a review. He said the measurements would give legitimacy to the process rather than represent political views. Councilmember Munson said CTED(Community Trade and Economic Development) paid for a study to identify impediments and determine which are real and which are not; there aren't any that can't be dealt with through joint planning. Chairman Richard said because they are behind in having the plan updated in a timely fashion, the Steering Committee will hear comments from small rural towns at the next meeting. They might also include non-UGA in the 2007 cycle and perhaps contemplate putting non-UGA amendments with small town amendments, process the others and ratify the plan in 2008. They are looking for a way to take care of the backlog of those who have been waiting over two years. He asked that Spokane Valley consider that option. The next joint County/City meeting will be July 23, 2007 from 2:00 -5:00 p.m. at Spokane Valley City Hall. Agenda items will include capital projects, regional transportation concurrency, joint planning, wastewater governance, and sales tax. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. ATTEST: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Joint County/City Meeting Minutes 06-18-2007 Pa-c, 7 of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ( I Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information admin. report X pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-011 Amending Credit Card Changes GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City Code (an ordinance) regarding credit card use. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City Council passed an ordinance in 2003 regarding credit card use. After four years of using the ordinance, several changes are suggested. The Finance Committee reviewed these changes earlier this year. The City Council conducted the first reading of the amended ordinance on June 26, 2007 0 BACKGROUND: Two changes are proposed for the city credit card ordinance: 1. Change the name of the form used to report charges to the credit card. The form remains the same but the ordinance will reference the "Expense Reimbursement Form" rather than a form that does not exist. 2. Increase the limit on the cards to $5,000 from $3,000. This will allow more streamlined use of the cards without bumping up against the lower limit which then restricts the use of the cards. Staff is often generating two checks to the bank each month to stay within the current limit of $3,000 on several credit cards. OPTIONS: 1.) Direct staff to proceed with the ordinance changes. 2) Proceed with some of the ordinance changes: 3) Do not make any changes RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance 07-011 amending credit card limits. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No significant budget/financial impact is expected. i STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 07-01.1 AN ORDINANCE OF TBT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY 5TUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.65.020(A)(3) TO INCREASE THE CREDIT LE TT FOR CREDIT CARDS ISSUED TO THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR OTFfER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATED 'i KERETO. . WFLFRFAS, the City of Spokane Valley adopted SVMC 2.65, providing authorization for use of credit cards by City Council members and certain staff members to facilitate efficient operation of City functions, and to provide limitations thereon; and W)JERFAS, credit cards are used by staff for purchasing goods, supplies and other items from vendors, or incurring registration, training or travel expenses in connection with the performance of their duties on behalf of the City by the City Council and staff; and WYMMEAS, the original credit limit for such credit cards for the City was established at $3,000.00, with a limited number of credit cards having been obtained by the City; and WHEREAS, due to the low credit limit and limited number of credit cards assigned to the City, the City Council and staff have experienced difficulties using the City credit cards from time to time; and WHF,REAS, credit card limits may be greater at retailers when the dollar amount of purchases and/or the frequency of purchases warrants a greater credit limit; and WHEREAS, staffreconvnends increasing the credit limit from $3,000 to $5,000 per card; and WHEREAS, the following changes are necessary for a more efficient operation of day-to-day functions. follows: below. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as Section 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 2.65.020 is hereby amended as set forth SVMC 2.65.020 issuance, use and control of credit cards. The City adopts the following system for the issuance, use and control of credit cards by City officials and employees. A. The finance director is authorized to obtain City credit cards under the following system, which provides for the distribution, authorization, control, credit limits and payment of bills through the use of the credit cards by City officials and employees. Issuance and Use. Credit cards may be issued to the City of Spokane Valley and used by City officials and authorized employees for purchasing goods, supplies and other items frorn vendors or incurring registration, training or travel expenses in connection with the performance of their duties on behalf of the City. Ordinance 07-011 Amending SVMC 2.65.020 Page 1 of3 D R.A FT Authorization and Control. Upon authorization from the city manager or designee, City employees may obtain credit cards from the finance dircctor who shall maintain a ledger of the individual receiving the credit card, including the date the card was received. City council members may obtain credit cards from the finance director. The finance director shall implement accounting controls to ensure the proper use of credit cards and credit card funds. Credit Limits. The credit limit shall not exceed V".,000 per card. Payment of Bills. The finance director shall establish a procedure for the prompt payment of all credit card bills on or before the due date. Unauthorized Charges. No official or employee shall use the City-issued credit card for non-City business purposes. No charge(s) shall exceed amounts established and available in the City budget. 6. Cash Advances. Cash advances on credit cards are prohibited. B. Expenses incident to authorized travel may be charged to a City-issued credit card provided the official or employee returns to the City %0h credit card receipt; anted r: h;m'f+t foci tin Lftc-cam, in accardance with the City travel policies and procedures. v, c\tk n,e reimhurwm.en1 f~irni_is. ako desired. If certain credit charges are disallowed as a result of audit or City policy, such charge must be repaid to the City with the City having the right to withhold funds payable to the official or employee up to the amount of the disallowed charge including interest at the rate charged by the credit card company. C. The city manager is authorized to revoke the use of any charge card issued and immediately require the surrender of the credit card. The city manager may deliver a revocation order to the charge card company with the City not being liable for any future costs incurred after the date of revocation. D. The city manager is authorized to adopt any additional rules or policies necessary to implement the provisions of the ordinance codified in this section. Section 2. Remainder Unchanaod. The remaining portions of SVMC 2.65 arc unchanged by this legislativc action. Section 3. bilk. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effex-tive Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Ordinance 07-011 Amending SVMC 2.65.020 Page 2 of 3 DR-k" PASS 11) by the Citv Council this day of Juh. 2(K) Mavor. Diana Wilhite ATITST: City Cleric, Christine Bainbridge Approved aQ to Form: Office of the City Attorne) I_tate of PuNication: II:fIerti" c I )atc Ordinance 07-011 Amending SVMC 2.65.020 I'age 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: - Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of proposed Ordinance 07-012, right-of-way vacation request (S'I-V-02-07) for approximately 750 linear feet of Shannon Avenue. PREVIOUS COUNCIUCOMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted Resolution No. 07- 005 on May 8, 2007, setting the date for a public hearing held on June 14, 2007. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to approve the attached findings and to recommend conditional approval of the vacation. No new public comment shall be accepted since the public hearing has been closed. The Planning Commission made the following findings as part of their recommendation to City Council: 1. 3-he Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2007 to receive testimony concerning the vacation of a portion of right-of-way approximately 750 linear feet and 30 feet wide of Shannon Avenue cast of previously vacated Shannon Avenue (file no. S'I-V-03-05) further located north of Union Pacific Railroad and Indiana Avenue. The date of the hearing was set by City Council on May 8, 2007 by Spokane Valley Resolution No. 07-005. Notice of the hearing was published on May 18, 2007 in the Valley Herald. the official newspaper of the City, was posted in three conspicuous locations within the City, was provided to the petitioners and BACKGROUND: The applicant's representative Chad Riggs, J.R. Donnell Engineering on behalf of Thomas Hamilton the owner of parcels 45103,0244, 45103.0245 and 45103.0203 requests a vacation of Shannon Avenue approximately 750 feet in length and 30 feet in width cast of previously vacated tihann"11 Avenue in 200' 1 lie street is located north of Union Pacific Railroad and Indiana Avenue. abutting property owners, and a sign was placed on the property providing notice of the hearing also completed on May 21, 2007. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the report prepared by the Spokane Valley Community Development Department in detail. 3. The vacation of the street/alley will permit full development of the property for beneficial uses and permit appropriate levels of maintenance. 4. The Public Works Department submitted comments which analyzed the portions of Shannon Avenue for need and future use and responded by specifying Shannon Avenue is not required for public access and is being replaced by the continuation of Mansfield Avenue through a recommended condition. 