The URL can be used to link to this page

2003, 11-18 Study SessionTuesday, November 18, 2003 SUBJECT Administration 1. Presentation 6. Community Development 9. Executive Study Session Agenda. 11.18.03 AMENDED AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION Dczve r4lercier (5 minutes) CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor Council Requests Please Turn Off All Electronic Devices During Council Meeting DISCUSSION LEADER ACTIVITY Employee Introduction Dave Mercier (10 minutes) International Trade Alliance and Conventions Visitor's Bureau 2. Legal/Community Cary Driskell /Scott Kuhta Adult Entertainment, Proposed Development (10 minute) 3. Legal Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 4. Parks & Rcc Mike Jackson ( 10 minutes) 5. Police Cal Walker (5 minutes) Marina Sukup (20 minutes) 7. Public Works Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 8. Public Works Neil Kersten (20 minutes) Su Mike Flanks* Mayor DcVlcming (5 minutes) 10. Administrative Dave Mercier (10 minutes) Amcndmcnt to Chapter 14.508 GMA Steering Committee lnterlocal Agreement Senior Center Update Advance Agenda Additions City Manager Comments 6:00 P.M. GOAL Presentation/ Information 11/25/03 Agenda First Reading 11/25/03 Agenda Discussion/ Information Proposed Amendment to Public 1125103 Agenda Safety interlocal Agreement (SCOPE) Comprehensive Plan Facilities Element Discussion! Information Right -of -way and Cross Circulation Discussion/ between Appleway and Sprague Information Wastewater Issues Discussion! Information Motion Consideration: Extension of Time to Marco 31, 2004, for Hotel/Motel Agencies to use funds boarded for calendar year 2003 Discussion/ Information Discussions Information Kure: At Council Study Sessions. there will be no public summons. ctcept Council reserves the right to request infnrmatinn from the public and staff as Appropnale. NollcE Individuals plawung to attend the meeting who require special asststante to ncwmmmodac phtiical, bearing. cu in.hes un.pa+rrnctus, plcafe maul the City Clerk al (S09) 421 -1O4Q as soon as possible so that arranfgeoncnrs nu tie made, Pags1of1 AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:00 P.M_ CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor SUBJECT Administration 1. Presentation 2. LcgalK'ommunity Cary Driskell /Scott Kuhta Development (10 minutes) 3. Legal 4. Parks & Rec 5. Police 6. Community Development 7. Public Works 8. Public Works 9. Executive Council Requests Please Turn OR All Electronic Devices During Council Meeting DISCUSSION LEADER ACTIVITY Dare Merrier (S minutes) Dave Mercier (10 minutes) Cary Driskill (15 minutes) Mike Jackson (10 minutes) Cal Walker (5 minutes) Marina Sukup (20 minutes) Neil Kersten (20 minutes) Nei] Karsten (20 minutes) Mayor DeVlcming (5 minutes) ID. Administrative Dave Mercier (10 minutes) Stuth Swim .4;auti. 11.16 -03 Employe Introduction International Trade Alliance and Conventions Visitor's Bureau Adult Entertainment, Proposed Amendment to Chapter 14.508 GMA Steering Committee Interlocal Agreement Senior Center Update Proposed Amendment to Public Safety Interlocal Agreement (SCOPE) Comprehensive Plan Facilities Element Right -of -way and Cross Circulation between Appleway and Sprague Wastewater Issues Advance Agenda Additions City Manager Comments GOAL Presentation/ Information 11/25/03 Agenda First Reading 11x25/03 Agenda Discussion; Information 11/25/03 Agenda Discussion/ In formation Discussion/ Information Discussion/ Information Discussion! Information Discussion/ Information Note. At Council Study Sessions, there will he no public comments, except Council reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. NOTICE. Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or I other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible sn that arrangements ma. be made. Pntt1a11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 11 -18 -03 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing x information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Presentation from International Trade Alliance and Spokane Regional Convention and Visitor's Bureau. DESCRIPTION: Council will hear a presentation from Roberta Brooke, Executive Director of the International Trade Alliance; and John Brewer, President and General Manager of Spokane Regional Convention and Visitor's Bureau, discussing the accomplishments of last September's Sales Mission held in Calgary, where various tourism professionals, industry representatives, and government leaders met to discuss opening greater trade and tourism opportunities. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 18, 2003 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE:: Proposed Amendment to Chapter 14.508 — Nonconforming Provisions — Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code, deleting the 5 -Year amortization requirement for nonconforming Adult Retail Use establishments. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Moratorium on siting new adult businesses. BACKGROUND: The City Council enacted a 6 -month moratorium on siting new adult oriented businesses prior to incorporation (Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 61): On August 26, 2003, the Council extended the moratorium for 6 additional months (Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 76). The Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to review interim regulations and to recommend changes to ensure the community is protected from the secondary effects of adult businesses. On August 14, 2003, Planning Staff briefed the Planning Commission on the current zoning regulations for Adult Retail and Adult Entertainment establishments. Adult oriented businesses are allowed in the B -3 and B -2 zones with a minimum of 5 contiguously zoned acres of property. The business must be at least 1000 feet from residentially zoned property, public libraries, public playgrounds or parks, public or private schools and grounds, nursery schools and daycares, places of religious worship and another adult business. The Zoning Code also requires nonconforming adult retail businesses to relocate to a suitable location or close by September 7, 2004 (amortization requirement). On August 26, 2003, the City Council extended this date one additional year, to September 7, 2005. On September 11, 2003, Staff presented the following options for the Commission to consider: Option 1. No change to current zoning code standards. Adult Retail businesses