The URL can be used to link to this page

2003, 07-15 Study SessionTuesday, July 15, 2003 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSIWET — STUDY SESSION NOTE: AT COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS, THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, EXCEPT COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUEST INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC AND STAFF AS APPROPRIATE CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor Spokane Valley, Washington 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL REQUESTS ALL F.LF.CTRONIC DEVICES BE TURNED OFF WHILE INATTENDANCEAT THE COUNCIL MEETING SUBJECT I. Administration David Mercier 2. Administration David Mercier DISCUSSION LEADER ACTIVITY 3. Administration David Mercier/Mike Ormsby 4. Parks & Recreation 5. Legal 6. Legal 7. Legal 8. Legal Study Session Agenda, July 1, 2003 Nina Regor/Mike Jackson Cary Driskell Cary Driskell Cary Driskell Cary Driskell Employee Introductions (5 minutes) Economic Development Transition Committer Report Bob Platte & Bob McKinley (10 minutes) Proposed Resolution for Reimbursement Proposed Ordinance Authorizing Execution of Interlocal Agreement re Regional Project (15 minutes) Mirnbeau Point Pmjccts (I hour) Franchise Ordinance Update (15 minutes) Street Vacation Presentation (10 minutes) Proposed Memorandum of Understanding re Cable TV Advisory Board (5 minutes) Proposed Water Safety Ordinance (10 minutes) DISCUSSION GOAL Information Information Agenda July 22 Discussion/Information Discuss ion/In format ion Discussion/Information Agenda July 22 Agenda July 22 Pap lor2 DISCUSSION GOAL SUBJECT DISCUSSION LEADER ACTIVITY 9. Administration/ Nina Regor/Ken Thompson Proposed Contract with Microflex re Sales lax Agcnda July 22 Finance Gcocoding (5 minutes) 10. Administration David Mercier Request for Professional Services Agreement (10 minutes) Agenda July 22 11. Legislative Mayor DeVleming Advance Agcnda Additions (5 minutes) Discussion 12. Administration David Mercier City Manager Comments (5 minutes) Information Light Rail Project in Portland: July 30 Land Use Training Session July 31. 6 p.m. Emergency Mgmt Services Mtg August 27 (tentative) 6:30 pm Co. Public Works Bldg Study Session Agcnda, July 1. 2003 Page 2 of Economic Development Transition Committee Findings For the City of Spokane Valley Table of Contents Statement in Support of an Economic Development Department Budget / Salary / Qualifications / Functions Summary Visual Picture Main Committee Discussion Topics Economic Development Tools 1 2 3 5 Economic Development Transition Committee Findings for the City of Spokane 'Valley The was commissioned by the Boundary Review Board to study the economic development of the City of Spokane Valley and to make their recommendations to the new city council. The members of the committee represent various business backgrounds in the Spokane area. Statement In Support Of An Economic Development Department It is the consensus of this committee that the city of Spokane Valley establish its own economic development department. There is no greater or more viable interest than that of self - interest. Its focus, energies, and talents are directly and totally involved with its own success. It is not persuaded to abandon sits objectives by political intrigue, conflicts of interest, or compromise. Respecting those virtues, our new city must create its own economic development department. The success of our new city depends upon strategic priorities which when combined will gain it attention, resources, and the introduction of innovative efforts by our entire city government. An economic development department is the cornerstone of our new city government and the quality of our future should not be relegated to a secondary position by virtue of contracting it elsewhere. Only our own proactive economic development department, whose priority is entirely focused on the economic vitality of our new city, would be positioned to respond quickly and effectively to the economic potentials, which can and will avail themselves to our new city. This is not a time to be timid. it is not a time to under fund or delegate a critical component of the success of our new city to indefinite and changing quantities which may be complacent, inefficient, and involved with too many venues to be effective for any one city. Our research clearly illustrates that most cities of similar population throughout Washington have their own economic development departments. Their directors are agreed that such a department offers better efficiency and is able to more effectively Caret market the specific needs of their respective cities. The Spokane Valley can also be bold and reasonable so it may ensure a prosperous business climate and compete more effectively for resources and a place of prominence which signals to its citizens and business interests in and outside the city that it is here for the duration and that it intends to be the best it can bc. We have the opportunity now to maximize our new city as an urban, social, cultural, and business hub. Our own economic development department will provide the incentives and infrastructure to stimulate private and public investment and provide an inter- agency manner by which business can expand and prosper. By the 1 establishment of our own economic department, we can institute a unified, strategic, and thoughtful vision to accomplish our goals and guarantee our own economic future. Budget/ Salary/Qualifications/Functions Summary Our findings regarding the budget, salaries, qualifications, and functions for the economic development department are derived from information gained directly from thirteen cities across the State of Washington. The compiled data from the targeted cities show these averages: Population ... 86,750 ' Number of Economic Development Department Employees ... 7.5 Budget ... $575,000 (Includes Salaries) Salaries ... $60,000 to $100,000 DOQ for the Manager /Director 540,000 to $70,000 DOQ for the Marketing Specialist The general functions of the Economic Development Manager/Director arc similar for each city throughout the State of Washington. That person is required to ... "organize, coordinate, and direct the Economic Development program of the community and Economic Development of the department; assess city economic development problems and issues; plan and develop program recommendations; assure the implementation of cconomic development programs; plans, organizes and directs the activities to enhance economic development in the city. The Manager is responsible for the development, recommendation and implementation of policies, programs and procedures that accomplish City Council's goals and objectives to ensure the economic health and vitality of the city." The .mini-mum qualifications of the Economic Development Manager/Director include a Bachelor's degree in business, economics, finance, or related field plus five years related and progressively responsible experience. Special qualifications may include lateral knowledge and experience in a variety of professional business disciplines. Under the direction of the Economic Development director, the functions of the Marketing Specialist are to assist in planning,- organizing and completing economic development projects and recruiting new businesses to the city. The Marketing Specialist would research, analyze and report on economic market trends and develop a marketing strategy for leasing city-owned commercial properties. The Marketing Specialist would work with the Economic Development Manager/Director to implement a coordinated business recruitment campaign. The minimum qualifications of the Marketing Specialist include a Bachelor's degree in real estate, business, finance, marketing, property management, or related field plus three years of experience. Special qualifications may include professional experience in business to business marketing, real estate, and similar expertise. 2 The duties of other employees may include the preparation of lease agreements, the review of proposed ordinances and codes, the evaluation of industrial and commercial potential of properties, and the research of business issues and complaints. Visual Picture The Economic Development Department should be a portal for growing and relocating businesses, both moving to the new city and businesses within the city, by being a one stop location for them to get the information they need to accomplish their goals. The Economic Development Department would work closely with the planning department to assist businesses in obtaining the required permits for starting and expanding businesses. The personnel in this department will need to have contacts in other departments and broad industry knowledge to assist new business owners with the necessary permits. The Economic Development Department would be a portal of information to existing businesses in providing to them information affecting their business. One example would be working with the planning department so that access to business parks and business developments are not cut off for an extended length of time. Next would be communicating to business owners, with sufficient lead time, when • accesses (roads) to their business will be blocked or otherwise restricted. We should make every effort to avoid customers having difficulty getting to businesses within the city or these same customers may seek. another place in which to purchase. their product or service. If notified ahead of time the business owner can plan around the obstacle that will be placed in front of their .business location. The Spokane Visitor Bureau is actively working on bringing film producers to the City of Spokane Valley'and the city. This department would develop the protocol needed to accommodate special events. Phis would include coordinating the. various other departments to get the approvals needed for the event to go forward. Since the majority of businesses in the City of Spokane Valley are small businesses the Economic Development Department - could - give back to the business community by developing a resource center for business owners. This work would be in conjunction with BIC and SBA in Spokane to provide some of their seminars, classes and literature in the Spokane Valley. This would bring such resources closer to the ones using and needing the information. Main Committee Discussion Topics CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS — The economic status of our community is extremely heavy in construction and retail type industry, which is common nation 3 wide. Per the information provided by committee member Grant Forsythe, Economics - Professor at Eastern Washington University, seventy percent of all jobs fall into these two sectors of occupations. It is important for a healthy business community to diversify theiridustries that reside within its borders to withstand future economic downturns. LIGHT RAIL DEVELOPMENT — The light rail system is a controversial topic which was discussed at length by the committee. The current layout of the light rail track would divide the Spokane Valley in two, impede north /south traffic, and. generally not serve the business community well. The committee feels that money would be better spent by correcting routes used by the current bus system. BUSINESS RECRUITMENT — The committee believes for proper