5. Given the present age and condition of adjacent development, it is unlikely that conditions will change in the future to provide a greater use or need than presently exists. This portion of the street has no continuation at either end. It is an inaccessible landlocked island of public right-of- way; and 6. No objections have been received to the proposed vacation from the notice of public hearing and/or routing to staff and agencies. OPTIONS: 1. Move to 2'4 reading scheduled at next City Council Meeting (7-2407) for approval/approval with conditions (No new public comment shall be accepted since the public hearing has been closed.); 2. Deny the proposed street vacation; or 3. Schedule a public hearing that will be conducted 20 days after noticing in the mail, on-site and posted three conspicuous places in the City. REC01-NtENDEI) MOTION: Move to Advance Ordinance 07-012 to a second reading; STAF'F CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistum Planner ATI'ACIO-1 ENTS: Staff Report Planning Commission Findings Drub t )rdinence DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 07-012 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE. VACATION OF APPROA7MATLEY 30 FEET WIDE BY 750 LINEAR FEET OF SHANNON AVENUE. ABUTTING PARCEL NUMBERS 45103.0244, 45103.0245 and 45103.0203 AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER rAATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution 07-005 initiated vacation proceedings for a portion of Shannon Avenue located north of Union Pacific Railroad and Indiana Avenue (STV-02-07) by providing that a hearing on the proposal would be hold before the Planning Commission on the 14th day of June, 2007.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2007; and WHEREAS, following a hearing, the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of Title 10 Article IX Section 10.09.04.10 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code have been met; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings and/or minutes have been filed with the City Clerk as part of the public record supporting the vacation; and WHEREAS, none of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Cleric; and WHEREAS, through adopted City Code provisions, the City shall provide that the vacated property be transferred to the abutting property owners, one-half to each, unless circumstances require a different division of property; that the zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street shall attach to the vacated property; that a record of survey shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development; and that all direct and indirect costs of title transfer to the vacated street be paid by the proponent or recipient of the transferred property; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate the above street pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Sections 10.05.220 -.380. NOW, fliEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings of Pact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: (1) the City Department of Public Works has reviewed the right-of-way to be vacated and determined that the property adjacent to the vacated property is otherwise served by public or private access; (2) a public hearing on the proposed vacation has been held in accordance with State Law and City Code before the Planning Commission with the record of such hearing and proceedings filed with the City Clerk; (3) no written comments were received by an abutting properties: and the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: 1. The vacation of the street/alley will permit full development of the property for beneficial uses and permit appropriate levels of maintenance. 2. The Public Works Department submitted comments which analyzed the portions of Shannon Avenue for need and future use and responded by specifying Shannon Avenue is not required for public access and is being replaced by the continuation of Mansfield Avenue through a recommended condition. Ordinance 07-012 Street Vacation ST-V-02-07 Page I of 4 DRAFT 3. Given the present age and condition of adjacent development, it is unlikely that conditions will change in the future to provide a greater use or need than presently exists. This portion of the street has no continuation at either end. It is an inaccessible landlocked island of public right-of- way; and 4. No objections have been received to the proposed vacation from the notice of public hearing and/or routing to staff and agencies Section 2. Property to be Vacated. Based upon the above findings and in accordance with this Ordinance, the City Council does hereby vacate the street or alley described on the attached Exhibit "A" which is incorporated herein by reference, and defined as follows: /Legal Description of Property to he Inserted Here) Section 3. Division of Property to be Vacated. Pursuant to RCW 35.70.040 and SVMC 10.09.04.10.11, factual circumstances dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated than one-half each to abutting property owners, thus the property to be vacated shall be divided as recorded in the record of survey which shall be created and recorded with the County as required under SVMC 10.09.04.10.16. Section 4. Zgph . The Zoning designation for the vacated property shall be the designation attached to the adjoining properties as sett forth within the respective property or lot lines. 'lire Director of Community Development is authorized to make this notation on the official Zoning Map of the City. Section i. Conditions of Vacation. The following conditions shall be fully satisfied prior to the transfer of title by the City. a) A record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington and including an exact metes and tx-)unds legal description, and specifying if applicable any and all easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the Director. The record of survey shall contain the professional stamp and signature of the registered surveyor and filed upon completion with the Spokane County Auditor. The surveyor shall provide the City of Spokane Valley with a mylar copy of the recorded survey and the Auditor's Document Number and date of recordation. b) The surveyor shall locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of- way with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the .Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Conrtnrction. c) Dedication of the right-of-way and border casements for the continuation of Mansfield Avenue, which will cross the main parcels that front onto this portion of Shannon Avenue. Mansfield Avenue is to be constructed according to Collector Arterial standards, matching the section of the existing Mansfield to the east. Mansfield is to be composed of 46 feet of asphalt width and on each side Type B curb and gutter (2 feet), 10 foot roadside swalc and a 6 foot sidewalk The total width of improvements is 82 feet. This requires 54 feet of right- of-way dedication and 14 foot border easements on both sides. d) A recorded public sanitary sewer easement is required for future extension in the portion of Shannon Avenue proposed for vacation pursuant to the Spokane County Division of Utilities. e) An easement shall be created to provide access from currently improved Mansfield Avenue (abutting the site to the cast) prior to Shannon Avenue being vacated for Ordinance 07-012 Street Vacation STV-02-07 Page 2 of 4 DRAFT access to the existing residence loeatod on parcel number 45103.0204 or the structure shall be removed. f) All necessary casements required by Avista shall be shown on the rocord of survey and written documentation from all utility companies is required to be submitted to the Community Development Director, or designee verifying all easements have been indicated. g) Payment of all direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street or alley from public to private ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees are to be borne by the proponent. The City will not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. h) The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street or alley to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area shall included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the extended districts. The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. i) A certified copy of the ordinance vacating a street or alley or part thereof shall be recorded by the city clerk in the office of the Spokane County auditor. j) All conditions of city council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Lion . Closine Following satisfaction of the above conditions, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of this Ordinance in the office of the County Auditor, and the City Manager is authorized to execute all necessary documents, including a Quit Claim Deed, in order to complete the transfer of the property identified herein. Section 7. Severability. If any section. sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of 2007. Mayor, Diana Wilhite ATTF. ST: City Clerk. Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Fflcctive Date: Ordinance 07-012 Streot Vacation STV-02-07 Page 3 of4 D R A I. Exhibit **A" Property Description 750' (length) 1 Mansfield Avem de) rdinancc 07-013 Street Vacation STV-02-07 Page 4 of4 npmgpe j rWley STAFF REPORT PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF SHANNON AV-ENUE Prepared by: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development Date: June 5. 2007 Findings: 1. Abutting Properties - Applicant's property abuts the right-of-way on the north (Assessor Parcels Nos. 45103.0244, 45103.0245 and 45103.0203) and the Union Pacific Railway Company abuts the property on the south (45107.0001). No objection from abutting property owners was received. 2. Utilities - Comments were received from Spokane County Division of Utilities and Avista Utilities. Division of Utilities commented a recorded public sanitary sewer easement is required for future extension in the portion of Shannon Avenue proposed for vacation. Avista commented on the need to require preservation of easements for their services. The specific location of easements is a requirement of the record of survey. 3. Access - Shannon Avenue is not required for public access due to it is being replaced by the continuation of Mansfield Avenue as a recommended condition. Additionally removal of the existing structure located on parcel number 45103.0204 or an easement shall be created prior to Shannon Avenue being vacated for access to the existing residence. Development all parcels will take access from the extension of :Mansfield to be constructed at a later date. 4. Zoning - Zoning surrounding the proposed vacation to the north is Rural Residential 10 (RR-10), Community Business (13-2) to the south, Urban Residential (UR-22) to the west and Light Industrial (1-2) to the cast. The three parcels abutting the area to be vacated is currently iuncd Rural Residential (RR-10) howaver currently going through r.imc change to UR-22 and 1-2. 5. Transportation - The proposed extension of Mansfield Road will provide improved access and circulation to these tracts and improve overall traffic mobility in the area. ti. Condition -the proposed areas to be vacated have not been improved or currently usable for access. This portion of the strut has no continuation at either end. It is an inaccessible landlocked island of public right-of-way. 7. Assignment of vacated portions of right-of-way - Absent objections from abutting properties o ne", right-of-way should be assigned to the petitioners, inasmuch research indicates that the area to he vacated was part of the parent tract. Abutting property owners have received notice of the proposed vacation. Conclusions: I. The vacation of the street/alley will permit full development of the property for beneficial uses and permit appropriate levels of maintenance. 