would be required to close or relocate at the end of the amortization period, which was extended by City Council to September 7, 2005. Option 2. Delete amortization provisions. No change to the buffering requirements from sensitive uses, such as churches, schools, day cares, etc. Option 3. Keep amortization requirements but reduce buffering and /or open up new zones, such as Industrial, to allow enough sites for potential relocation of Adult Retail businesses. Maps showing 750' and 1000' buffer areas from sensitive uses (schools, churches, playgrounds) were reviewed by the Commission at the meeting. Staff recommended preparing a Zoning Code amendment to implement Option 2. This recommendation is due to concern about forcing adult retail businesses to relocate to new areas that do not currently have such businesses, and unintended impacts that would result from relocation. After discussion, the Planning Commission agreed to proceed with Option 2. The Commission also requested that Staff review the 1000' buffer map to ensure a sufficient number of sites that conform to zoning code standards for siting adult businesses. Staff reviewed the buffer maps and conducted site visits to areas shown on the map show as meeting zoning code standards. The maps are accurate, with all sensitive uses appropriately buffered, On September 25, 2003, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the Community Development Department. No comments were received concerning the DNS. On October 9, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider Option 2 above. The Planning Commission received 5 letters supporting the proposed amendment and 1 letter opposed. Two individuals testified at the hearing, requesting that the Planning Commission consider°restricting hours of operations at the 4 adult retail establishments. OPTIONS: The Council may adopt, modify or deny the proposed revision; send the issue back to the Planning Commission for further work; or conduct a public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consensus to place this item for first reading for November 25. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N /A. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta or Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance including proposed zoning code amendment. 2. Minutes from October 9, 2003 Planning Commission 3. Letters of comment submitted to Planning Commission Proposed ordinance auuending adult r :tail provisions — C. DriskelI Draft three --November 13, 2003 CJTY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY WASfflNCTOtN ORDINANCE NO. AN Oi LN NCE OF TUTE• CITY OF SPOICAINTE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, A]4 1 lD)<N CFL &PIER ]4.508, NONCONFORMING PROVISION'S, OF TAT. ENTER IM SPOKANE VALLEY ZONING CODE RELATING TO ADULT RETAIL BUSEVESSES WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 53, adopting the Spokane County Zoning Code as the .interim Zoning Code for Spokane Valley; AREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 03 -076 on _ 26, 2003 ex- tending the expiration of the amortization schedule adopted in the interim Zoning Code from September 7, 2004 to September 7, 2005; WHEREAS, there currently exists in Spokane Valley four adult retai] businesses that would be suhjectto the provisions of the amortization schedule in the interim Zoning Code; WHIL.REAS, after receiving citizen input on whether to continue with the amortization schedule, the City Council does not find there currently exists a substantial need to continue the amortization schedule in the interest of public health, safety and welfare; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 9, 2003 to consider the recommended changes contained in Attachment A to this Ordinance; WREREAS, the Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to amend the Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code 14.508 as contained in Attachment A to this Ordinance; and . WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the. record developed by the Spolcarne Valley Planning Commission., as well as the legislative records developed by Spokane County, the City of Spokane in the process of adopting their respective adult retail zoning provisions, and adopts those records as constituting part of the basis in amending the non - conforming provisions relating to adult retail businesses. fol Ic ups! NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as Section 1. Amendment_ Chapter 14.508.040 of the Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A. Section 2. Severability. 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. cicpd work €des1adult entertainment/ordinance ai endirig #rrt]ortin'tion 11 -13 -03 draft 3 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 1 Proposed ordinance amending adult retail provisions — C. risk Draft three — November 13 2003 Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days aft r the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. Attest: Passed by the City Council this day of December, 2003. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Oriskel I Date. of Publication Effective Date: cicpd work fiic IaduIt entertainmentiordinanco amcndin¢ amortization 1 ] -13 -03 dratl 3 Page. 2of2 Mayor, Michael DeV Leming DRAFT DRAFT CHAPTER 14.508 Section: NONCONFORMING PROVISIONS 14.508.000 Procedure 14.508.020 Nonconforming Lot 14.508.040 Nonconforming Uses 14.508.060 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures 14.508.080 Nonconforming Lot Acquisition by Government Entity 14.508.000 Procedure Determination of nonconforming status of a lot, use, building or structure is an administrative function of the Planning Department. Property owners asserting the nonconforming status of a lot, use, building or structure shall submit such information as the Department deems necessary to substantiate or document the claim to nonconforming status. 