economic growth the City needs to recruit businesses from a variety of industries. Focusing on the •recruitment of any one business or industry binds the city to the economic swings of that particular industry. One of the first projects of the Economic Development Departnient is to develop an inventory of the current resources of the city, so as to focus their marketing emphasis. APPLEWAY AND SPRAGUE CORRIDOR — The creation of this corridor remains* controversiaL While many defend it, some business owners believe it has compromised their businesses. In our analysis of this issue, we found that businesses suffered during the course of construction of the corridor, mainly because of lack of timely communication. However, since its completion various. businesses arc reporting an increase in traffic flow, which in turn benefits those businesses. Sprague traffic has seen an estimated increase of over 20,000 vehicles per month. Before any major changes are done to this corridor the council needs to commission a study on how the businesses along this corridor will be effected by any proposed change. ft was also noted by committee members that Sprague Avenue has an appearance problem and clean up codes may need to be enforced to sustain the market value of- those properties. SIGNAGE — The committee heard several concerns regarding restrictions on the' type and placement of signs. Any decision on this -topic is going to'have an impact on. existing and future businesses. This committee recommends that our city commission a task force to review. current county ordinances and their recent study on signage. The task force should include local business owners. UNFRIENDLY BUSINESS CLIMATE — The committee members all agreed that state and local governments -have been extremely unfriendly to the business sector. It is important to note,that while residents place members on the council, it is the business community which provides the revenue which enables the city to operate. Thus changes to the current flow of business traffic, communications to business owners about future disruptions, and ageneral, quality support of our business 4 community is imperative for the Spokane Valley to become recognized as a business friendly city. Economic Development Tools TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - Tax Increment Financing is a tool used by municipalities to reduce or eliminate blighting conditions, foster improvement, and enhance the tax base of every taxing district which extends into the area. Tax Increment Financing provides funds for redevelopment for specific areas that would not occur without the support of public investments. This tool allows the City to capture the increase in state and local property taxes that result from a redevelopment which also contributes to the Tax Increment Financing fund. The City is required to prepare a redevelopment plan, and submit it to the state for approval, for each district which identifies uses for the Tax Increment Financing fund. ENTERPRISE ZONES - Enterprise Zone benefits are generally triggered by an improvement to a property which requires a building permit. An Enterprise Zone application would be obtained through the Planning Department and returned with the Building Permit Application. The incentives offered by the City for certified Enterprise Zone projects are: (1) partial property tax abatement; and (2) state sales tax exemption on building materials. Enterprise Zones are sanctioned by the state government; currently there are only six in the state of Washington. A business does not need to be located the Enterprise Zone to reap the benefits of the zone. The business does need to go through an application process and meet specific criteria to keep its Enterprise Zone status. A map of the Enterprise Zone would be available through the Planning Department. FOREIGN TRA))E ZONES - Foreign Trade Zones were created in the United States to provide special customs procedures to U.S. plants engaged in international trade - related activities. Duty -free treatment is accorded items that are processed within Foreign Trade Zones and then re- exported, or duty payments are deferred on these items until they are brought out of the Foreign Trade Zones for sale in the U.S. market. Having a Foreign Trade Zone would allow the city to market to companies that manufacture or assemble products from a foreign county to be sold in the same or another foreign county. A variety of activities can be conducted in a zone, including assembling, packaging destroying, storing, cleaning, exhibiting, re- packing, distributing, sorting, grading, testing, labeling, repairing, combining with foreign or domestic content, or processing. Manufacturing and processing require specific Foreign Trade Zones Board approval. There are substantial rules and regulations related to Foreign Trade Zones, it would be recommended the department review these rules and regulations to see if this is a viable market for the new city. 5 PORT DISTRICTS - The reason for forming a port district - and the focus for all business by the port - is to spur economic activity for the community. Washington's ports can own and operate shipping terminals, marinas and docks, airports, industrial sites, railroads, parks and recreational facilities, and even promote tourism. Ports are formed by a vote of the people who live in the proposed port district. This committee strongly encourages objective investigation of port district use with input requested from our local business sector. This .report was written and provided by: Bob Platte Bob McKinley Larry Meter 6 DATE ACTION IS REQUESTED: July 15, 2003 APPROVED FOR COUNCIL PACKET: City Manager Dept. Head Attorney Approve , its To Form ALTERNATIVES: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION TITLE: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance -- creating findings about regional nature of the project -- authorizing City Manager to begin process for the bond sale -- approving interlocal agreement 2. Draft Reimbursement Resolution SUBMITTED BY: Mike Ormsby, Bond Counsel — Preston Gates Proposed Public Facilities District Interlocal Agreement Ordinance DISCUSSION: Mirabeau Point is one of three major regional projects qualifying for bond proceeds issued by the Public Facilities District. Mike Ormsby will present a draft ordinance and draft resolution, and discuss background information associated with the project. FISCAL IMPACT: SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund for City of Spokane Valley costs AMOUNT BUDGETED: None AMOUNT NEEDED FOR PROJECT: 3 TYPE OF ACTION: Resolution Motion Other VIA E -MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Mayor Mike DeVleming and Members, City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 F. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 July 11, 2003 Michael C. Ormsby mormsby@prestongates.com Direct Fax Number: (509) 444 -7868 Re: Update on Financing for the CenterPlace Project in Mirabeau Point Park Dear Mayor and Council: In advance of the discussion about the above- referenced issue at the study session scheduled for Tuesday evening, July 15, I wanted to provide you with some information and draft documents for review and discussion at the study session. To that end, please find enclosed the following documents: (1) Reimbursement Resolution. We briefly discussed the need for such a Resolution at a previous study session. The City is entering a period where it will incur expenses associated with studying and preparing for the construction and financing of the CenterPlace project (the "Project "). The City may wish to reimburse some or all of these costs with bond proceeds. In order for the City to have the flexibility to do that, this Resolution should be adopted within the next two or three weeks. (2) Ordinance Authorizing Execution of Interlocal Agreement, Making Certain Findings Regarding Regional Project and Authorizing City Manager to Begin Planning for the Issuance of Bonds. You have seen a lot of discussion in the newspaper lately regarding the form of the proposed Interlocal Agreement between the Public Facilities District ( "PFD "), Spokane County (the "County ") and the City of Spokane Valley (the "City "). The PFD Board and the Board of County Commissioners have approved separate forms of Interlocal Agreement at this point. The Ordinance will probably not change (unless you have suggested revisions), however once the Council determines which form of Agreement it wishes to use, that form can be attached to the Ordinance. The Council will undoubtedly wish to discuss the difference between the two Agreements, ask questions of me or of staff and possibly give us direction on how to proceed. There is no immediate need to either adopt this Ordinance or approve the Interlocal Agreement. Even before this latest issue arose, I told councel for both the PFD and the County Mayor Mike DeVleming and July 11, 2003 Page 2 that we might not approve the Agreement before the end of July in any event. The Council should feel free to thoughtfully consider, discuss and question those of us involved in this process before it feels compelled to make any decisions on how we should proceed on your behalf. In order to receive reimbursement of the bond payments being issues to finance the project, the project needs to be characterized as a "regional project ". The Interlocal Agreement (both forms) contain a number of recitals regarding the status and use of the Project. In addition, this Ordinance makes certain findings regarding the Project. Finally, the Ordinance contains authorization for the City Manager and his designees to begin work (which frankly has already begun) to plan for and takes the steps necessary to issue bonds at the appropriate time. The members of the Finance Team (City staff, bond counsel and the underwriter) will be back before the Council on numerous occasions to discuss the specifics of any bond financing. Additionally, we will be bringing the specific Bond Ordinance itself back to the Council for approval at the time of the sale and issuance of any bonds. (3) Update on Other Issues. Other issues have arisen regarding the financing of the Project, uses that the Project can be put to and what constitutes "commencement" of the Project for purposes of the collection of taxes and payment of costs. We can certainly discuss these issues in more detail at the meeting, but let me briefly provide you a framework for this discussion and some information to contemplate prior to the meeting. (a) Regional Centers — Uses. It is important to distinguish as we enter into this discussion that there are a number of uses that a City facility can be put to. The issue to discuss here is not what the City should or should not do in this regard, or even what our worthwhile uses or projects to house within the Project, but what uses will qualify as a "Regional Project" under the definitions provided in statute and by regulation from the Department of Revenue so that they qualify for reimbursement with Regional Project Tax Revenues ( "Tax Revenues "). The statute defines a "Regional Center" as: "...a convention, conference or special events center. ...A special events center is a facility available to the public, used for community events, sporting events, trade shows, and artistic, musical, theatrical, or other cultural exhibitions, presentations, or performances." (RCW 