2. The Public Works Department submitted comments which analyzed the portions of Shannon Avenue for need and future use and responded by specifying Shannon Avenue is not required for public access and is being replaced by the continuation of Mansfield Avenue through a recommended condition. 3. Given the present age and condition of adjacent development, it is unlikely that conditions will change in the future to provide a greater use or need than presently exists. This portion of the street has no continuation at either end. It is an inaccessible landlocked island of public right-of- way; and 4. No objections have been received to the proposed vacation from the notice of public hearing and/or routing to staff and agencies. FINDL'NGS AND RECO.NIMENDATIONS OF TH F; SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION June 14,2(K)7 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended conditions of approval. Findings: 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2007 to receive testimony concerning the vacation of a portion of right-of-way approximately 750 linear feet of Shannon Avenue east of previously vacated Shannon Avenue (file no. STV-03-05) further located north of Union Pacific Railroad and Indiana Avenue. The date of the hearing was set by City Council on May 8, 2007 by Spokane Valley Resolution No. 07-005. Notice of the hearing was published on May 18, 2007 in the Valley Herald, the official newspaper of the City, was posted in three conspicuous locations within the City, was provided to the petitioners and abutting property owners, and a sign was placed on the property providing notice of the hearing also completed on May 21, 2007. 8. Tlnc Planning Commission reviewed the report prepared by the Spokane Valley Comm uniI Development Department in detail. 9. The vacation of the streettalley will permit full development of the property for beneficial and permit appropriate levels of maintenance. 10. The Public Works Department submitted comments which analyzed the portions of Shannon Avenue for need and future use and responded by specifying Shannon Avenue is not required for public access and is being replaced by the continuation of Mansfield Avenue through a recc:mmcrdcd .:ondition. 11. Given the present age and condition of adjacent development, it is unlikely that conditions will change in the future to provide a greater use or need than presently exists- This portion of the street has no continuation at either end. It is an inaccessible landlocked island of public right-of- way; and 12. No objections have been received to the proposed vacation from the notice of public hearing and/or routing to staff and agencies. Recommendations: 1-he Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends to the City Council the portion of right-of--way approximately 750 linear feet of Shannon Avenue east of previously vacated Shannon Avenue (file no. STV-03-05) further located north of Union Pacific Railroad and Indiana Avenue be vacated to the petitioners subject to: Dedication of the right-of=way and border casements for the continuation of Mansfield Avenue, which will cross the main parcels that front onto this portion of Shannon Avenue. Mansfield Avenue is to be constructed according to Collector Arterial standards, matching the section of the existing Mansfield to the cast. Mansfield is to be composed of 46 feet of asphalt width and on each side Type f3 curb and gutter (2 feet), 10 foot roadside swale and a 6 foot sidewalk. The total width of improvements is 82 feet. this requires 54 feet of right-of-way dedication and 14 foot border easements on both sides. 2. A recorded public sanitary sewer easement is required for future extension in the portion of Shannon Avenue proposed for vacation pursuant to the Spokane County Division of Utilities. 3. An easement shall be created to provide access from currently improved Mansfield Avenue (abutting the site to the east) prior to Shannon Avenue being vacated for access to the existing residence located on parcel number 45103.0204 or the structure shall be removed. 4. Fallowing the City Council's passage of the ordinance approving the proposal to vacate the street or alley, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington and including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying if applicable any and all easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the Director. The record of survey shall contain the professional stamp and signature of the registered surveyor and filed upon completion with the Spokane County Auditor. The surveyor shall provide the City of Spokane Valley with a mylar copy of the recorded survey and the Auditor's Document Number and date of recordation. 5. The surveyor shall locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane County Standards for Road turd Sewer CO PLviructio n. 6. All necessary easements required by Avista shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation from all utility companies is required to be submitted to the Community Development Director, or designee verifying all easements have been indicated. 7. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street or alley from public to private ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees arc to be borne by the proponent. The City will not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 8. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street or alley to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area shall included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the extended districts. The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 9. A certified copy of the ordinance vacating a street or alley or part thereof shall be recorded by the city clerk in the office of the Spokane County auditor. 10. All conditions of city council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Approved this 14° day of June. 2007 Gail Kogic, Chairman A7"TFST Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Department of Community Development Ad"d Planninu Division STV-02-07 Street Vacation Request if 01 0 STV-02-07 Background Information O The request is to vacate a portion of right-ot=way approximately 750 linear feet and 30 feet wide of'Shannon Avenue east ol' previously vacated Shannon Avenue (tile no. STV-03-05 ) further located north ol'Union Pacific Railroad and Indiana Avenue. O Public Hearing held on June 14, 2007. O Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval subject to conditions. O Public comment period has closed and no new public comments may be accepted. Department of Community Development Planninp, Division 2006 Aerial Photo Facing EAST onto Shannon Avenue Facing WEST Shannon Department of Community Development it Facing EAST of proposed Shannon Avenue vacation Department of Commu Facing EAST of proposed Shannon Avenue vacation Department of Community Development I'I:IIIiiiII2 Division Planning Commission Recommends approval subject to conditions for STV-02-07. I I ' •bi14 I I i 6 I 9 I 10 I I _ ~ 1l IIl I I I l y ben AVE 750 fi'l'l I 1. ar Existing Conditions Won:;L~Jri.n A P111 40k," 1 ~w II ri t ' 01 1 -1 _06: I Mss f 1 CITY OF SPOKANIE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 City Manager Sign-off- Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business x new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 07-009 Adopting Street Vacation Compensation Policy GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.79.030 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the March 20, 2007, Council meeting, staff explained that questions have arisen concerning the options the City has when properties are to be vacated, and of options for charging or not; and that the City currently has no guidelines or written criteria for determining whether to charge. Suggestions for criteria concerning charging for vacated property included appraised value, land value of adjacent lots, assessor's value; size, type of zone, the $1300 administrative fee in addition to other criteria, the $1300 administrative fee only, the land by itself versus the land and its surroundings, only have a fee if the land is over a certain appraised value, such as anything over $10,000; the value of the land per square foot; whether the land is improved; some trigger over the administrative fee for cost recovery; or a percentage over the administrative fee. There was some council consensus to look at the square footage of assessed value, and when that is $1300 or less, then the administrative fee is a wash; and anything over that would be 50% of cost. On June 5, 2007, staff presented a memorandum outlining some legal obligations regarding charging for street vacations; and there was some council consensus to look at drafting a policy. BACKGROUND: Currently the City has no guidelines or written criteria for determining whether to charge or not charge. The alternatives allowed by law and the current practices of other communities is set forth in the memoranda attached. OPTIONS: Approve; do not approve; approve with changes; ask staff for further options; or take other appropriate action. RECOfWN1EENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve resolution 07-009 adopting street vacation compensation policy BUDGET/FINANCIAL LNIPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly ATTACHMENTS Memorandum of alternatives allowed by law Dray Resolution 07-009 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY N1TCHAEL CONNELLY, CITY ATTORNEY Spokane CARY P. DRISKEL.L, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNE`.;' ..;.00Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatl@spokanevaltey.org Memorandum To: Mayor Diana Wilhite; members of the City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager; Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney Date: March 15, 2007 Re: Street Vacations QUESTIONS: 1. What charging options does the City have when streets or alleys are vacated? 2. What criteria could the City adopt? 