14.508.020 Nonconforming Lot A single- family dwelling or a manufactured (mobile) home and customary accessory buildings may be erected or located on a nonconforming lot, on the effective date of this Code or amendment thereto, in any zone in which single- family dwellings or manufactured (mobile) homes are permitted. A single - family dwelling or manufactured (mobile) home and customary accessory buildings constructed or located on a nonconforming lot shall comply with all provisions of this Code or amendments thereto except provisions for frontage, lot width, density, Section 14.706100 subsections (2) and (3), building coverage and /or lot area that are generally applicable in the zone in which such nonconforming lot is located. This section shall not apply to those lots, tracts or parcels that have a frontage along a public street of less than thirty (30) feet. 14.508.040 Nonconforming Uses tail -use -es y- amendments -te- this - cede- pur'sua°nt te44eselutiera -Nu neer-99- 07.62- sha.II-be ter rrrirrated -witl - five- (§}mar - t-ive- deeisi n en- whether -or- net- te- appreve -any sue irreversible- ficianeia4 tiwe fea stable- al4e}n Chapter 14.508 Printed: 9/15/03 4y-der enstrahotextFeme- eeeraetnc- i c Spokes re- Ceunty- I- tearing- I.an �iner- Page 57 =Iearing-Bedy The expansion or extension of a use, which was lawfully established and in existence, and which becomes nonconforming as a result of the adoption of the Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code on March 31, 2003, shall be considered a legal use and allowed to expand, remodel or rebuild as if the use was a permitted use in that zoning district. The expansion shall be limited to the parcel in existence and platted (or otherwise divided) as of March 31, 2003 for a use (or expansion) that has received approval through the issuance of a building permit or land use approval. The nonconforming use identified in this section shall not be expanded onto adjacent parcels or properties. (City Council Ordinance No. 53, effective March 31, 2003) Attachment A Any expansion allowed under this section shall meet the applicable development standards for the zoning district that the use is located including, but limited to setbacks, height, landscaping, and off- street parking. This provision does not allow for new nonconforming uses to be established contrary to the provisions of this Code. Exception: this provision does not include the keeping of inherently dangerous mammals and /or inherently dangerous reptiles. Any expansion or extension of these uses shall not be permitted. (City Council Ordinance No. 53, effective March 31, 2003) A nonconforming use that has been abandoned or discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year shall thereafter be replaced by a use that conforms to the regulations of the zone in which the use is located. The term nonconforming use refers to only a single existing use and does not include all uses to which the property could have been put under a prior zoning ordinance or zoning classification. (City Council Ordinance No. 53, effective March 31, 2003) To ensure public safety, a nonconforming determination for the keeping of inherently dangerous mammals or inherently dangerous reptiles shall only be made by the Director of Planning and /or his /her appointee. The nonconforming determination shall be made within sixty (60) days of the adoption of this amendment (Resolution No. 99- 1061). The approval of nonconforming rights shall be based on finding (1) That the animal keeping facility was in existence prior to the adoption of this amendment; (2) the facility was and is licensed by the Spokane County Animal Control Authority according to Spokane County Code Chapter 5.12; (3) That the determination of nonconforming rights shall apply on to the licensed keeper, the rnarn.ma and /or reptiles being kept, and the location of the facility; (4) Licensed facility is outside of a radius of 400 feet from a school, daycare center, church and public park as defined in this Code. (Res. No. 99 -1061, dated November 30, 1999). The nonconforming determination shall expire upon one of the following occurrences: (1) Removal or death of such animal(s) and /or reptile(s); (2) The licensed keeper no longer resides at the location of the licensed facility; or (3) Failure to maintain annual license with the Spokane County Animal Control Authority. (Res. No. 99 -1061, dated November 30, 1.999) 14.508.060 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures Restoration of a nonconforming building or structure which is damaged by fire, flood, or act of nature shall be initiated, as evidenced by the issuance of a valid building permit within one (1) year of the date of such damage or destruction, and diligently pursued to completion. The Director of Community Development may extend this time period of an additional one (1) year if the applicant can demonstrate that due to circumstances beyond his /her control meeting the initial one (1) year time frame was not possible. Upkeep, repair, and maintenance of nonconforming buildings are permitted. A building or structure not conforming with respect to a legal nonconfomung use, height, yard requirements, coverage or density, may be restored in the event of damage, or altered or extended provided that the alteration or extension does not result in further violation of this Code. 14.508.080 Nonconforming Lot Acquisition by Governmental Entity When a municipal corporation or political subdivision of the Stite of Washington acquires a portion of a lot, tract, or parcel of land and, as a result thereof, reduces said lot, tract, or parcel of land in area and /or frontage by no more than ten percent (10 %) of the minimum requirements of the underlying use within the zone classification, said lot, tract or parcel of land shall be deemed to be a nonconforming lot or tract with respect to area and /or frontage; provided, a nonconforming use status resulting from an acquisition under this section, as opposed to a Zoning Code amendment, shall run with the land, and the status of the nonconforming use shall be perpetual and continuous, absent a subsequent amendment of the Zoning Code, regardless of whether the nonconforming use is actually being exercised or not. Chapter 14.508 Page 58 Zoning Code Printed: 9/15/03 Of Spokane County Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 9, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Bill Gothmann Planning Commission Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Ill. ROLL CALL Fred Beaulac — Present Bob Blum — Present David Crosby — Present Gail Kogle — Present IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Marina Sukup requested that Items number 3 and 4 under "New Business" be switched. Commissioner Gothmann moiled that the agenda be approved as amended Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Kogle and seconded by Commissioner .Blum that the minutes of the September 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting be approved as amended. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. Bill Gothmann — Present Ian Robertson — Present John G. Carroll - Present VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Blum reported on the October 7 City Council meeting. The Comp Plan Amendments were presented and will be further discussed on October 28 The Council also heard a presentation on the Comp Plan Housing element, and discussed right -of -way and cross circulation possibilities for the Appleway- Sprague Couplet. Commissioner Gothmann asked Mayor DeVleming, who was present, for an update on the Christmas Tree Fund. The Mayor reported that the City has received $16,000 in pledges to date — another S2,000 is needed to purchase the tree. Commissioner Crosby personally handed Mayor DeVleming a donation. Attachment 2 Commissioner Gothmann also gave a brief report on the recent meeting of the Transportation Committee for the Spokane Valley Business Association. The main topic of discussion was the Appleway - Sprague Couplet. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Director Sulcup announced that a joint meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission will be held on November 6, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. A joint meeting of the Spokane Area Planning Commissions will be held in City Hall on Thursday, October 23 at 11:30 a.m. It is a luncheon meeting. Commissioners Kogle, Blum, Beaulac, Gothmann, Robertson and Crosby confirmed their presence. Commissioner Carroll will be unable to attend. I.X. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business. B. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing — Adult Retail Uses Code Revision The Chair opened the Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed City Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14.508 of the Zoning Code — Nonconforming Provisions — Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code, deleting the five-year amortization requirement for nonconforming Adult Retail Use establishments at 6:41 p.m. Members of the public were briefed on standard public hearing procedures by Commissioner Gothmann. Staff Presentation: Scott Kuhta, Associate Planner, provided a brief background of the issue. Staff recommends deletion of the entire first paragraph of Chapter 14.508, Section 040 of the Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code pertaining to Nonconforming Provisions. This will allow existing Adult Retail Use establishments to remain where they are as "Nonconforming Businesses ". New Adult Retail Use establishments will be required to conform to code and operate only within the three zones which provide required buffer areas. Public Testimony: Planning Commission Vice - Chairman Robertson stated that the Commission received five (5) letters from the following citizens who are in favor of the amendment: Desiree Russell, 6311 E. Sprague, Spokane Valley, WA Tammera Woodall, 6311 E. Sprague, Spokane Valley, WA 2 Loyal Cowles, 6311 E. Sprague, Spokane Valley, WA Rudy Krager, Address Unknown, Spokane, WA Aleeta Ferguson- Krager, Address Unknown, Spokane WA The Commission received one (1) letter from the following citizen who is opposed to the amendment: Kimberly Drake, Y.O. Box 369, Moses Lake, WA 98837 The following citizens in attendance testified at the meeting: Penny Lancaster, 14816 E. Farwell, Spokane, WA Ms. Lancaster is neutral about the amendment. She provided the Commission with a letter and backup docurnentation regarding the impact Adult Retail Use establishments have on the neighborhoods in which they are. located. She appealed to the Commission to regulate the hours of such businesses, changing theirs to 8:00 a.rn. - 2:00 a.m. only. Kim Arrotta, 18318 E. Riverway, Spokane, WA Ms. Arrotta is neutral about the amendment. She read from a report regarding the adverse secondary effects that Adult Retail Use establishments have on neighborhood residents. She would like the Commission to limit the hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. — 2:00 a.m. only. Director Sukup explained to the Commission and audience that the City Attorney develops the licensing requirements for Adult Retail Businesses, which include hours of operation. The Commission does not handle that aspect of City business. The following citizens in attendance did not speak, but are in favor of the amendment: Alex Texmo, 6311 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA Desiree Russell, 6311 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA Chairman Gothrnann closed the hearing to further public testimony. Commissioner Gail Kogle moved that the Planning Commission approve and forward the proposed amendment to Chapter 14.508, Section 040 to City Council for further action and adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Crosby. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Carroll asked staff if they visited the three locations which have been zoned for future Adult Retail/Entertainment Business locations to see if they were viable. Mr. McCormick confirmed that staff has visited these zones and there are bona fide places to build within each zone. Chairman Gothmann closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. Economic Development Element Presentation Director Sukup provided the Commission with a slide show presentation on the economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan process. Chairman Gothmann explained to staff that the Economics Department at Eastern Washington University had been a great help in gathering information for the economic study prior to Spokane Valley incorporation. Commissioner Beaulac asked whether the Spokane Valley is located in an "Enterprise Zone ". Director Sukup explained that there are only six (6) Enterprise Zones in the state of Washington, and Spokane is one of them. She hopes the Valley may be able to utilize the City of Spokane's zone in order to attract new businesses with tax breaks and other savings. Unified Development Code Overview Director Sukup provided the Commission with a slide show presentation regarding the Uniform Development Code. Reference was made to the schedule for completion of this task. Director Sukup mentioned that the City Council has asked her to complete the transportation element related to the Appleway- Sprague Couplet within the next five or six months. Preliminary Discussion of Proposed R -1, Estate Residential Zone In the future, Director Sukup and the Planning staff will be proposing a number of new zones and zoning changes