35.57.020) We have been working with Mike Jackson and City staff in discussing possible uses and how those uses may qualify, or do not qualify for housing within the portion of the facility Mayor Mike DeVleming and July 11, 2003 Page 3 financed with tax revenue. It will be important, to have a "plan' developed and in place both for the discussion of operation and maintenance expenses and "commencement" of the Project for purposes of qualification for the receipt of Tax Revenue. (b) Conunencement of the Project. The statute that authorizes the collection of the Tax Revenue requires, that construction on the Projects which receive tax revenue, commence on or before January 1, 2004. There are conflicting positions on whether, in a case like this where there are multiple regional projects, whether commencement of construction on one satisfies the requirement for all. To be safe, it should be assumed that commencement should begin on each separate project before the January 1, 2004 deadline. Therefore, the definition of "commencement" becomes crucial. The position of the Department of Revenues appears to be that if the City has developed an "overall plan" for the Project and begins work on that Project in conjunction with the implementation of this overall plan, that commencement has occurred. In this case, if the City completed an overall plan for Center Place and did some site preparation work prior to January 1, 2004, we believe that "commencement" of work will have begun as required under the statute and by virtue of the regulations. I look forward to being present at the July 15 work session to discuss these or other issues with you. Thank you again for the continued opportunity to work on this very interesting and exciting project. MCO:ana Cc: David Mercier Nina Regor Ken Thompson Mike Jackson Stan Schwartz K14814260003 MCowC0 1,28Fv Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP By Michael C. Ormsby RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SETTING FORTH ITS OFFICIAL INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT A REGIONAL CENTER WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT BONDS FOR PROJECT FINANCING; AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS REGARDING THE PROJECT; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Spokane County, Washington 13E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, of Spokane County, Washington, as follows: K 14 81 4 2100 000 'AICO1MCC_R29FZ WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, of Spokane County, Washington (hereinafter the "City), is a duly organized and existing municipal corporation under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington; and WHEREAS, the City is planning to construct a "Regional Center" as defined in RCW Chapter 35.57 (the "Project "), and to commence work on the Project within the next thirty (30) to forty -five (45) days and pay the costs of the Project with tax exempt financing; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, (the "City Council "), has determined it is in the best interests of the City to pay preliminary planning and initial construction costs now and repay these costs with the proceeds of financing; and WHEREAS, the City desires to declare its official intent to construct and install, if finds are available, the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane .County, Washington, as follows: Section 1: The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures described herein with the proceeds of the debt to be incurred by the City (the "Reimbursement Bonds "). Section 2: The expenditures with respect to which the City reasonably expects to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds are for the Project. Section 3: The maximum principal amount of debt obligations expected to be issued for the Project referenced in Section 2 is $2,000,000.00, and the appropriate officers of the City are hereby authorized to commence planning for the Project. Section 4: The appropriate officials of the City are authorized to arrange for and enter into an interfund loan, if necessary and appropriate to finance a portion of the cost of the project. Section 5: I.f an interfund loan or other source of City funds is arranged to pay for a portion of the costs of the Project, the City Council hereby authorizes repayment of any interfund loan with proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds. Section 6: The City Council hereby ratifies all acts previously taken by officials of the City that are not inconsistent with this Resolution. ATTEST: (SEAL) Section 7: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. DATED this day of , 2003. City Clerk CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, Spokane County, Washington 2 Mayor (SEAL) NOES. Councilmembers: ABSENT, Councilmembers: ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Spokane Valley, of Spokane County, Washington, I- IEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City, duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on July , 2003, of which meeting all members of said City Council had due notice, and at which a majority thereof were present, and that at said meeting said Resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers: I FURTHER CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the same with the original Resolution on file and of record in my office; that said Resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution adopted at said meeting; and that said Resolution has not been amended, modified, or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and is now in full force and effect. TN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand on July City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, making findings regarding a regional project, authorizing the execution of an agreement with the Spokane Public Facilities District, and providing for other matters properly relating thereto. WHEREAS, the Spokane Public Facilities District (the "PFD ") is authorized by chapter 36.100 RCW to acquire, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip, repair, finance and operate "regional centers" as defined in RCW 35.57.020 and the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington (the "City ") is authorized by chapter 35.57.020 RCW to acquire and operate "regional centers;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35.57.020 and 36.100.030 authorize the City and the PFD to participate in the financing of all or any part of a regional center public facility on such terms as may be fixed by agreement between the respective legislative bodies without submitting the matter to a vote of the electors thereof, unless the provisions of the general laws of this state applicable to the incurring of indebtedness require such submission; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District has determined that it is in the best interests of the residents and inhabitants of the District for the District to undertake and accomplish three regional centers projects within its boundaries , i.e., the Convention Center Project, the Fair and Expo Center Project and the Mirabeau Paint Project (collectively, the "Regional Center Projects "); and WHEREAS, the District submitted proposals to its qualified electors, and on May 21, 2002, those qualified electors approved proposals to expand its powers and to extend its existing sales and use tax and existing hoteUmotel tax to enable the District to undertake and accomplish the Regional Center Projects; and WHEREAS, the District has determined that the amount required to be funded from Regional Tax Revenues (defined hereinafter) to undertake and accomplish the Regional Center Projects, including expenses incidental thereto, does not exceed $96,000,00; and WHEREAS, the parties intend to jointly develop the Regional Center Projects, in accordance with an "Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects" substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the "Agreement "), as multipurpose facilities meeting the definition of "regional centers" under RCW 35.57.020. The Regional Center Projects are intended to directly serve Spokane County ( the "County"), the District, the City of Spokane and the City, and their respective residents, as well as serving a broader population in the region, the State of Washington and portions of Idaho and Montana. The City, the County and the District have all indicated a desire to work cooperatively KA481421030331M C O W.0 O_O29 F 6 under RCW 36.100.030(2), chapter 35.559 RCW, chapter 39.34 RCW and chapter 67.28 RCW so that the District, the County and the City can obtain sufficient financing to accomplish the Regional Center Projects consistent with the terms of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City expects to issue and sell its limited tax general obligation bonds in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $7,000,000 to provide financing for a portion of the costs of undertaking and accomplishing the Mirabeau Point Project; and WHEREAS, the PFD, County and the City each are authorized pursuant to chapter 35.57 RCW, either individually or jointly with another municipality such as the District, to acquire, lease, construct, add to, improve, replace, repair, maintain, operate and regulate the use of regional centers, and are further authorized by chapter 35.59 RCW to participate in the financing of, and to appropriate and/or expend any available public money for regional centers. RCW 36.100.030(2) provides that a public facilities district, may enter into contracts under chapter 39.34 RCW for the joint provision and operation of facilities, including regional centers, and may enter into contracts under chapter 39.34 RCW where any party to the contract provides and operates such facilities for the other party or parties to the contract. Chapter 39.34 RCW further enables the Parties to carry out collectivity any activities that they are individually permitted to pursue under applicable law; and WHEREAS, the District, the County and the City have negotiated an agreement under which (i) the District will carry out the Convention Center Project; (ii) the County and the District will jointly develop the Fair and Expo Center Project under the County's lead, with the District providing financial assistance in the form of intergovernmental payments (the Fair and Expo Center Payments "); and (iii) the City and District will jointly develop the Mirabeau Point Project under the City's lead, with the District providing financial assistance in the form of intergovernmental payments (the "Mirabeau Point Payments "); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington as follows: Section 1: Findings (1) Regional Center. The development of the Mirabeau Point Project (the "Project ") is estimated to attract visitors to the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington by the year 2005. It is expected to compete with small- to medium- sized conference centers throughout Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and Western Montana, and is expected to draw attendees from across that region by offering multiple -day conferences, conventions, trade shows, events and festivals attracting overnight visitors, as well as being available for smaller regional and community events, specialty sporting evens, artistic, musical, theatrical, or other cultural