2. What are other communities doing? ANSWERS: 1. Streets, alleys or any part thereof may be vacated pursuant to RCW 35.79.030. This statute allows the City to charge for the property vacated in the following manner: ...and the ordinance may provide that it shall not become effective until the owners of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, shall compensate such city or town in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. If the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense, the city or town may require the owners of the property abutting the street or alley to compensate the city or town in an amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated One half of the revenue received by the city or town as compensation for the area vacated must be dedicated to the acquisition, improvement, development, and related maintenance of public open space or transportation capital projects within the city yr town. The option is the councils', You ma l charge nothing other thaa administrative costs, charge up to 50°0 of appraised value at, ire the event the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more or acquired at publie- expense, charge the full appraised value_ 2. The City has a number of options: a. The amount charged could be based upon a % of the appraised value of the land. (tbe city can request in excess of 50% of the appraised value only if they have lied the property for: more than 5 years or paid to acquire the property,) b. The City could charge, one % for improved -roadways and a lower ° a for unimproved roadways, e. The City could charge for the property but only to the extent that the appraised value exceed the administrative cost :for vacation. d. The City could charge only where the gross area of the vacation exceeded a certain amount. 3. A review of other communities reveals the followau ; Seattle: Full value of the land a alto%~ ed pursuant to W 35,79,030 'T'acoma: Tull value of the land as allowed pursuant to W 35.79.030 Yakima: 50% of appraised value i Liberty Lake; No established policy.; Liberty Lake has had two vacations, one was so small no charge was requested. The other was part of a land swap. Spokane County; No charge other than an administrative fee. ~ J DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOT A F, COUNTY, WASHINGTON )l?ESOLTMO NO. 07-009 RESOLUTTO ADOP'T'WG POLICIES FOR IJ OSI VACATJON CTIARGES .l?TJRSLFANT TO RC 36.79.030 V HEREX , the City of Spokane Malley has the authority to vacate roadways and sight of ways pursuant to RCW 36.79.030; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that does not exceed 50 V o of the fu 11 appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated where the street or alley had been part of a dedicated doit of way for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public a pcnso, and HEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley wishes to emblish a policy by which they determine the amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation- MOW THEREFORE, BE IT USOLVFD THAT TWF CITY OF SPOKANE' VALLEY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY: SECTION 1. Policy. I . The. cost for a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of the appraised value of the property to be vacated. a. The appraised value. shall he the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is'considered b the City Council. b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used, 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay thee above- described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the. cost charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs that inay be incurred by the applicant. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation with the Spokane County Auditor. 4- The City Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of w-ritten findings of fact that demonstrate that the pubic interest shall 1)e best served by an alternate approach. SECTION 2. This RescItition shall be in fuII force acrd effective immediately upon adoption- Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2 DRAT T ? Adopted this E , ATlT Y day of . 2007. I .Dlzina Jlfllte, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to .dorm: Office 6f the City Attorney Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges ; Page 7 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07-10-07 City Manager Sign-off- Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information © admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Advisory Vote Requirements GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules, RCW 29A.32; WAC 434-381 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the June retreat, council discussed the possibility of placing a non-binding advisory vote on the November ballot concerning the Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan. BACKGROUND: Spokane County has initiated the use of a Local Voters' Pamphlet. Below is a summary of the rules and calendar requirements when local governments wish to place a matter on a ballot. All units of local government are required to participate in the Pamphlet. Cost is part of the election cost and will be prorated as provided by statute (RCW 29A.04.410) 1 Committees to write arguments: Not later than 45 days before pamphlet publication Council is to formally appoint nvo committees with no more than 3 members per committee 1. formally appoint a committee to prepare arguments advocating voter approval a. appoint persons known to favor the measure b. committee members elect a chair, and notify Auditor of committee members' names, addresses and phone numbers 2. formally appoint a committee to prepare arguments advocating rejection of matter a. appoint whenever possible, persons known to oppose the measure b. the committee members elect a chair and notify Auditor of committee members' names, addresses and phone numbers Committee duties: Within 5 days of committee formation, 'each Committee can select up to 5 others to serve as advisory committee Advisory committee can be members of organizations only if that organization has taken an official action to support or oppose the measure, as the case may be. Arguments may not exceed 250 words; except can use up to 4 headings to summarize and identify major arguments for convenience of reader Rebuttals not to exceed 75 words and must address issues raised in opposing argument Style guidelines included in the Administrative Rules If 'local government does not make appointments by deadline, County Auditor shall make the appointments when possible. If the committee does not submit a printable statement for inclusion, "Aro Committee Statement was submitted" will appear in the Voters' Pamphlet-. August:l:4 11asf day to file resolutions for Novetber 7~ General Electton ~1.ugust' 1-7:l~eadlinc for ProTaird Con`Conuiiittees_to.,be appouited.:t~y~aistricts: August 24: Deadline for statements for and against ballot measures to be received by auditor August 26: Deadline for statements to be submitted to opposing conunittees for rebuttal. August 31: Deadline for rebuttal statements to be received by auditor i;ept 7 ' Layout cotnPleled for :T_:ocalY(L)Cers"fam h'let Cu 2007<C_eneral!. - )1lcctioii~ Sept 14: Files for voters' pamphlet submitted to Office of Secretary of State Sept 17: Publication of local voters' pamphlet. On-line voters' pamphlet for General Election posted November 6: General election OPTIONS: 1. Proceed with non-advisory vote for November ballot; do not proceed with advisory vote; or take other action. 2. If proceeding with vote: a. Election Committee will need to be appointed at either the July 24 or the August 14 council meeting. b. A resolution placing the matter on the ballot will need to be considered at the July 24 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Estimated budget impact for just this item: $2,000 - $3,000. Cost is lower than the usual $30,000 estimate since we will have three candidates on the ballot in November. STAFF CONTACT: Chris Bainbridge ATTACHMENTS Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules 1. Purpose The purpose of these rules is to provide information for units of local government who participate in the Spokane County Lgcal Voters' Pamphlet. In addition, these rules follow laws that are designed to provide voters with informative, non-biased, consistent and readable information. The pamphlet provides information about both candidates and the various ballot measures as well as general voter registration and election information. 2. Authority These rules follow Title 29A.32 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) State and local -voters' pamphlet election laws. These rules also follow the Washington Administrative Code, WAC 434-381. 3. Administrative Rules I. Content Outline l`J II. Specifications for Participation by Units of Local Government M. Specifications for Candidate Statements.and Photographs IV. Specifications for Committee Statements 1 -J• I Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules - April 1, 2007 1. Content Outline A. Content Requirements 1. Appearing on the cover of the voters' pamphlet are the current year, the title "Official Local Voters' Pamphlet for Spokane County, Washington', "Published by the Spokane County Auditor's Office", and the date of the election. (29A.32.241 RCW) 2. A list of jurisdictions that have measures or candidates in the pamphlet. (29A.32.241 RCW) 3. A letter of introduction from the auditor. 4. A table of contents. 5. Information on how a person may register to vote and obtain an absentee ballot. (29A.32.241 RCW) 6. A sample ballot. 7. The text of each measure accompanied by an explanatory statement prepared by the prosecuting attorney for any county measure or by the attorney for the jurisdiction submitting the measure if other than a county measure. All explanatory statements for city, town or district measures not approved by the attorney for the jurisdiction submitting the measure shall be reviewed and approved by the county prosecuting attorney or city attorney, when applicable, before inclusion in the pamphlet. (29A.32.241 RCW) 8. The arguments for and against each measure submitted by committees selected pursuant to RCW 29A.32.280. (29A.32.241 RCW) 9. For partisan primary elections, information on how to vote the applicable ballot format and an explanation that minor political party candidates and independent candidates will appear only on the general election ballot. (29A.32.241 RCW) 10. A list of Voter Service Centers with addresses and accessibility information. 11. The election office website address. 2 Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules - April 1, 2007 B. Content Requirements (continued) 12. Graphics, artwork and any other material that will make the information easier to understand. 13. The following statement shall be printed once when arguments related to an issue appear in the voters' pamphlet: "Arguments printed are the opinions of the authors. Spelling, grammatical and/or other corrections may. be made at the discretion of the Auditor". 14. The following statement shall be printed once when candidate statements appear in the voters' pamphlet: "Candidate statements are printed as submitted. Spelling, grammatical and/or.other corrections may be made at the discretion of the Auditor". 15. Measures and candidate statements shall be printed in the voters' pamphlet as closely as possible, in the same order in which they appear on the ballot. C. Required Pamphlet Content if No Notice of Electiion is published (RCW 29A.52.350) 1. Party designation, title of each office, names and addresses of candidates. 2. Ballot title measures. 3. List of districts; If the election is county-wide then just a statement. 4. Location of replacement ballots and Voter Service Centers. 