to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The R -1 Zone, is called a Single- Family Residential Estate District. It will be limited to single - family detached dwellings on estate lots of not less than 40,000 square feet. This is an area where large animals can be kept, with some exclusions (e.g. swine). The City will first focus on rezoning the two platted subdivisions of Rotchford Acres and the Ponderosa. Commissioner Kogle asked how the City intended to handle the matter of large animals kept at residences not zoned R -1. Director Sukup responded that if people have historically kept large animals on their property and the use was allowed under previous zoning regulations and provided that they were properly confined and did not generate complaints from neighbors, then they will be allowed to keep them. Following discussion of the allowed uses in the R -1 Zone, including the number of animals per square foot, electric fences in residential neighborhoods, the effect of livestock waste on the aquifer and the Valley's overall quality of water, Commissioner Gothmann complimented the staff' on putting together an impressive document. In response to Commissioner Crosby's question concerning a landowner's right to subdivide, Mr. Kuhta responded that if any lot were smaller than 40,000 square feet, it would require a zone change, with notice to adjacent property owners and a public hearing. The draft document was provided to the Homebuildcr's Association. She would like for Planning Commissioners to send her their thoughts about the new zones being proposed. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Blum asked about Commission terms. Ms. Sukup explained to him that the City Council will be discussing this matter on Tuesday, October 14 She will have an answer for the Commission at its next meeting. Mr. Kuhta is working on registration of Planning Commission members for the APA Conference in Spokane next week. A letter from Ms. Barbara Green, regarding her thoughts about the future of University City, was entered into the public record. Commissioner Beaulac plans to attend the Transit - Oriented Development meeting on October 22" from 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. at Decades. Professor Scarfo from Washington State University will make a University City design presentation at the October 22 Planning Commission meeting. Xl. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Debi Alley, Administrative Assistant Bill Gothmann, Chairman 5 October 4, 2003 To whom it may concern, 1 am a married woman and I enjoy surprising my husband with fun gifts. I am comfortable going to Ms. Kittys because it's a nice store with nice clerks. The store has been there for almost 20 years and they have good products with a good guarantee. I like shopping there. 1 hope you let it stay open. Aleeta Ferguson Attachment 3 To the city council of the City of the Valley, I support Ms. Kitty's and the people who work there. The store is well lit, clean, and the employees are helpful, and considerate of my feelings and the feelings of my wife. 1 would like Ms. Kitty's to stay where it is and as it is. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Sincerely,, Rudy Krager . , W . ,,/,/ , ae , i r 14..._7e; a_iteisL7.12;,,,,e,e-94- .- .,/........ a A4 _g4_, ch.../s c ..2 • - X l 14, 2 . / exe.::.j--4,-/,,-,g4.---2- --- 1 - -1 -- -- --- • --/.713-0-24.=_Me_z_z,t-e. r : - — - - ---- .44,V 1 , , _..Kg4 ..,„‘74/ --- - -- - - - b4 - 0-(42 cif/A T & Av.-at" ,cr? _''A_.:4-1444 a-Le , du Z "v-v=„2 6 464' _Az-4 A. ,(,Leg_.A..4(_*. a/k12. -4f-f. def„ . . ce-- ( &--z_e ' 4& '`__- /--_ ^ " . -__-~-_--_~__ _--.�._____--'' _''' -~ - _ -_ / /« � � ----�---� ---~ �---'-��--�� '-"-�-- . ~ ^ ^ v eAtic ' �. m-7ue- vv' ___ "~' 4r ` -------'------�p'~'-^~ �-�'- '---'-�-----`-----'-- ^ ^ ~ 7_44y- --'' ^� �q��,~ ' u � ~°��0 � g *~~ °r~~ ~°*" � ' ' ^ ' ' 10 -( -03 - Tam m es 1.00o cLa l S a2 - 2��? � RE ; lac�u 1 St w % -t�;v� S�ok , . TO .WV1 i k Mai C© near . o n .7161e. ?nt'v CD M ic • na. Y � . i s o wL XcL _ UJoo a � � a�i1d 1 am. wr;t619,.- -6i s . +o tmj Co (2._6rn a bot. i - t - �,I�E. ss ►_�l .. c-ln.a.o.cje.5 i rt. tke .( 1 . -OA e w N .: aSce.d yyte d i feat as 1 .aw . c res o-P S poKa.vie !all ._ cam► hc,v& wo rK. o .. Ms, : V s A d,u1-- __`Cm aci L,Lvv -Cor O bo f st o: o.. t, rn e. .S Gl ` at .1 'e1 .i would b a_sc ns-& es-t . tintere3 -5 o SPok&xe,_ Valle Cr.e_ate c ._`' refl. M ..b y a.r. c_‘ n3 . .uS isyleSkS +b. re loccca- :. o .o area . 1 .. d o need - a e n .n c e ra-4 + re a._s ons tlyrt 4.o -uld be a .i9ad idtea.,. rid 0K.e, tio.k kcis 2►� he‘.. O J k . area O _'tkQt s.p r &.... vioWS S c©n b eye) v�cd �.. -` �,r�a.`� o c( /OSS � y 'o- . rac0me.. . SPcKa•n VGA. 1 due.. 5uiis .b ro I+. .Q. a, r`ns -i- -- ..04-3 .69 . <t. F& -4-e4 husj` ness c /ers J ).. Spo I �e sk.t.ppo .1) X s5 id rnain-&af`n reveiu o 1 e city. Spokane RE. : iNc� Si 'c�f 2s v� i me m_ t t � � Spoka.��e.11��1 ��-� Taft� S at -2613) — p e, 2 - - a. -67 prod ccc, -ts bee_ sell care- geared 1z ilte. a c if. l t' Cw t in cLi 1 f f L is peiscicd m y -1 1'1 li i L ►�' - atere. o .ex no -1- o tcf ets 5` itch as t1 -to help Ali sexact t 1rts& abkro ()lore rnarr 19 es �,t) o aid be. i rect-1- e,ned / 4E. oval' W Cal) come WW) - 3 rne. water/L. n e one. 1' rids e Se •r�ta� �� r .X�CC�, �x ��ri r��G S hav b -too pre1ihb/e.. Also • -ellere. 1 wo ILO pro bCihl b� Inc re Mc.�d ;its O.- Sel act/ as saint 1 & irr ere no ,S (e o Lit) e.-1- �o r So m e.on e, by !so era nc-l" l vtd e L .xu& l ptrii "In 6/o s 05 � l e-- me s - /iiLccE 1 wo r n at Ms r t s. e a w n .e-r ,-la i Xrho ) Is a coond &r1ul per +0 rK r art GI L wotkid Go n+ r n.c,c w or 1< 11 40. /14 a n c s&1fl s -- / - o Corn e . n o / h &d cuj fro b l'e-mS w t �tl �11,e- CttS I-v m� rs d r• The_ a &wt osp) e.'e, )iCe. fl-1 5 is a VOL) I'd b tit s es_s w ('c.11 s X r veS c2 01..e_. i`(I + e if) e e d . L - 4- re_ ilia i"1-1 cLs r i / We, are. a 1 t vays o!� More_ co ` Gild .A t( (1. o . �Vej [ Lt arb{ �` i s c� Sood So ,9 > > � 4 &t L `e t, kccs a b tc, r e 14 m e- 64' red -&Q. P e,nd enr;L fj 61,7 4-1 hot& prs -v '-O tl't05 e-- try i vL P&r ha p s S' p c kc&,i - V et. II Ca.ti be c 1 ade-r i h 12.91'n nil oVgr -arr Zis pe-rc�-t .� starts o t(r. tear* • €4 is6(13 bsviess€s. -6 eta+ .b e_s See ttha_÷ Vail e y ka.5 a b e e r jra c k recn rd -EIrtain SpokcLn r• 5 Lppo i'fr rq � is cc5 oems o toners i perhaps more: v ?e ti rev .w ill b j�`►i ceni'nc -to o'ar ci Ms ; K hcL5 never e.en Cam: P ro b le-P4.