exhibitions, presentations, or performances. The Project is expected by 2006 to attract economic benefits in direct and indirect positive economic impacts to the City, primarily as a result of increased tourism and demand for services, food and lodging. The City Council therefore finds that the Regional Center Project meets the definition of "regional center" found in RCW 35.57.020 and because it serves a regional population. In addition, the total Project cost, including debt service, is expected to exceed $10 million. K; 4814210f10:131MCMICO 029F6 -2- (2) PFD Taxes. The Council finds that the City, PFD and Spokane County will meet the 33% match relating to the PFD Sales Tax and required under RCW 82.14.390 by contributions of cash and other services by private entities and individuals, the City of Spokane, the County, the City and PFD, which shall be counted as an in -kind donation. Section 2: Ratification of Interlocal Agreement. The City Council approves the Interlocal Agreement between the County, the City and the PFD in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Mayor and the Clerk of the City are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Agreement on the City's behalf in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 3: City Bonds. The City Manager and his designees are authorized and directed to work with the City's financial advisor, underwriter, bond counsel, rating agencies, potential bond insurers and other appropriate persons or entities, to structure the City bonds and prepare for the issuance and sale of those bonds. The issuance of the City bonds shall be approved by future ordinance of the Council. Section 4: Authority Granted to City Officials. The Mayor and/or City Manager are hereby authorized to do and perform from time to time any and all acts and things consistent with the Ordinance necessary or appropriate to carry this Ordinance into effect. Section 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its adoption and publication, as required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County Washington, this day of July, 2003. ATTEST: City Clerk (SEAL) K149142100003t (CO M.CO 029Fb CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Mayor -3 - 1 further certify that I have carefully compared the same with the original Ordinance on file and of record in my office; that said Ordinance is a full, true, and correct copy of the original Ordinance adopted at said meeting; and that said Ordinance has not been amended, modified, or rescinded since the date of its adoption., and is now in full force and effect. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City on July , 2003. I, the undersigned, Clerk of the City Council of the City of the Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is a full, true, and correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City, duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof held on July which meeting all members of said Council had due notice and at which a majority thereof were present; and that at said meeting said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote: (SEAL) K;K91421000031/4COW,CO O29F6 * * * * * * * * ** AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers: NOES, Councilmembers: ABSENT, Councilmembers: ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: -4- City Clerk DATE ACTION IS REQUESTED: July 15, 2003 APPROVED FOR COUNCIL PACKET: City Manager Dept. Head Attorney Approve -As To Form CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION y TITLE: TYPE OF ACTION: Status Report on Mirabeau Point ATTACHMENTS: None. Ordinance Resolution Motion Other • SUBMITTED BY: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager DISCUSSION: Staff will present a project summary, as well as an updated revenue and expense pro forma. ALTERNATIVES: FISCAL IMPACT: SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund for C'ity of Spokane Valley costs AMOUNT BUDGETED: None AMOUNT NEEDED FOR PROJECT: STAFF MEMO RE: DISCUSSION POINTS FOR FRANCHISE BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE July 9, 2003 GOAL: Identify issues that will be common to all franchise agreements; discuss and come to agreement on the language to be used in all such franchises. (Note: each franchise may have particular issues unique to that franchise. As such, terms may vary to some extent from "model" language that is developed by the Council and staff. Additionally, there are two basic types of franchisees, long -term franchisees and others. Examples of long -term franchisees are water purveyors and power suppliers.) The Council may want to consider passing a franchise ordinance that sets this boilerplate language, which would be applicable to all franchises. Doing so could cut down on the amount of work done on individual franchises. The Council will identify other issues to address. Please provide any such requests to me at your earliest opportunity so they can be addressed in a timely fashion. 1. Length of franchise — A franchisee may request a specific length based upon technical issues, such as fiber. For the most part, long -term franchisees will seek as long a franchise as possible. An issue to keep in mind in granting long-term franchises is. whether there are going to be technical considerations that may point to doing a shorter franchise. For example, are there anticipated changes to the franchisees facilities that we may want to access for City benefit? Secondarily, as discussed in more detail below, the Council may elect to impose franchise fees. Granting long -term franchises will preclude imposing any such fee for many years. 2. Franchise fees — There are two issues. First, does the Council want to impose franchise fees? Various jurisdictions impose such fees, almost exclusively on the West side of the state. If the answer to the first question is "yes ", then an amount must be determined. In researching this, communities such as Kirkland and Bainbridge Island have established franchise ordinances that state a franchise fee will be imposed in an amount that will cover all costs of franchise administration. Seattle recently agreed to an electrical franchise with SeaTac whereby Seattle would install and operate an electrical system in SeaTac. In doing so, Seattle agreed to pay SeaTac 6% of the power portion of the electric service in SeaTac, and up to an additional 6% of the distribution portion of the electrical service. As such, SeaTac imposed a % -based franchise fee. Franchise fees can either be a one time event, or a yearly event, and both approaches are used in Washington. 3. Response to emergency — The issue is whether we charge the grantee if we have to respond to something gone afoul with grantee's facilities during an emergency. The current language is that grantee shall pay in the event of this happening. You may want to consider only charging grantee if grantee is notified of the emergency, and fails to respond. On the other hand, it is a privilege to use the right-of-way. If the City is forced to respond without having reasonable time to notify grantee, the City eats the cost of fixing the problem. That may be viewed as a cost of doing business in the right -of -way for grantees. In any event, this situation should not arise very often. Obviously, it is in the grantee's best interest to repair its facilities as soon as possible to reduce interruption of service to its customers. 4. Prior rights issue — Some franchisees were operating prior to Spokane County (or the State of Washington for that matter) came into existence to provide regulatory guidelines. As such, they have "prior rights" that impact what Spokane Valley can regulate at this time. This issue has to be research in some depth, so it will have to be addressed at a later time. 5. Joint use of excavation — This issue involves whether we include a requirement that when a grantee is going to make a street cut, the grantee must advise other franchisees that have facilities in the same trench. This is a common requirement to avoid multiple cuts being made in the road. Grantees may object to this requirement on the basis that allowing other grantees to work in the trench may create delay or increase costs. The current draft model language states that joint use is required, so long as it does not unreasonably delay the grantee. Further, joint users can be required to share in the cost of the cut and fill. The provision, as written, should take care of the issue. 6. Road repair after cut made — The current language states that grantee shall "restore the surface of the right - of-way or public property to at least that standard established by the City Engineer or set by the conditions of any City- issued right -of -way permit." All of the existing franchises inherited from Spokane County require that the grantee restore the road to the condition it was in prior to the cut. After consultation with Dave and others, the following language is recommended: the grantee shall "restore the surface of the right - of-way or public property to at least the currently adopted City standards or as required by the City Engineer through a right -of -way permit, depending upon special circumstances." 7. Do we need to require as - built plans? — The current language requires grantees to provide as -built plans on facilities within the . right -of -way within six months of execution of the franchise. A question came up on this. Would we use the as- builts, or would we be requiring work from the grantees that would just sit around for no purpose. The City Engineer said the as- builts would certainly be used for various planning purposes, and would be entered into our GIS database. The Engineer's position is that we definitely do want those materials. From a practical standpoint, we do not want to be in position where a franchisee goes out of business, abandons the facilities, and we would not know where the facilities are. Stan related a litigation story involving abandoned facilities that were not mapped, with the result being several flooded houses. 8. Compliance with local emergency management plan — The current language requires the grantee to "adhere to the Emergency Management Plan (the "Plan ") for responding to any spill, break, or other emergency condition." A question has arisen whether this means existing Federal emergency plans, or a local plan that will be developed. Many franchisees already have to have provisions to adhere to a Federal plan. A local plan would be more tailored to local conditions, and may or may not be more stringent than the Federal requirements. 9. Notice to grantee to move (temporarily or permanently) its facilities — This issue would include the need to move wires in the event a house is being moved down the right -of -way, or if the road is being widened or moved, permanently moving whatever facilities would be affected. The current language requires 14 days notice to the franchisee. This may or may not be enough advance notice to some franchisees, such as power providers, who may not be able to get the necessary equipment or replacement parts in that short of time. There are two options: extend the time and /or allow for an extension on good cause shown by the franchisee. Other jurisdictions on the West side use 30 days. Another option is to use 60 days notice, with the ability extend on good cause shown. This time frame should not be an issue for permanent relocations, due to the normal lead time on such projects. For temporary moves, it will inconvenience people (rare though it may be) who want to move a house. 