5. Hours during which the Voter Service Centers will be open. II. Specifications for Participation by. Units of Local Government A. Participation. All units of local government in the county shall participate in the Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlet. The units of local government shall include information on all measures from that unit of local government and include information on candidates. If the required appearance in the pamphlet would create undo financial hardship for the unit of local government, the legislative authority of the unit may-petition the legislative authority of the county to waive this requirement (29A.32.220). The Notice of Hardship from a City, Town or District must be received by the Board of County Commissioners no later than 75 days prior to publication. The legislative authority of the county may provide such a waiver if it does so not later than sixty days before the publication of the pamphlet and it finds that the requirement would create such hardship. 3 Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules -April 1, 2007 B. Termination of Publication of Voters Pamphlet The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County may, through resolution, suspend the publication of the voters' pamphlet for a particular General Election. Notice of such suspension must be given by the Board to the Spokane County Auditor's Office no less than 97 days before publication. C. Notification to Units of Local Government - If a local voters' pamphlet will be published, the County Auditor shall notify all units of local government at least 90 days before the publication and distribution of the local voters' pamphlet. The notice will include information on the financial hardship clause (see Specifications for Participation by Units of Local. Government, above). The notice shall also indicate that a representative from the County Auditor's Office is available to meet with a unit of local government and answer any questions. D. Verification of Unit of Local Government Not Participating in the Pamphlet The County Auditor shall be notified in writing of any waiver granted by the county legislative authority, no later than sixty days before the publication of the pamphlet. A unit of local government should submit a copy of the petition to the County Auditor. 5. Responsibility for the Cost of the Pamphlet - The cost of the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be considered an election cost to those units of local government included in the pamphlet and shall be prorated in the manner provided in RCW 29A.04.410; which states: Every city, town, and district is liable for its proportionate share of the costs when such elections are held in conjunction with other elections, held under RCW 29A.04.321 and 29A.04.330. The purpose of this section is to clearly establish that the county is not responsible for any costs involved in the holding of any city, town or district election. In recovering such election expenses, including a reasonable pro-ration of administrative costs, the county auditor shall notify each district of its share of the cost. The district shall promptly issue its warrant for payment of election costs. 4 j Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules - April 1, 2007 E. Inter-local Agreements - In cases where a unit of local government wishes to participate in the pamphlet but the boundary lines of that district extend into another county, the'county auditor shall formally request in writing from the adjoining county auditor an agreement that Spokane County is permitted to mail pamphlets to those voters residing in the affected county. If the county auditor from the affected county so chooses, he or she may through their office do the distribution of the Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlets. III. Specifications for Candidate Statements and Photographs A. Deadline for Submission of Statements and Photographs - Candidate statements will first appear in the on-line voter's pamphlet for the Primary and then in both the on-line and published pamphlets for the General Election. Deadlines for candidates not appearing on the Primary ballot are the same as for those candidates who are on the Primary ballot. The deadline for when materials must be received by the Elections Office will be provided to candidates when they file for office. Upon receipt of pamphlet submissions, the material will be date stamped and the candidate will be sent an acknowledgement of receipt. It is the candidate's responsibility to contact the Elections Office if an acknowledgement is not received. Any candidate who is defeated in the primary election shall not have their statement appear in the Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlet for the General 'Election. No material for the voter's pamphlet will be accepted by the Elections Office after the deadline. There will be no exceptions. B. Statement Length - Statements submitted by all candidates shall conform to the length established for the state voter guide in RCW 29A.32.121. The maximum number of words for local offices and state representative is 100 words; state senator and superior court judge, 200 words. Each individual word is counted as one word. Email and website addresses will be counted as ONE word. The word limit includes headers, footers; numbers or dates. Any statement over the limit will be returned. No changes will be accepted for the General Election. 3. Statement Submission Standards - In order to maintain high standards of readability and to insure accuracy in typesetting this material for publication, the following standards and recommendations for style and format have been established: 1. Statements must be submitted as computer files or type written; handwritten statements will not be accepted. 2. The name, address, telephone number and position sought should appear on the top of each page of the statement. 3. Only plain text will be accepted; no italics, bold, tables, images or other enhancements will be-accepted. E. Statement Content - The Spokane County Auditor will reject any statements which contain obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, scandalous, libelous or defamatory matter; or any language which in any way cites, counsels, promotes or advocates hatred, abuse, violence and hostility toward, or which tends to cause ridicule or shame upon any person or group of persons by reason of sex, race, color, religion or manner of worship or any language or matter the circulation of which through the mail is prohibited by federal law. Statement content suggestions are: occupation, education, professional qualifications, why you seek the position, what ideas you have if you were elected, length of residence in the county, city, town or district, additional personal information and community involvement. F. Editing Statements - In a publication of this magnitude, it is inevitable.that the material submitted for publication will contain some inadvertent errors of spelling, punctuation, or syntax which would adversely affect the'readability of the statement and improperly reflect on the candidate. The County Auditor may correct such incidental errors as long as this does not affect the content of the statement. This office is not obligated, however, to make such corrections and assumes no responsibility for errors which result from inaccuracies in the original statement submitted by the candidate. G. Rejected Statements and Appeal of Rejected Statements - If any portion of the candidate's statement is rejected, only that rejected portion may be rewritten and submitted for inclusion in the statement. Candidates will be notified if their statement, or any portion thereof, has been rejected. They will be given an opportunity to appeal that rejection or resubmit a statement or revision of a portion which has been rejected. A second rejection is final, due to time constraints. Appeals will be made to the County Auditor, who has the final decision in the acceptance and rejection of statements. H. Proofing of Statements - To insure the maximum accuracy in the publication of these statements, the County Auditor will mail a proof copy of any statement to the candidate at the address listed on his/her submission form. If an email address is provided by the submitter the proof may 6 Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules - April 1, 2007 be sent by this means. This office assumes no responsibility for providing a proof copy of any statement submitted without a return address or email address. Candidates will not be permitted to amend the content of their original statement after a proof has been provided. Only the correction of incidental errors in spelling, punctuation, or syntax in the original statement or errors in typesetting will be allowed. J. Candidate Photographs - Candidates may submit photographs to be included with their statements. Candidates may choose to have their photos taken in the elections office at no charge. To assure the best possible reproduction, all photographs must be: 1. Black and white glossy,prints 2. Not smaller than 3 x 5 inches or larger than 5 x 7 inches. 3. Limited to the head and shoulder of the candidate. To achieve the best contrast, we recommend that you use a photograph with a light (not white) background. 4. Photograph must be no more than five years old. (RCW 42.17.520) 5. No scanned photographs or photos that have already been screened back for printing purposes. 6. Photographs are prohibited which show the uniform or insignia suggesting the holding of a public office. (RCW 29A.32.110) 7. The photo can be submitted by e-mail or delivered on disk. Alt electronic photos must be in the electronic jpeg format. The Spokane County Elections Office will not maintain a file- of photographs so prints submitted for use in previous editions of the Spokane County Local Voters' Pamphlet cannot be used again. 8. If a candidate does not have a photo, the Elections Office will offer photography service in conjunction with candidate filing. Candidates will have an opportunity to approve the photo, which is the property of the Spokane County Elections Department. If the candidate is unable to sit for the photo immediately after filing, an appointment can be made to have a photo taken at a later time. This service will be offered through the Friday following the close of filing week. 7 Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules - April 1, 2007 K. Statement and Photograph Costs - No costs shall be charged to candidates submitting material to be included in the Local Voters' Pamphlet. The cost of the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be considered an election cost to those units of local government included in the Pamphlet and the cost shall be prorated in the manner provided in RCW 29A.04.410. L. Viewing of Statements - Viewing of statements shall be allowed after the official deadline for submission of statements has passed and the statements have been delivered to opposing committees for rebuttal. M. Failure to Submit Photo or Statement - If a candidate does no submit a printable photo or statement the following language will appear in the appropriate position in the Voters' Pamphlet: °No Photo was Submitted", and/or "No Candidate Statement was Submitted". Send Statement and Photograph to: Paul Brandt 1033 W. Gardner Ave. Spokane, WA. 99260 Or email to: elections@spokanecounty.org IV. Specifications for Committee Statements - 29A.32.280 A. Committees to Write Arguments For and Against Measures - For each measure from a unit of local government that is' included in a Local Voters' Pamphlet, the legislative authority of that unit of local government shall, not later than forty-five days before the publication of the pamphlet: 1. Formally.appoint a committee to prepare arguments advocating voters' approval of the measure; and 2. Formally appoint a committee to prepare arguments advocating voters' rejection of the measure. 