- th C-tv4 matt i - of 1 can Seen i s a c-I e-a.n c.o e c r -ab .es= ab / ..t hi cli has b€n Se =r v j`n' n eds C 1 co mn a o ir] `1i u s area if r near/ 4, • -&uuo decade, Our • cus korners etr e. por1 iird - It ba€s-p-Qcpi- and o ttpl s l k in 3 - gritanC.'e e.nc e mySddt have. b-8 ) M) �til nit /uI2 and r over 9 nine . a boat l d • no-17- SU of " l' J �p s0 &e -1i nC /. c h wPtts / - h) a ri O 1 e5 /4 a r i. -a J band Ill re_ are no ansaVtr acki Vii-, es o i'rvi on. e r Z& 15 j u.s-I /t Re �.n y O 1 e r bockS1 excep October 5, 2003 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Adult Entertainment Zoning An Open Letter to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission: Let me start by introducing myself, my name is Desiree Russell. I am the manager of Ms. Kitty's and have worked at Ms. Kitty's for a little over three years. I am proud of Ms. Kitty's and the high caliber of customers we attract. 1 have a pension plan with Ms. Kitty's. I feel safe when I'm working (I work the evening shift 5PM - Midnight) and I would never trade my job for another. I would like to say that I agree. A badly run adult store is bad for any community. This is where 1 believe Ms. Kitty's is different. I strive very hard to keep my store clean, well lit (inside and out) and keep a comfortable atmosphere for anyone coming in. I card on an on a regular and consistent basis. I have carded people who turned out to be 35 years old. Any material leaving our store for the trash can is shredded before it gets there. Any customer who does not want the packaging for the product they bought we gladly dispose of it for them. 1 believe as a community we have a responsibility to protect our children. 1 also believe that can be done with out impeding the rights of consenting adults. As long as an individual is not committing a crime, how they choose to enhance their sex life is no ones business. You may not like my store, but keep in mind that Ms. Kitty's is obviously not a charity. We have been in the same building and open for 19 years. No one under the age of 18 is allowed in my store, but you can find a lot of the things I sell at the Spokane Valley Mall, sexual connotations and all. These stores are open to any age. I believe Ms. Kitty's has found a peaceful coexistence in the community. I see no more crime here than 1 do in the middle class neighborhood 1 live in on the north side of Spokane, which isn't much. The only violation with the restrictions set by the county I can see, is that we are close to a residential area.. In order to get to Ms. Kitty's on foot from that neighborhood you have to cross some pretty hectic traffic. 1 invite anyone from the planning commission to come visit my store and see what we are about. We arc open 10AM - Midnight, seven days a week. I hope that you consider not making us move from our home of 19 years. Thank you for your time in reading this letter. I look forward to hearing the proceedings on October 9 rely, Ms. Kitty's 6311 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99212 509 -535 -2378 r - 1 From: ccvspokane [ccvspokane @mail.spocom.com] 1 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:22 PM To: Scott Kuhta; Micki Harnois; Kevin Snyder; Marina Sukup; Heather Kauer; Debi Alley; Greg McCormick; dmercier@ spokanevalley. org:cdriskell @spokanevalley.org Cc: sms@ notes. wkdtlaw. com:orgnregor @spokanevalley.org Subject: 6:30 hearing on 10/9/03 Debi Alley Letter to City Plan Comm-City... Dear members of the City of Spokane Valley, Attached you will find a letter that addresses this evenings hearing regarding the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. I am unable to attend but would like to provide my unique inside perspective on this issue. 1 came out of the sexually oriented business industry in 1997. If you have any questions or would like to have further discussion, I can be reached at 869 -8876. Please email the results of tonights hearing. Thank you for taking the time to read through the attached letter. I hope it assists you in making a decision that will protect the quality of life for the children and families of our new city! Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Drake CCV /Relationships NW PO Box 369 Moses Lake, WA 98837 509 -869 -8878 www.ccvspokane.org 1 CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY VALUES OF SPOKANE October 9, 2003 Dear Members of the City Planning Commission, My name is Kimberly Drake. I am writing in regard the proposed amendments to the Adult Retail and Adult Entertainment Ordinances passed by the Spokane County Commissioners in 1997. 1 }mow this letter is long, but 1 encourage you to please read it in its entirety. This issue is very important to all of us and 1 hope to provide some new insight for each of you. It is first important to note, that 1 have been a patron of strip clubs, a consumer of pornography (I was addicted to the material for 13 years), and have worked on the inside of the "strip for sale" industry. I left the strip clubs in June of 1997. Some of you may already know my story and are aware that I also have a professional background in Business Management and Marketing. 1 am very aware of the effects sexually oriented businesses have on individuals and families, not only from a personal perspective, but also as someone who now helps victims and those addicted to pornography. For the last three years 1 have spoken all across the nation at the junior high, high school and collegiate level as well as to legislative bodies, senators and congressmen, regarding the harms of pornography and its messages. I work helping the victims of pornography at all levels. That said, in this letter 1 will offer some legislative record and recommendations, then I'll provide information at the educational level. This is where the new insight will come in. My legislative recommendation is, as you look at the ordinance, you choose the strictest possible regulations. That you amend it in such a way that it becomes as strict as the law will allow. Then it will be up to the business owner to decide whether he wants to locate or "re- locate" as the case may be, in the City of the Spokane Valley and conduct his business within the constraints of the City's rules and regulations. I }mow you are aware that the lack of effective zoning ordinances leave a city exposed to the proliferation of these types of businesses. In fact, our past experience shows that when one SOB opens up, others soon follow and the adverse secondary effects increase. My proposal is that you continue with what the County Commissioners started and begin to implement and enforce the current zoning ordinance, in its entirety, just as it was written and passed unanimously. I am certain this will be legislatively defensible as the county did a great deal of study and work to make sure they were passing a defensible ordinance. Then, decrease the hours of operation by closing strip clubs at 1:OOAM and if we can get away with it legislatively, close the retail establishments at 1:00AM as well. There is support for reducing the closing time to 1:OOam. On March 30. 