10. Abandonment of facilities — This issue relates to those times when a franchisee wants to abandon all or a part of its facilities, such as changing the route of pipes or wires. Similar to the requirement of as- builts, the City should know when facilities are abandoned to know which facilities are active. Requiring permission accomplishes that goal. 11. Records — If a third party requests copies of records identifying where specific facilities are located from the franchisee, should the requesting party have to pay for them? This may be taken care of if we require as- builts from all franchisees. Then, such requests could simply come to the City for that information. We may elect to charge for administrative time to provide copies of that. 12. Indemnification — Should the indemnification clause be mutual? It is currently written so franchisee would indemnify the City for acts that grantee is liable for. This clause protects the City from being the deep pocket for allowing franchisees to use the right -of -way. There is no good reason to expose the City to potential liability by making this a mutual clause. From a practical standpoint, the City would not be doing anything by entering into the franchise that would expose it to liability, so there really is not a need to have this mutual. 13. Cost of publication — As currently written, the grantee bears the cost of publication, which runs about $150 -200 for a two -page summary. The question is whether the City wants to bear this cost for all franchises. The Council may want to consider whether the City is gaining any tangible benefit from a particular franchise, such as use of facilities, in determining whether to bear this cost, or pass it on in the franchise. 14. Copies of franchise provided to Cite — Do we need to require that two copies be sent, one to the Clerk and one to our Public Works Department? Should the City take the responsibility of making a copy for the other department? Cary P. Driskell Deputy City Attorney Staff memo on street vacation — C. Driskell July 7, 2003 — draft 3 MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL RE: VACATING CITY STREET OR ALLEY Cary P. Driskell July 7, 2003 Issue: What are the steps for processing a petition to vacate a city street or alley? RCW 35.79 provides the process for vacating a street or alley. Portions of this memo (in italics) are practical tips that should be followed as well, but are not part of the RCW. Initiating a vacation — A vacation can be initiated one of two ways: 1) an owner of an interest in real property next to a street or alley can file a petition with the Council to vacate all or part of the street or alley adjoining their land. In the vacation petition, the applicant must provide a description of the property to be vacated. The petition or resolution shall be filed with the City Clerk. If the petition is signed by more than two- thirds (2/3) of the owner(s) of the abutting property of the proposed vacation, the Council shall by resolution set a time when the petition will be heard and decided by the Council or committee thereof. The time for this hearing shall occur between 20 and 60 days of the passage of the Council. resolution. 2) a street vacation can be initiated through a resolution by the Council. (Practice tip: Prior to having the Council address this under either option, the applicant should provide an accurate legal description of the property to Public Works staff to determine if there are issues relative to the property that need to be investigated or resolved) Notice of hearing, objections prior to hearing — Once the resolution is passed by the Council under either method, the City Clerk shall give at least 20 days notice of the petition posting a written notice in three of the most public places in the city, and also one additional notice in a conspicuous place on the street or alley sought to be vacated. The notice shall state that a petition has been filed to vacate the street or alley described in the notice, along with the time and place of the hearing on the petition. If the Council initiates the process by resolution, the notice must also be mailed at least 15 days prior to the hearing to the reputed owners of all tracts, lots or parcels of land or other property abutting upon the street or alley, or any part thereof, sought to be vacated, as shown on the rolls of the Spokane County Treasurer, mailed to the address thereon shown. If 50% of the abutting property owners file written objection to the proposed vacation with City Clerk prior to the hearing, the City shall be prohibited from proceeding with the vacation resolution. 1 Staff memo on street vacation — C. Driskell July 7, 2003 — draft 3 (Practice tip: The notice to abutting owners should advise them of their rights under RCW 35.79 to protest the street vacation and of the form of protest which must be made.) (Practice tip: Upon filing of an application for street vacation, the staff should prepare a staff report, forwarded to the petitioner and Council for the vacation hearing, that provides an assessment as to whether the street will reasonably be needed for future City transportation needs, whether the vacation will need to be conditioned to accommodate existing utility or other easements, and any recommended payment, if any, to City for the vacated property.) Vacation hearine, ordinance of vacation — The hearing can be heard by the Council or a committee thereof on the date set by resolution, or such time as the hearing is adjourned to by the hearing body. If it is heard by a committee, the committee shall, following the hearing, report its recommendation to the Council, which can either adopt or reject the recommendation. if a committee holds the hearing, the Council need not hold its own hearing, but may at its discretion. If the Council decides to grant the vacation, in whole or in part, the City is then authorized by ordinance to vacate the street or alley, or any part thereof. The ordinance may also state that the vacation shall not become effective until the owners of property abutting the street or alley, or part thereof, compensate the City in an amount which does not exceed one -half of the appraised value of the area 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 part thereof, were acquired at public expense, the City may require the owners of the property abutting street or alley to compensate the City in an amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated. One half of the revenue received by the City for such vacations must be dedicated to the acquisition, improvement, development, and related maintenance of public open space or transportation capital projects within the City. The language above does not state, definitively whether payment is required to the City for the vacated land. In Greater Harbor 2000 v. Seattle,122 Wn. 2d 267, 282 (1997) the Court held the payment of money for a vacation is "permissive ". As such, the City is not obligated to obtain money for a street vacation. Note RCW 35.79.030 was amended in 2001 by adding the 25 year rule, but the legislature still used the word "may" regarding compensation. So the receipt of money is a policy decision for the Council to decide. (Practice tip: The City should require an appraisal, paid for by the petitioner, on any property sought to be obtained by vacation. In the event the appraisal seems low, the City could get its own appraisal.) The ordinance may also state that the City retains an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in the vacated land for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services. 2 Staff memo on street vacation — C. Driskell July 7, 2003 — draft. 3 A certified copy of the ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk and in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. Title to vacated property — If a street or alley is vacated by ordinance, the property within the area vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one -half to each, unless otherwise agreed in writing by those parties. Case law also has allowed a disproportionate division of the property, depending upon circumstances unique to the property's history. Vested rights are not affected by RCW 35.79. Our appellate courts have said that vested rights belong to abutting property owners on any portion of a street which is being vacated who have "a special right and a vested interest in the right to use the whole of the street for ingress and egress, Tight, view, and air, and if any damages are suffered by such an owner, compensation is recoverable therefore." Fry v. O'Leary 141 Wash. 465, 469 (1927). Grounds to challenge street vacation — The decision to vacate a street is a legislative act. Only two classes of people can challenge a proposed vacation: abutting property owners and non - abutting owners who can show special injury. Special injury must be an injury different, in kind and not merely in degree, from that sustained by the general public. Less convenient access does not constitute special injury. A vacation will be upheld in court if findings of fact are made that there is a "public use" or "public benefit" from the vacation. If there is no such finding, any member of the public is an injured party and may challenge. Public use or benefit can include income to the City (payment for the appraised value of the land), returning the property to the tax rolls, providing for private maintenance of the property, and freeing the City from potential liability from conditions that may be allowed to arise in the dedicated right -of- way. The court will review an ordinance vacating a street where there is no possible benefit to the public. * There are several additional provisions relating to vacations adjacent to waterways, which will not be addressed in this memo. (Practice tip: We need to develop a standardized petition for street vacation, an internal checklist, and an informational sheet to give to interested people) Cary P. Driskell Deputy City Attorney This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by and between the City of Spokane (hereinafter Spokane), the City of Spokane Valley (hereinafter Spokane Valley), and Spokane County (hereinafter County), jointly referred to as "Parties ", 'This Memorandum ofUnderstanding will summarize the terms and conditions upon which the Parties agree to participate in the Regional Cable Advisory Board (hereinafter "the Board "). Spokane has adopted an amended code provision pertaining to the formation and participation on the Board. The Parties are in agreement that the terms of Spokane's City Code section 10,27.905, as amended on , 2003, shall provide the basis for this Memorandum of Understanding. 1. Parties_ The parties to this agreement are the City of Spokane (hereinafter Spokane), the City of Spokane Malley (hereinafter Spokane Valley), and Spokane County (hereinafter County), jointly referred to as "Parties ". _ Purpose. The purpose of this memorandum is to establish the terns by which the Parties shall form and participate in the Board. 3. Terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, The Parties agreeto establish and participate in the Board as specified i.n. Spokane City Code Section 10,27.905, as amended on , 2003. (Spokane City Code section 10;27.905, as amended, is attached as Exhibit A.) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING City of Spokane Spokane County By: By:_ Date: Date: City of Spokane Valley By: Date: By: Date: cfcpd wart filesfcablc ivlmcmorandtim of understanding draft n i 7 - -03 By: Date: 03 07 07 rgb Ordinance no. C- An ordinance relating to cable television, amending SMC 10.27.900. The City of Spokane does ordain: Section 1. That a new section be added to ch. 10.27 to be numbered 10.27.905 and to read as follows: 10.27.905 Regional Cable Advisory Board. A. In lieu of a board under section 10.27.900, the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County may establish a Regional Cable Advisory Board, to be effective upon joint adoption of this provision by legislative action of the three jurisdictions. The Regional Cable Advisory Board shall consist of eleven members, appointed by the mayors of participating cities, confirmed by majority vote of the city councils, and by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners for County appointees. Six members may be appointed by the City of Spokane, three by the City of Spokane Valley and two by Spokane County. Members shall be appointed for staggered three year terms. B. As of the effective date of this section, there is already a current City - County Cable Advisory Board for the City of Spokane and Spokane County of eleven members. The three positions transferred to Spokane Valley by this action shall continue for their existing terms and shall be those positions with the shortest remaining unexpired terms, selected in reverse order of member seniority, or as designated by the appointing authority in the event of equal status. Any members replaced by Spokane Valley appointments may also continue to serve as ex officio board members until expiration of their terms or may continue in service as a voting member if approved to do so by Spokane Valley. C. Regional cable advisory board members shall serve without compensation or per diem. They shall be broadly representative of the appointing authority's population, with diverse backgrounds and a reasonable knowledge of cable communications. The regional cable advisory board shall appoint from its members . a chairperson and a vice chair to serve in absence of the chair. No regional cable advisory board member shall be affiliated with a local cable franchisee in any way. D. Reasonable expenses of the regional cable advisory board, including any necessary support staff, shall be provided by the participating jurisdictions through an approved annual budget, approximately in proportion to board membership, but each 1 EXHIBIT "A" participating jurisdiction retains full authority over its staff and expenditures except also as may be otherwise addressed by a separately approved interlocal agreement. E. The regional cable advisory board has discretion to act and support the participating local governments in the following areas: 1. Consider unresolved complaints and disagreements between franchisees and subscribers or users of the cable communications system and issue rulings thereon. 2. Advise on the regulation of rates in accordance with the provisions of any other applicable ordinance requirements or laws. 3. Advise regarding general policy relating to the cable services provided subscribers and the operation and use of access and leased access channels (if any), with a view to maximizing the diversity and usefulness of programs and services to subscribers. 4. Assist in consideration of applications for new, transfer, and renewal franchises. 5. Perform such other advisory functions as the executive or legislative branches of participating jurisdictions may from time to time request, but any functions requested by one local government which concern areas of another local government shall require the concurrence of the other local government. F. Any of the participating local governments may withdraw from the Regional Cable Advisory Board by resolution of its legislative body, to take effect upon sixty (60) days written notice. The withdrawing government shall give notice to the non withdrawing governments as follows: the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, the City Manager of the City of Spokane Valley and the Mayor of the City of Spokane as the case may be. A withdrawing government may revoke its notice of withdrawal in the same manner up to thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the sixty (60) day period. Upon the effective date of withdrawal, the terms of board members of the withdrawing jurisdiction expire and their positions no longer exist. Passed the City Council 2 Council President Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney 3 Mayor Proposed administrative water safety ordinance -- . Driskell July 10 2003 — draft one • CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. E AN ORDINANCE THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISFUNG WATER SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. WIEREAS, water safety regulations are necessary to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public; and WHEREAS, ES, the City Council desires to establish water safety regulations to accomplish that goal; • NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley.. Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Intent. The City of Spokane Valley declares that adequate water safety regulations are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Therefore. the intent of this Ordinance is to promote safe recreational use of the waterways of the City, Section 2. Definitions. in construing the provisions of this Ordinance, except where otherwise plainly declared or clearly apparent from the context, words used in this Ordinance shall be given their common and ordinary meaning and in addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1) "Buoy" means a floating device or marker anchored in the water. All buoys except for recreational buoys, shall comply with the Uniform State Waterway Marking System (CJSWMS). Additionally all buoys are subject to the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program which is administered by the City of Spokane Valley Planning Department. (2) "Buoy line" means a straight line that would exist if drawn between adjacent buoys, (3) "Motorboat" means all boats and vessels that are self - propelled. (4) "Moving water" shall be the Spokane River within the City limits, excluding the north half of the Spokane River where Spokane County continues to have jurisdiction. (5) "Operate" means to steer, direct or otherwise have physical control of a vessel that is underway. c:cpd wurk tiltsiardin#ncr;sfwatcr safetylproposed admin water safety draft one 7 -10 -03 -] - Proposed administrative water safety ordinance — C. Driskell July 10, 2003 — draft one (6) "Personal flotation device" means a buoyancy device, life preserver, buoyant vest, ring buoy or buoy cushion that is designed to float a person in the water and that has United States Coast Guard approval. (7) "Personal watercraft" means a vessel of less than sixteen feet that uses a motor powering and water jet pump, as its primary source of motive power and that is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling , or being towed behind the vessel, rather than in the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. (8) "Shoreline" means the existing intersection of water, which includes permitted appendences, with the ground surface. (9) "Underway" means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or a ground. (10) "Vessel" means every description of watercraft on the water, other than a seaplane, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water. It does not include inner tubes, air mattresses, small rafts, flotation devices or toys customarily used by swimmers. (11) "Wake speed" means a speed not to exceed five miles per hour and not producing a wake to exceed six inches in height at its apex. (12) "Water skiing" means the physical act of being towed behind a vessel on, but not limited to, any skis, aquaplane, kneeboard, tube or a device that requires the use of a tow prior to release such as a surfboard or any other similar device. (13) "Waterway" any waters, lake, river, tributary canal, lagoon or connecting waters within the City. of: Section 3. Personal Flotation Device Required. (1) No person may operate or permit to be operated a vessel underway, unless each person twelve years of age or younger thereon is wearing a personal flotation device. (2) All persons regardless of age shall wear a personal flotation device while on moving water. Section 4. Speed Restrictions. (1) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than fifty miles per hour on any waterway. (2) No person shall operate a vessel in excess of wake speed within hundred feet c:cpd work files/ordinances /water safety /proposed admin water safety draft one 7 -10 -03 -2- Proposed administrative water safety ordinance — C. Driskell July 10, 2003 — draft one (a) Any shoreline; (b) Another moving or stationary vessel; (c) Swimmer; (d) S.C.U.B.A. dive flag; or (e) Buoy line. (3) No person shall operate a vessel on any waterway that has a width of two hundred feet or less at its widest point at a speed in excess of wake speed within fifty feet of any: (a) Shoreline; (b) Another moving or stationary vessel; (c) Swimmer; (d) Buoy line. (4) No person shall operate a vessel on any waterway from one -half hour after sunset on one -half hour before sunrise at a speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour. Section 5. SCUBA Diving. (1) Any person engaged in SCUBA diving shall mark the area in which such operations are being conducted by the use of a divers' flag, which is red with a white diagonal stripe, at least twelve by twelve inches. (2) Any person engaged in SCUBA diving operations between sunset and sunrise shall mark such location in which such operations are being conducted by the use of the divers' flag which is illuminated and visible for a distance of one mile. (3) All persons engaged in a SCUBA operation shall remain within fifty feet of their diving flag upon surfacing. Section b. Water Skiing. (1) No person shall engage in water skiing, except on a take -off, within one hundred feet of the shoreline. Any take -off from within one hundred feet of the shoreline must be made outward and at right angles to the shoreline. At no time can such take -off cause risk or hazard to other vessels or persons on the water. (2) No person or persons shall engage in water skiing within one hundred feet of any boat launching ramp, motionless vessel, vessel underway, swimmer, buoy or shoreline. (3) All persons engaging in water skiing shall comply with speed and distance regulations set forth in this chapter with respect to buoy lines and shorelines during drop offs. c:cpd work files /ordinances/water safety/proposed admin water safety draft one 7 - 10 - 03 - 3 - Proposed administrative water safety ordinance — C. Driskell July 10, 2003 — draft one (4) No person operating a vessel shall follow behind a person (water skiing or being towed in any manner) closer than three hundred feet nor cross the towing vessels bow by less than two hundred feet, nor come within one hundred feet of the person being towed. (5) No person shall engage in water skiing or any other recreational activity involving the act of being