3. The authority shall appoint persons known to favor the'measure to serve on the committee advocating approval and shall, whenever possible, appoint persons known to oppose the measure to serve on the committee' advocating rejection. 4. Each committee shall not have more than three members, however, a committee may seek the advice of any person or persons: 5. The committee shall elect from among their members a chairperson and shall immediately notify the County Auditor of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the persons on the committee. 6. If the legislative authority of a unit of local government fails to make such appointments by the prescribed deadline, the County Auditor shall whenever possible make the appointments. B. Advisory Committees Committees appointed to write arguments for or against measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamphlet may select up to five other persons to serve as an advisory committee within five days after formation of the Committee. Persons serving on advisory committees drafting arguments for or against measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamphlet who are officers, employees, or representatives of any organization may only be designated as such if that organization has taken an official action to support or oppose the measure, as the case may be. C. Length of Statements and Rebuttals - Arguments for and against measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall not exceed 250 words, except that the committee may use up to four headings to summarize and identify major arguments or portions of the statement for the convenience of the reader and such headings shall not be included in the computation of the number of-words in the statement. Rebuttals to arguments for and against measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall not exceed seventy-five (75) words and must address issues raised in the opposing argument without injecting issues not previously discussed by either the argument for or against the measure. Headings are not permitted in connection with rebuttal statements. D. Restrictions on the Style of Statements in the Local Voters' Pamphlet- The County Auditor finds that it is in the public interest that all statements published in the Local Voters' Pamphlet be of substantially similar format and style. To promote such consistency, all statements submitted for publication in the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be in common electronic format or typewritten on plain sheets of white paper measuring eight and one-half inches by eleven inches ( 8 1/2 X 11'~ and containing the name, address and telephone number of the chairperson of the committee submitting such statement. All statements shall be typeset in block paragraph style without tables, lists, or other material requiring multiple indentation and words which are underlined, in italics, or all in upper- case letters will be typeset in italics. 9 i Spokane County Voters' Pamphlet Administrative Rules - April 1, 2007 E. Deadline for Submission of Statements and Rebuttals - Arguments for or against measures appearing in the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be submitted to the County Auditor by the Chairperson of the committee appointed to draft that argument. The deadline for submission of statements and rebuttals shall be established by the County Auditor and notification of these dates shall be provided to the units of local government in the Notice of Publication. F. Costs - No costs shall be charged to committees submitting materials to be included in the Local Voters' Pamphlet. The cost of the Local Voters' Pamphlet shall be considered an election cost.to those units of local government included in the pamphlet and shall be prorated in the matter provided in RCW. 29A.04.410. G. Rejection of Statements for the Local Voters' Pamphlet - Any statement submitted for publication in the Local Voters' Pamphlet which, in the opinion of the County Auditor, contains any obscene, libelous, or defamatory matter or any language-or matter the circulation of which is prohibited by Federal law shall be rejected. Within five days of the rejection of any statement, the committee proposing such statement may appeal the rejection to the County Auditor.. The County Auditor shall render a decision within three business days of the appeal and such decision to accept or reject the statement shall be final. H. Editing of Statements for the Local Voters' Pamphlet - The County Auditor finds that it is in the public interest that all statements published in the Local Voters' Pamphlet be accurate as to form and syntax. To promote such accuracy, the County Auditor may correct any incidental errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation which he/she feels would unfairly prejudice the statement or confuse the voters so long as such corrections do not alter the meaning or substance of the statement. 1. Failure to Submit Committee Statement - If a committee does not submit a printable statement for. inclusion, the following language will appear in the appropriate in the Voters' Pamphlet: "No Committee Statement was submitted". J. Viewing of Statements - Viewing of statements shall be allowed after the official deadline for submission of statements has passed and the statements have been delivered to opposing committees for rebuttal. 10 Spokane County Voter's Pamphlet Deadlines - 2007 June 4, 2007 In person candidate filing begins June 8, 2007 Candidate filing ends June 22, 2007 • Deadline for submitting candidate statements and -photos for voter's pamphlet(s) July 2, 2007 On-line voter's pamphlet for Primary Election posted f -Augbst,14, 2007. 'Last, day to file resolutions for November, 6,.General Election. August 17, 2007 Deadline for Pro and Con Committees to be appointed by , districts August 21, 2007 PRIMARY ELECTION August 24, 2007 Candidate section of General Election Voter's Pamphlet completed August 24, 2007 Deadline for statements for and against ballot measures to be received auditor August 26, 2007 Deadline for statements to be submitted to opposing committees for rebuttal August 31, 2007 Deadline for rebuttal statements to be received by auditor September 7, 2007 Layout completed for Local Voter's Pamphlet for 2007 General Election September 14, 2007 Files for voter's pamphlet submitted to Office of Secretary of State September 17, 2007 Publication of local voter's pamphlet On-line voters pamphlet for General Election posted ' November 6, 2007 General Election CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent ❑ old business new business I] public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE Initial Legislative 2008 Agenda GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago, City Manager Mercier and some Councilmembers met with the City's lobbyist to begin dialogue on the City's future legislative agenda. Those potential legislative issues are outlined in the attachment. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS Gordon, Thomas.Honeywell's June 22, 2007 List of potential action items for discussion. G0_ DoN, TT-iO,\/iAS I71ONTEYN LL .~I- A.F'FAI.RS TO: City of Spokane Valley FROM: Tim Schellberg DATE: June 22, 2007 RE: Developing 2008 City of Spokane Valley Legislative Priorities - DRAFT GTHGA met with members of the Spokane Valley Council and the City Manager on June 14 to begin a dialogue on developing the City's future legislative agenda. The following potential action items emerged from the discussion. Our goal is to formulate a concise, actionable City of Spokane Valley agenda before the 2008 Legislative Session. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL BUDGET ■ The City is exploring building a Spokane Valley City Hall. o The City seeks state funding or additional flexible financing tools. ■ Revitalization of the Sprague/Appleway area as a "City Center" is vital for economic and community development. c In order to complete the revitalization, the City requests granting flexible, local option financing tools and state capital budget or grant funding. ■ The City seeks to identify, track and manage the application process for potential state grants to finance parks, infrastructure development and/or local preservation. CRIMINAL JUSTICE ■ Spokane Valley is may undertake a feasibility study regarding the development of a local police department. o The City supports identifying and/or developing potential funding sources to assist in the creation of a Spokane Valley Police Department. ■ The County faces an impending $100-200 million expense for new jail facilities. o The City supports efforts to acquire additional state moneys for local jails. TRANSPORTATION ■ The City is in litigation with the County regarding the Milwaukee right-of-way. o If litigation is unsuccessful or untimely, the City may seek. legislation to clarify the definition in RCW regarding when a road is "planned." ■ The new SR-395 North-South corridor is critical for economic development. o The City urges funding the SR-395 North-South corridor to completion. LAJ\rD IJSF, ■ Current development regulations with Spokane County in PAA are untenable. o The City supports efforts to establish consistent UGA development regulations between Counties and Cities. ■ As a newly incorporated and rapidly grow-ing city, Spokane Valley is highly concerned with land use policy and the potential impact of new legislation. o The City promotes active participation in GMA-related policy discussions. 