2000 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Arizona's law which requires sexually oriented businesses to close between the hours of 1:OOAM and 8:00AM on Monday through Saturday, and between the hours of lam and 12 noon on Sunday [L.J.Concepts,Jnc. clal. v. City of .Phoenix]. The lower court judge determined that sufficient evidence was presented to "show that the statute was enacted with a reasonable or at least logical belief that it would help remedy the 'secondary effects' of sexually oriented businesses." In my case, men were more aggressive and violent when they come to the strip clubs after the bars close down. It was between midnight and 4 in the morning that I found myself bit, pinched, hit, grabbed and harmed in ways too numerous and graphic to detail. It is critical for the Plan Commissioner to amend the Ordinance to reduce the Hours of Operation. This change would not affect a SOBs relocation plans. It is incumbent upon the citizens & community leaders here in the City of Spokane Valley to continue to set standards that will protect the community from the secondary harmful effects of sexually oriented businesses, pornography and its messages (stated in the educational portion of this letter). Communities across the country are reclaiming areas, which, like Times Square, had been trashed by the side effects of sexually oriented businesses, (SOB's). As you know, the successful approach is to address the "time, place & manner" (when, where and how,) of operating such businesses. To be upheld, such zoning must be based, not on the "content" of what is sold, but on its effects on the area. However, communities do not need to provide specific local evidence of the harmful effects of SOB's. Courts permit municipalities to rely on other communities' studies of harmful effects. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically stated in Renton v. Playtime Theatres that a community does not have to have specific local evidence of the negative secondary effects of a SOB, but can rely on relevant experience of other communities. Having once walked in the shoes of not only the victim of pornography, but an addict as well, I can tell you personally how harmful it's effects can be. However, aside from my personal experience I submit the following: iNREASE IN CR M1 : -- Land use studies indicate that SOB's encourage prostitution, increase sexual assaults and attract other criminal activity. A land use study conducted in Garden Grove, CA, found that crime increased significantly with the opening of an adult business or with the expansion of an existing business or the addition of a bar nearby. The rise was greatest in crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery and assault. On Garden Grove boulevard, the seven SOB's accounted for 36% of ALL crime in the area. In counties where pornographic bookstores have been closed, the rape rate has dropped abruptly and dramatically. From 1984 to 1989, over 100 SOS's were closed in PO BOX 369 • Moses Lake, WA 98837 • Phone: (509) 869 4876 • • Email: infocccvspokanc.org Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. During that period the rape rate in the county decreased 26% even though the rape rate in the rest of the state had increased by 20 %. A Phoenix study found 47% more property crimes, 44% more violent crimes and 103% more sex crimes in areas with SOB's. In the early 80's Vice Commander Harold Mills said that violent crime dropped 83% in downtown Cincinnati once the strip bars, adult bookstores, massage parlors ect. were run out of town. DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES — After a 10 Year growth in the number of SOBS and numerous citizen complaints of decreasing property values and rising crime, the city of Indianapolis, Ind., compared six SOB study areas and six control locations with each other and with the city as a whole. Homes in the study areas appreciated at only half the rate of homes in the control areas and one -third the rate of the city. Appraisers noted that the greatest impact was on residential values, but businesses also suffered loss. The report concluded: "The best professional judgment available indicates overwhelmingly that adult entertainment businesses -even a relatively passive use such as an adult bookstore -have a serious negative effect on their immediate environs." Citizens who live near SOBs say their greatest complaint is the nuisance associated with these establishments. These include emergency vehicles that arrive to clean up after brawls or police. officers that show up during odd hours to investigate prostitution or health violations. In addition, citizens point to the amount of trash generated by SOBs: Like used condoms and needles, which clearly pose a health risk to children and others. URBAN BLIGHT & LOSS OF BUSINESS REVENUE — Often, non -adult businesses move to "get away" from the adverse effects of SOBs. In Union Township, Cincinnati, OH where i spoke at a town meeting in April 1999, a man said he was moving his 40 year old family owned veterinary business because a SOB had moved into a nearby strip mall. My hope is, through careful and thoughtful amendments, we will have worked together to create an ordinance that is as strict as the law will allow. The legislative record supports that pornography is a public. health and safety issue that needs careful attention. But, is the material itself, pornography, bad for us, if it can be considered bad at all? There are many reasons why pornography is not good for us. First, how we lztow if something is good or bad for us is in the way it plays out in our relationships. We also know that what we view and read will eventually (most likely sooner than later) have an affect on us. How do we know this? Lets look at advertising. Approximately 56 corporations bid for the 2000 Super Bowl ad slots. These slots sold for