towed by a vessel on any waterway from one -half hour after sunset to one -half hour before sunrise. Section 7. Operator Age Requirements. (1) No person under the age of ten years shall be allowed to operate a motorboat. (2) Persons ten years of age to fourteen years of age may operate a motor driven boat of ten horsepower or less. Persons fourteen years of age and older may operate any motor driven boat. (3) No owner of any vessel or person who is in control of a vessel shall knowingly permit the operation of such vessel upon any waterway in violation of the provisions of this section. Section 8. Buoys. (1) Speed /no -wake buoys also know as regulatory markers shall be placed one hundred feet from the established high water mark or seventy -five feet from an appendance. A permitted appendence, such as a dock, shall constitute the shoreline for the purpose of this section. (2) Recreational buoys (i.e., slalom courses) shall be placed one hundred feet from the established high water mark and if left unattended from sunset to sunrise shall be available for public use. (3) Mooring buoys shall be placed within fifty feet of the shoreline. Provided, however, mooring buoys may be placed greater than fifty feet from the shoreline if such buoys are appropriately marked as provided for in the UWMS, illuminated and maintained with a bright flashing white light during the hours between sunset and sunrise. (4) The City Police Department shall attach a bright colored notice giving the owner seven days to remove or replace any buoy in violation of the Uniform State Waterway Marking System. After the seventh day, the buoy may be removed by the City Police Department. Provided, however, the City Police Department may remove any buoy, at any time, without notification to its owner, when the City Police Department deems the buoy to be a hazard to navigation. c:cpd work files/ordinances/water safety/proposed admin water safety draft one 7 -10 -03 -4- Proposed administrative water safety ordinance — C. Driskell July 10, 2003 — draft one Section 9. Hazard to Navigation. No person may place or cause to be placed any ski, swim dock, buoy or floating course in waterways that creates a hazard to navigation. Section 10. Motorized Vehicles Prohibited Area. (1) No person shall operate a motor boat or personal water craft on the Spokane River from its intersection with the west side of the Barker Road Bridge to its intersection with the west side of the Centennial Trail Bridge at Plant Ferry Park from April 16th to October 14th of any given year. (2) This section does not apply to police, fire, or emergency vessels in enforcement, training, or rescue. Section 11. Violation — Misdemeanor - Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the Spokane County Jail for a period of not more than ninety days, or pay a fine not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine. Section 12. Violation — Civil Infraction — Penalty. (1) In addition to or as an alternative to those provisions set forth in Section 11, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a civil infraction subject to a monetary penalty in the amount as provided for in the Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (IRLJ). (2) For the purpose of this section, the Spokane Valley Police Department is the person authorized to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. (3) The procedures for the issuance of a Notice of Infraction, hearings, assessment and payment of monetary penalties shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7.80 RCW. Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this chapter. Section 14. Additional Provisions. The provisions of this chapter shall be in addition to and not a substitute for or limited by any other applicable laws. Section 15. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed on this day of July, 2003. c:cpd work files/ordinances /water safety/proposed admin water safety draft one 7 - 10 - 03 - 5 - Proposed administrative water safety ordinance — C. Driskell July 10, 2003 — draft one ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz Date of Publication: Effective Date: Mayor, Michael DeVleming c:cpd work files/ordinances /water safety/proposed admin water safety draft one 7 -10 -03 -6- CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED BY: Ken Thompson, Finance and Administrative Services Director ALTERNATIVES: 1. Hire Microflex to conduct this audit during the next 120 days 2. Hire college interns and a supervisor to canvas the City for businesses not reporting sales inside the City. This alternative would take more City involvement and would likely take several months longer to complete. Costs are estimated at $20,000 plus postage and supplies. DATE ACTION IS REQUESTED: APPROVED FOR AT TAC:RMENTS: COUNCIL PACKET: City Manager Dept. Head Attorney Approve As To Form TITLE: TYPE OF ACTION: Ordinance Resolution Motion Other STAFF RECOMTv ENDATION: Schedule on the July 22 Council agenda the agreement with Microflex for the audit of sales tax reports of companies within the City of Spokane Valley. DISCUSSION: The Washington State Department of Revenue lists companies filing sales tax reports for transactions within the City. The Department's list appears to be short a significant number of businesses. This has resulted in a decrease in expected sales tax revenue for the City. Microflex of Burien, Washington has contracted with over 30 cities to conduct similar work with positive results. FISCAL IMPACT: SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund AMOUNT BUDGETED: None AMOUNT NEEDED FOR PROJECT: $25,000 for the Microflex contract. An additional $3,000 is anticipated for postage and supplies. June 25, 2003 Stan McNutt City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Dear Stan, Per your request, I am pleased to propose a sales tax audit program for the City of Spokane Valley. This audit is designed to ensure that businesses begin reporting sales tax to the new City of Spokane Valley. Audit Scope and General Approach We propose at least the following different approaches to this audit: 1. We will audit building permits to ensure that contractors and subcontractors properly code and report sales taxes due at least to the value of the permit being audited. 2. We will examine private party vehicle and boat sales to ensure use tax is properly allocated. 3. We will audit from electronic phone books to insure that businesses with locations within the City are reporting to the City. 4. We will audit from any fire department inspection lists which we can obtain for the fire districts currently serving the City to ensure these businesses are reporting to the City. 5. We will contact the State of Washington to determine if a Corporate and/or Assumed Business Name database exists with street address and zip code. If these databases exist, we will use them to compare listings to the Washington State Department of Revenue sales tax listing 6. We will compare other sources of Spokane Valley business information to the State sales tax listing This tax discovery audit will be done primarily using computer technology. We will use special software to identify accounts for review and /or contact. Most initial contacts will be by letter. Non- responders will be contacted by phone. We will follow up to see that companies follow through and begin reporting sales tax to the City, if appropriate. City Responsibilities We will make every effort to minimize City responsibilities for the audit program. However, we need the City to do the following: 1. Provide copies of building permit data for commercial projects with estimated values in excess of 5150,000 including value, owner information, contractor information including name, address, UBI number, city registration number and any subcontractor information which is captured. If this is unavailable in a computer readable format, photocopies of the larger permits will suffice. 2. Provide us with an accurate City map at a scale large enough to clearly see City boundaries. Tax Audit Proposal to the City of Spokane Valley Page 2 3. Send letters to the Department. of Revenue and Department of Licensing to authorize Microflex to receive sales tax data and vehicle and boat license transactions necessary to conduct the audits. We will draft these letters for City signature. Microflex Responsibilities Microflex will conduct all aspects of the audit including: 1. Using computer technology to identify potential missing sales tax. 2. Act as an agent of the City in contacting the appropriate business or state agency to determine if taxes are due. 3. Follow -up with the Department of Revenue or directly with the business on audit findings where tax is due. If we are unable to cause voluntary compliance, we will notify the City which then may initiate legal action. 4. Provide name, street address and telephone number of businesses found which should be reporting sales tax information using the City of Spokane Valley sales tax code #3213, but are not shown on the Department of Revenues Sales Tax report. 5. Provide monthly reports showing the status of the audit. 6. Review State Department of Revenue sales tax code #32 13 listing for potential errors in sales reporting (a well known, high sales volume outlet reports low sales). 7. Start. the Audit no later than July 21 with a completion date no later than October 21, 2003. Initial Fixed Fee Audit We normally provide audit services on a fully contingent basis with fees based on a percentage of the new revenue we generate for the City. Since there may be substantial taxes due from companies which simply do not know about the new City, we propose to conduct this audit for the first six months on a fixed fee basis. For a fee of $25,000 we will do the following: I. Electronic Phone Book Audit — we will screen businesses with phone locations in the City against sales tax returns and contact those who are likely to have retail sales and are not reporting sales tax to the City. 1 Private Vehicle and Boat Use Tax Transactions -- we will examine six months of license data and submit adjustments to the Department of Revenue for improperly coded transactions. 3. Building Permits — we will examine all building permits in excess of $150,000 to ensure sales tax is reported by the contractors listed on the permit. 4. Fire District Inspection Lists — with the City's help, we will contact fire districts serving in the City to get whatever electronic inspection information they may have. We will screen this information against sales tax and contact those businesses not reporting. Ongoing Auditing Tax Audit Proposal to the City of Spokane Valley Page 3 After six months, if notified by the City in writing, Microflex will continue these audits for an additional year for the following fee: 1. Missing or adjusted returns for existing sales or use tax accounts — 20% of the actual amount of tax recovered. 