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 2100 One Union Square, 600 University, Suite 2100 1.22 "C" Street, N.W., Suite 220 Tacoma, WA 98401 Seattle, WW 98.101 Washington, D.C., 20001 Ph: (253)620-6500 - Fax: (253)620-6565 Ph: (206)676-7500 - Pax: (206)676-7575 Ph: (202)347-5011 - I'm (202)393-25.44. w,vw.grh-gov.cum www.gth-gov.com www.gth-gov'Com S#Manoooe- ;oOVaHey 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley NIA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevatley.org Memorandum To: City Manager David Mercier and Members of Council CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager From: Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Date: July 10' 2007 Re: Intergovernmental Agreement for Commute Trip Reduction Introduction Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) is a program to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and number of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips by employees commuting to work. The goal is to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and petroleum consumption through employer-based programs. The State of Washington, under RCW 70.94, requires that counties containing urban growth areas and cities with "major employers" located within major growth areas implement a commute trip reduction plan for all major employers. Cities with affected employers (more than 99 employees) must implement their own CTR program. Employers must make a good faith effort to achieve reductions in VMT and SOV trips. Interlocal Agreement The attached interlocal agreement is between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. The agreement allows the Spokane County Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) department to retain the City's state-issued um funds in return for developing, implementing, and administering CTR plans and ordinances for all affected employers within the City of Spokane Valley. This agreement replaces the previous agreement, C05-103, which expired on June 30, 2007. The proposed agreement is for two years will expire on June 30, 2009. There are two changes to this proposed agreement from the previous agreement. 1.) Jurisdictions located in rural counties are no longer required to participate 2.) The County's funding was increased from $165,568 to $177,759 and the City's portion was increased from 531,458 to $34,184. ~r1 The number of affected employers in Spokane Valley is 20 and the number of affected employers in the County is 104. DRAFT TNTERGOVER,NNIFNN°TAL AGREEKE NTT TMS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2007 by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at Wcst 1026 Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260, hereinafter referred to as the "County," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." WITivESSETH W1H)raAS, the Washington State Legislature has adopted legislation codified in RCW 70.94.521 through 551, the purpose of which is to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion and reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels through employer-based' programs that encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle for commute trips and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT); and NVNERFAS, RCW 70.94.527 requires counties containing urban growth areas and cities and towns with "major employers," that are located within urban growth areas with a state highway segment exceeding the threshold of one hundred person hours of delay or jurisdictions that are located in contiguous urban growth areas, or are within an urban growth area with a population greater than seventy thousand people that adopted an ordinance before the year 2000 or jurisdictions that are located in contiguous urban growth areas, or contain a major employment installation in an affected county to develop ordinances, plans and programs to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) commute trips, and thereby reduce vehicle-related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use, and WHEREAS, the County and each affected city within Spokane County have adopted Commute Trip Reduction Ordinances and must implement a Commute "trip Reduction (CTR) Plan for all major employers; and WHEREAS, the `Vashington State Department of Transportation has the statutory authority under Section 2 of R.CW 70.94.541 to provide assistance to local governments serving the communities of the State for the purpose of implementing Commute Trip Reduction Plans and Ordinances; and WAEREAS, RCW 70.94.544 provides for distribution of fiords for local CTR implementation efforts, and WffEIZEAS, Spokane County has entered into an agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation under Agreement No. GCA5358, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT Agreement," pursuant to which Spokane County is eligible to receive a reimbursable amount of funds which the County will distribute to itself and cities to implement and administer Commute Trip Reduction Plans and Ordinances; and WHEREAS,' pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 70.94.527 (5), counties and cities may enter into agreements through the Interlocal Cooperation Act to coordinate the development and implementation of Commute Trip Reduction Plans and Ordinances; and Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Page 1 of 9 DRAFT WHEREAS, Spokane County has allocated $34,184.40 to the City from the grant Agreement No. GCA5358 which the City is now desirous of making available to the County to perform those tasks which are the responsibility of the City. NOW, TMZEFORF, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter, and as authorized under chapter RCW 70.94.527 (5), the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: Section 1: PURPOSE The County has entered into a WSDOT Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation under which it will receive $177,759 for year one and year two to be based on Exhibit T "Funding Allocation Methodology". This funding is to be allocated to the County and cities within Spokane County for their use in the implementation and administration of their Commute Trip Reduction Plans and Ordinances. The County, based upon an allocation formula established by the Washington State Department of Transportation, has determined that the City shall receive $34,184.40 from the WSDO'C Agreement from which it shall perform certain tasks. The City agrees to its proportionate share of the monies made available to the County in the WSDOT Agreement and agrees to allow Spokane County to retain its proportionate share in consideration of the County performing those tasks as more particularly set forth in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In conjunction with allowing the County to retain its proportionate share of monies, the City will execute any and all necessary documents which may be required by the Washington State Department of Transportation. It is understood by the parties hereto, that in order for the County to perform those tasks as set forth in Attachment "A" for the City, the City must perform certain tasks. Attached hereto as Attachment "B" and incorporated herein by reference, is a listing of tasks which the City agrees to perform in conjunction with the County performing those tasks set forth in Attachment "A." Section 2: DURATION The County agrees to provide those tasks set forth in Section 1 and complete performing such tasks on or before June 30, 2009. Section 3: TERAIINATTON The parties agree that this Agreement may be terminated by either party for material breach of any provision set forth herein, upon ninety (90) days advance written notice to the other party at the address set forth hereinabove. Provided, however, the parties agree that any notification of termination shall set forth the specific provision(s) for which such notification is being provided and additionally, advise that if such default is curer) within such nuiety (90) day time frarne, said termination notification shall be of no force and effect. In the event of termination, the County agrees to provide to the City all written documentation which it has completed to the date of termination under the terms of this Agreement. Additionally, the County agrees to return to the City that portion of the monies set forth in Section 1 hereinabove, which has not been expended by the county, prior to the date of termination, on the City's behalf in providing those tasks as set forth in Attachment "A." Provided, further, the parties recognize that the Washington State Department of Transportation in Agreement No. GCA5358, has retained the right to unilaterally terminate all or a part of such contract if there is a reduction of funds from the funding source. Accordingly, in the event that the Washington State Department of Transportation terminates all or part of the WSDOT Agreement with Spokane Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Page 2 of 9 DRAFT County, and such action affects the allocation of funds by the County to the City herein, and/or modifies the tasks to be performed hereunder, the parties will immediately meet to renegotiate the provisions of this Agreement. Section 4: DESIGNATION OF ADIVM `ISTRATOR The County hereby designated Ms. Aurora J. Crooks, the Spokane County Transportation Demand Management Manager, as its designee for the purpose of administering and coordinating the County's responsibilities under the terms of this Agreement. Section 5: ACQiJISM.ON/DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY The parties hereto agree that any real or personal property acquired by the County with those monies made available to the County by the City under Section I hereinabove, shall be and remain the sole property of the County upon acquisition and/or termination of this Agreement. Section 6: COt MPLIANCE WITH LAWS The County agrees to observe all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations including, but no necessarily limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act and chapter 49.60 RCW, to the extent that they may have any bearing on performing those tasks for the City as set forth in Section I hereinabove. Additionally, the County agrees to comply with all applicable funding audit requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation in conjunction with performing those tasks for the City. Section 7: NOTICES All notices called for or provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and must be served on any of the Parties either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, sent to the Parties at their respective addresses hereinabove given. Notices sent by certified mail shall be deemed served when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Section 8: HEADINGS The section headings in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to, define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they appertain. Section 9: NICID FICATION No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid until the same is reduced to writing and executed with the same formalities as this present Agreement. Section 10: ALL WRITINGS CONITAMED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto. The City has read and understands all of this Agreement, and now states that no representation, promise or agreement not expressed in this Agreement has been made to induce the City to execute the same. Inter- overnrnental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CM) Page 3 of 9 DRAFT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WAS.MNGTON Mark Richard, Chair CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By: Bonnie Mager, Vice Chair David Mercier, City Manager Todd Mielke, Commissioner ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ATTEST: By Daniela Erickson 1 Clerk of the Board I i Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR.) Page 4 of 9 DRAFT Exhibit T Funding Allocation Nlethodology R.CW 70.94.544 authorizes the CTR, board to determine the allocation of program funds made available for the purpose of implementing CTR plans. The funding allocated for local implementation of CTR activities in July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 is based on the decision taken by the CTR board at its April 27, 2007 meeting. At that meeting, the CTR board decided to allocate finding for the period between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 at the same level per county and city as the funding allocated for the period between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. For the period between July I, 2008 and June 30, 2009, funding will be allocated based on the decision of the CTR board according to its funding policy. July 1, 2007 -,Tune 30, 2008 Allocation Coun Clark Total Allocation $80,000 King $1,086,700 Kitsap $80,000 Pierce $141,983 Snohomish $121,569 Spokane $177,759 Thurston $109,489 Whatcom $80,000 Yakima. $80,000 Total 1,957,500 Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTl7) Page 5 of 9 DRAFT ATTACFIM.r`NT „A" STATENIJE NT OF WORK The County will: Promote consistency within all affected local government jurisdictions within Spokane County, while serving the City's specific needs. 2. Maintain and administer the City's CTR Ordinances and Plan. Employ a full-time Transportation Demand Management Manager to administer the County's and City's CTR Plans and Ordinances. 4. Take reasonable measures to identify and notify all affected employers within. the County. Assist each affected employer within the City in preparing a program and promoting the principles of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) with the employer's employees. 6. Maintain an appeals. process consistent with RCW 70.94.537(2)(e) by which major employers, who as a result of special characteristics of their business or its locations would be unable to meet , the requirements of a commute trip reduction plan, may obtain a waiver or modification of those requirements and criteria for determining eligibility for waiver or modification. Within 30 days from the date of approval, submit to WSDOT the name and employer identification code for any worksite that has been granted an exemption. Include information about the duration of all exemptions and information on the type of modification granted. Submit to Washington State Department of Transportation periodic progress reports summarizing the overall CTR implementation costs incurred by the County and shall be reported in a format provided by WSDOT. Provide WSDOT with a public hearing notice and copies of any proposed amendments to the urk ordinance, plan, and/or administrative guidelines within the first week of the public review period and final copies of all actions within one (1) month of adoption. 9. Coordinate and administer baseline and measurement CTR. employer surveys. Provide employer survey assistance, training and state-supplied survey fornis. 10. 'Notify Washington State Department of Transportation prior to sending any surveys to University of Washington for processing. The notification must include the name of the worksite, employer identification code and type of survey for each survey being submitted for processing. The notification shall be submitted as an electronic spreadsheet via electronic mail. The County agrees to wait for confirmation from WS DOT prior to sending or delivering the surveys for processing. 11. Provide WSDOT with updated lists of affected worksites and jurisdiction contacts on a periodic basis or as requested by WSDOT. These updates will be submitted electronically in a format specified by `VSDOT. Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Page 6 of 9 DRAFT 12, Continue to monitor the programs of each of the affected employers in the City to determine compliance with the CTR Ordinance and Plan. Complete aimual review of employer CTR programs including a determination as to whether the employer is acting in good faith to meet the goals established by the CTR Law. Within 30 days from the date of approval, submit to WSDOT one electronic or hard copy of any approved employer annual reports. 13. Provide on-going support to all employer designated Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) and assist ETCs in facilitating regular employer networking opportunities and obtaining information necessary to perform their duties including information materials that explain a range of measures and activities to encourage employee use of commute alternatives. 14. Market available services to affected employers to assist in accomplishing CTR goals 15. Work collaboratively with and provide technical guidance and support to employers in developing successful CTR programs. 16. Conduct at least one Basic ETC Training Course per year, using WSDOT-provided ETC Handbook and other training materials reviewed and approved by WSDOT. 17. Provide employers with written information on basic requirements of the CTR ordinance, CTR tunes and an explanation of how the plan is intended to achieve its goals. 18. Attend transportation or healthlbenefits fairs at aff.'cctcd employer worksites to encourage high- occupancy vehicle commuting and promote the employer's CTR program. 19. Design, construct and distribute worksite Commuting Options Boards. Provide professional materials such as brochures, flyers, posters, newsletters, clip art and other tools to assist employer implementation of worksite CTR programs. 20. Provide all affected employers with the WSDOT-approved "Program Description & Employer Annual Report" form. Ensure completed reports are submitted by affected employers to meet applicable deadlines. 21. Submit to Washington State Department of Transportation periodic invoices along with progress reports that accurately assess the progress made by County, on behalf of City, in implementing RCW 70.94.521-551. Report contents include: a. Detailed summary of CTR events and projects, including implementation assistance provided to affected employers within the City; b. Actual total CTR expenditures used by the County for all state CTR_ funds expended by the County during the previous quarter for the purpose of CTR implementation using WSDOT pre-approved format; C. Updated list of affected employers and worksites (electronic); d. Total number of worksites by jurisdiction; C. List of sites which have applied for exemptions or modifications; f. Hard copies of any employer annual reports approved during quarter. 22. Establish and maintain books, records, documents and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices sufficient to reflect properly all direct and indirect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated to be incurred solely for the performance of this Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Page 7 of 9 DRAFT Agreement. Establish and maintain a separate "CTR Account" within Spokane County along with supporting documentation such as payroll and time records, invoices, contracts, vouchers or products proving; in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. 23. Participate in local implementation of statewide CTR public awareness and recognition programs developed by Washington State Department of Transportation. 24. Offer recommendations to the City for policies on parking mid site design which will encourage the use of alternative transporuition modes. 25. Encourage employers to develop site designs and improvements to office and industrial sites that promote the use of alternative transportation modes. 26. Assist Washington State Department of Transportation with CTR evaluation. 27. Offer and assist with the marketing of the statewide RideshareOnline.com., electronic ridematching; service. 28. Serve as liaison between Washington State Department of Transportation and cities, towns, transit agencies and regional transportation planning organizations for the purpose of RCW 70.94.521-551. 29. Continue applying for funding opportunities to further encourage the use of commute alternatives. L_ Intergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Page 8 of 9 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "B" STATEMEENT OF WORK The City will: 1. Provide Spokane County with copies of any proposed amendments to the CTR Plan and Ordinance. 2. Provide Spokane County with copies of any CTR-related amendments to parking ordinances prior to public review. 3. Develop, implement and maintain its own CTR Program as an affected employer or as otherwise specified in the CTR Board Guidelines or RCW 70.94.521-551. 4. Reimburse the County for the services provided by this Agreement in an amount equal to the City's share of the CTR finding as provided in RCW 7094.544. Tntergovernmental Agreement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 10, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Street Master Plan Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted "the drafting of a well-defined Street Master Plan, with funding options", as a principal 2006 budget goal. Reviewed a draft scope of work at the December 20, 2005 Council Study Session and authorized staff to issue an RFP for the selection of a consultant. Reviewed final scope and fee for J-U-B Engineers' at the May 2, 2006 Study Session and approved them on May 9, 2006. JUB Engineers presented a status of the project on December 19, 2006. BACKGROUND: Council expressed their desire to develop a well-defined Street Master Plan, r with funding options, that identifies the current condition of the city streets and recommends appropriate improvements and maintenance that preserve the value and structural integrity of the local transportation system. J-U-B Engineers was selected as the most highly qualified consultant for this project. The scope for this work is divided into three phases. Phase one is the development of pavement management system that will evaluate the current conditions of the city streets and determine what steps are needed to maintain them at their current level. Phase two is to assist in the development of a Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan incorporating the results of phase one and the other transportation needs of the city. Phase three combines the first two phases into a single Street Master Plan report. Attached is the Draft Street Master Plan report. This information is scheduled to be formally presented to Council at the July 17, 2007 Study Session. OPTIONS: Draft report only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Draft report only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Draft report only. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects ATTACHMENTS Draft Street Master Plan Report (see separate document notebook)