2. New sales tax accounts discovered — 20% of all back taxes collected and 20% of new taxes accrued for a period of one year after the account is identified and begins normal reporting. This means 12 full returns for monthly reporters, 4 full returns for quarterly reporters or one return for annual reporters. For example, if the first normal quarterly return for an account discovered by Microflex includes only one month of taxes, then New Revenue includes one month of the first quarter, the next three quarters, and two months of the next quarter. A new sales tax account is defined as one which has not been reported to the City in prior years. Sales Tax Reports Microflex in the developer of special tax analysis software called TaxTools. It is currently used by nearly 60 cities, counties and transit districts throughout the state. The license fee for the analysis version of TaxTools is $4,250 plus 15% per year for maintenance and support after the first year. The City would have detailed sales tax information (as well as business registrations if desired) at its fingertips. If the City does not wish to own the software, we can prepare a set on monthly management reports showing sales tax data for $100 per month. There are other options to make this data available which we can discuss if the City is interested. Audit Termination The audit can be terminated with 30 days advance written notice by either party. Experience of Finn and Assigned Personnel Microflex is the developer of the TaxTools software system which currently processes sales tax data for over 60 cites, counties and transit districts in the State of Washington. Additionally, Microflex has been retained to conduct tax discovery audits for 39 cities in Washington. The results of these audits are summarized in the following table: Tax Audit Proposal to the City of Spokane Valley Page 4 City Aberdeen Auburn Bellingham Bonney Lake Bothell Bremerton Burien Centralia Covington Des Moines Edmonds Enumclaw Everett Federal Way Fircrest Gig Harbor Kenn are Kent Lacey Lake Forest Park Lakewood Longview Lynnwood Maple Valley Marysville Mercer Island Newcastle Olympia Port Angeles Port Orchard Port Townsend Poulsbo Puyallup Renton Sammamish SeaTac Shoreline Snohomish Tukwila Tumwater University Place Vancouver TOTALS MICROFLEX AUDIT CLIENTS As of 12/26/02 Contact Fred Thurman Sally Finch Stuart Rice John Weidenfeller Jim Thompson Paula Johnston Linda Gorton Brad Ford Tom Fus Dick Scott Scott James Mike Bailey Sharon Marks Iweng Wang Pam Gardner Dave Rodenbach Carter Hawley May Miller Tim McGuire John Hawley Galen Kidd Kurt Sacha Vicki Heilman Tony McCarthy Ed Erickson Joanne Sylvis Rob Hendrickson Dean Watz Yvonne Ziomkiowski Kris Tompkins Michael Legarsky Donna Bjorkman Scott McCarty Victoria Runkle Lyman Howard Mike McCarty Debbie Tarry Brad Nelson Alan Doerschel Gayle Gjertsen John Caulfield Bill Fera Start date 02/01/98 06/01/98 03/01/97 08 /01 /00 12/02/96 11/01/02 09/11/98 05/30/00 08/26/98 06/17/99 03/01/98 03/01/96 11/01/94 01/01/98 05/01/00 12/01/02 09 /25 /00 06101/98 01101/96 05/01/01 05/01/98 11/01/96 02117/99 11/99/00 08/01/95 10/15/97 08/01/02 08/15/94 06/01/94 04/01/97 02/14/01 07/07/913 10/15/97 02/15/98 11/01/01 05/01/98 05/01/98 07/13/95 05/15/97 03/01/97 02/15/01 05/01/98 New accounts 594 5300,833.96 33 5176,709.04 695 5274,155.40 143 $61,280.26 853 $709.115.83 New 351 5178,940.19 168 $61,280.26 317 5102,001.73 21 5430,186.74 0 527,520.34 40 598,755.54 2598 51.281,311.21 0 565.53 0 530,273.10 New 7 535,024.47 O $48,584.18 30 583,500.35 O 517,505.20 10 5382,614.45 762 5260,742.10 507 5173,375.53 8 511,122.33 1194 5105,362.89 1188 5120,052.26 0 5506.02 1931 5897.131.82 20 579.128.78 2288 528,576.42 109 522,015.81 43 513,479.02 43 $141,446.95 482 5284,841.78 0 555,358.26 O $66,523.68 24 5390,040.15 325 536,370.62 61 $510,5660.86 468 5156.651.82 O $123,445.86 O 5189.762.84 15313 57,956,153.58 Now Revenue Please note that new revenue is after our fees have been deducted. It takes about three months from contract signing before any significant new revenue is generated. This audit will be managed by Michael J. Mulcahy who is the president of Microflex Inc. As a former data processing professional and city finance director, Mr. Mulcally is uniquely qualified to conduct this audit. Mr. Mulcahy has developed special data processing techniques which will locate as many potential missing taxes as possible. He is familiar with the issues in administering tax systems and interpreting business tax ordinances and is sensitive to what the City's role should be. Tax Audit Proposal to the City of Spokane Valley Page 5 indemnification of City Microflex agrees to save and hold harmless the City of Spokane Valley, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all liabilities, costs, damages, lawsuits, including the cost of all reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the negligent performance of Microflex's responsibilities pursuant to this agreement. We believe our proposal will help the City collect the sales tax to which it is entitled. Feel free to contact our references. I believe they will speak highly of our services. I know we have offered a wide range of services and you may have questions. Please call me toll free at 888- 248 -2650 x11 if you have any questions regarding our proposal. Meanwhile, if our proposal is acceptable, you may simplify the contracting process by signing below and returning a copy to us as authorization to proceed. Respectfully submitted, Proposal accepted by: Microflex, Inc. City of Spokane Valley Michael J. Mulcahy Name and Title President Date Background: Resources Needed: Suggested Motion: Memorandum To: City Council From: avid Mercier, Public Safety Director Date: July 10, 2003 Subject: Request for a Professional Services Agreement with Richard E. Warren, P.E. As Interim Public Works Director, Mr. Warren has been the City's lead agent for all matters related to wastewater treatment proposals and sewer system service agreements. As such, he has intimate knowledge of the various facets of each option contemplated to date and could provide continuity and valuable service should he remain under contract with the City as a consulting engineer. Consulting service funds were allocated in the Public Works areas of the adopted budget. Moreover, staff believes that his services should qualify for reimbursement from the. Sewer Reserve Funds held by the County. Fiscal Note: Mr. Warren proposes his services be compensated as follows: Labor: Hourly Billing Rate - $100.00 per hour Expenses at Cost: Average Costs Airfare 5108.00 Lodging $75.00 /night Auto rental . $40.00 /day Meals $40.00 /day *Communications /printing — Included in hourly rate *Labor costs are portal to portal, 8 hour minimum That the City Council approve the a professional services agreement with Mr. Richard Warren, PE for services related to wastewater treatment, sewer facilities and associated public works issues on an as needed basis. /0 To: Council & Staff From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings July 22 Regular Meeting CONSENT: REGULAR: 1. Proposed ordinances — Second Reading: a. Ordinance 03 -070 Alarm and Fee Collection b. Ordinance 03 -071 Establishing Policy for Purchase of Goods, Services c. Ordinance 03 -072 Granting Contract Authority to City Manager d. Ordinance 03 -074 Amending Ordinance 3 to Provide Additional Authorization to Sign Checks 2. Proposed ordinances — First Reading: a. Water Safety Regulations — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) b. Authorizing Execution of Interlocal Agreement re Regional Project — Mike Ormsby (15 minutes) 3. Proposed resolutions: Proposed Resolution Reimbursement re Regional Project— Mike Orsmby (5 minutes) 4 Proposed Agreements a. Public Facilities Interlocal Agreement — Mike Ormsby (10 minutes) b. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding re Cable TV Advisory Board — Cary Driskell (5 minutes) c. Proposed Contract with Microflex re Sales Tax geocoding — Nina RegorlKen Thompson 5. Staff reports 6. Administrative Reports 7. Financing Mirabeau Point 8. Parks & Recreation Property Title Transfer — Mike Jackson 9. Parks & Recreation Maintenance Agreement — Mike Jackson July 29 Study Session 1. Proposed Ordinances a. Zoning Code Compliance Ordinance — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) b. Franchise Ordinance Update 2. Proposed Resolutions 3. Proposed Agreements a. Emergency Management Services Interlocal Agreement - Nina Regor (15 minutes) b. Probation Services Discussion — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 4. Sewer Extensions and Operation (STEP) Agreement w /Spokane Co — Neil Kersten ( minutes) • 5. Police Station Purchase and /or Maintenance and Operation — Cal Walker/Nina Regor ( minutes) 6. DARE program review — Cal Walker (20 minutes) 7. Proposed Adult Entertainment Ordinance/Moratorium Update — Cary Driskell ( minutes) 8. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 9. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) July 30, 2003 Light Rail Project in Portland DRAFT • ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of July 11, 2003, 2:00 p.m. Please note this is a wort; in progress; items arc tentative Advance Agenda — Draft Page 1 of 3 Revised 7/11/2003 114 PM // July 31 Thursday, 6:00 — 9:00 p.m. — Spokane Valley City Hall, Land Use Training (Patti Crane. Wa. Cities insurance Authority) August 5 Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Proposed ordinances and resolutions a. franchise ordinance update b. Hearings Examiner Update/Discussion 2. Proposed Agreements 3. Budget Process Presentation — (1 hour) 4. Proposed Budget Amendment 5. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 7. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) August .12 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. CONSENT: REGULAR: 1. Administrative Reports 2. August 19 Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Proposed ordinances and resolutions franchise ordinance update 2. Proposed Agreements 3. N.W. Christian School introduction/presentation (10 minutes) ( ?) 4. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 5. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) August 26 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. CONSENT: REGULAR: 1. Administrative Reports Wed, August 27, 6:30 p.m. — County Public Works Bldg. (rescheduled EMS Communications Meeting) September 2 Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Proposed Towing Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement — Cary Driskell 2. Proposed Junk Vehicle Ordinance — Cary Driskell 3. EDC Presentation of Lane Guin and Frank Tombari (15 minutes) 4. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 6. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) September 9 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Advance Agenda — Draft Page 2 of 3 Revised 7/11/2003 1:24 PM 1. Anticipated Adoption of Towing Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement — Cary Driskell 2. Anticipated Adoption of Junk Vehicle Ordinance — Cary Driskell September 16 Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Proposed Nuisance abatement ordinance - Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 3. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) September 17 "Conversation with the Community" 6:30 p.m. — 8:30 p.m. Central Park Condo Center, 6011 East 6 Avenue September 23, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. CDBG Applications — Greg McCormick Monthly Staff Reports October/November/December Study and Regular Meetings 1. Proposed ordinances and resolutions a. franchise ordinance update (if not complete) b. Sewer /refuse collection ordinance — Stan Schwartz 2. Proposed Agreements a. Library agreement b. Tow Operator Agreement (10 minutes) 3. Monthly staff reports Advance Agenda — Draft Page 3 of 3 Revised 7/11/2003 1:24 PM