approximately three million dollars! We either have 56 stupid corporations 56 charitable corporations, or 56 smart investors. These corporate "investors" were. banking or "betting" three million dollars that the thirty or sixty- second exposure to their ads would affect our behavior to remember and hopefully purchase their product. We know that Madison Avenue is thriving and that advertising does affect our thoughts about a product and our behavior surrounding that product. It therefore could be said that what we view and read in pornography can eventually affect our behavior, which plays itself out in how we behave in relationships Just as it is in advertising, porn affects the way we think about a specific product. What is the product in pornography? Women, children, and men. It objectifies all three. If porn is like advertising, what is pornography selling? What are the messages it sends? It is selling lies and toxic ideas about sex, about relationships, about who we are supposed to be as people and bow we should act in love relationships. Some of these toxic ideas are: • Sex is a spectator sport, the more participants the better; • Fidelity is boring; • Women have value only from the neck down; • Women want sex even when they say they don't; • Violence is sexy; • Sex anywhere, with anybody, is a good thing and has no consequences; You don't see STD's or unwanted pregnancy in porn, etc. The biggest effect is in the messages pornography sends; how it shapes our attitudes. Attitudes eventually affect behavior. What we think we become. What does pornography say to us; bow does it affect our attitudes toward women and children? And even men? Let us look at just a few key destructive attitudes: • Pornography devalues women. It tells us that the value of women is based upon body shape and size. With this attitude it affects how a man relates to his wife, daughter, women in the work place, women on the beach. It affects them at the relational level. You do not see a heavy -set woman in mainstream centerfolds. She is never called sexy in pornography. Instead, she is called "Whale, cow, dog, pig." Heavy -set women are seen mostly in fetish magazines. "Fetish; an abnormal or obsessive interest in something. Therefore, the lie that it tells is that men who are attracted to heavy -set women are not normal. What does that say to each of us? How then do we view ourselves based upon this destructive attitude? Ultimately, pornography is devaluing to all of our relationships and us and devastating to our relationships. PO BOX 369 • Moses Lake, WA 98837 • Phone: (509) 869 -8876 • • Email: info@ec.vspokane.org • Pornography dehumanizes women. In Playboy, the centerfold is called a playmate. That makes her a toy. There are playboy bunnies and penthouse beavers, that makes her an animal. The problem here is that if she is seen as an object she can be used, abused and thrown away. if I wreck my car, I might be sad I wrecked my car, but i can go out and get another one. We live in a "throw away" culture. If something breaks, or does not work well, the culture encourages us to throw it away and get a new one. This is another lie it tells us about women. blow then do we view ourselves? How does a man view women if he has been caught up in this lie? This attitude can be a key factor in violence towards women. Pornography, in the end, teaches us to objectify people in general. This hurts our ability to have deep, meaningful, intimate, relationships. • Pornography eroticizes violence. This is where women are pictured tied, bound, gagged, urinated on, defecated on, beat, whipped, etc. Violence becomes sexualized. Arousal and violence become combined. The toxic idea here is that violence is sexy. Think of the implications of that_ So we can see. some of the toxic and destructive attitudes pornography can produce. The biggest effect pornography has on men, women, and children are how attitudes like these can affect our relationships, from how we view our children, our spouses, our co- workers and so on. Even how we view ourselves. It touches every level and every relationship we have. In her book "Deadly Persuasion" Jean Kilbourne points out that advertising/pornography, encourages us to objectify each other and to believe that our most significant relationships are with products or ideas...turning lovers into things and things into lovers. The messages are inside our intimate relationships, our homes, our hearts and our heads, contributing mightily to a climate of denial in which "relationships flounder and addictions flourish." (Emphasis mine) Is pornography bad for us? Again, we know if something is good or bad for us in the way it is expressed in our behavior with others, in our relationships. i.f the messages of advertising affect us in the short amount of time we are exposed to them, what then will the messages of porn do to us when we consume toxic ideas, mentally ingesting destructive messages about what love and relationship is about monthly, weekly or daily? Pornography can be harmful to every one of us. However, it is up to you to decide the truth about pornography. In short, having been on the inside of the sexually oriented business industry, as a consumer, a patron, and as stripper, I speak from personal experience when 1 tell you that all of the above was true in my life. It is true for every one of the countless individuals I have worked with over the last four years. 1 have taken the time to write to you today because, from my personal experience 1 know, pornography in any form is NOT victimless. 1 am begging you, pleading you, to do whatever it takes to keep these businesses restricted to the full extent of law. If you don't set the strictest standards possible, the porn industry will set the standards for you and you won't like the outcome much, guaranteed. Please continue to let the community know how much you value our children and families by choosing to make decisions that will protect our citizenry from the secondary harmful effects of pornography and its messages. I challenge you to make a difference by amending this ordinance to be so strict that the business will not want to remain in our community. Be bold and stand up for a better Spokane! If you don't do something about it today, take it from one who knows, it will touch your life tomorrow. Sincerely and respectfully submitted, Kimberly Drake Executive Director PO BOX 369 • Moses Lake, WA 98837 • Phone: (509) 869 -8876 • • Email: info@ccvspokane.org Growth Management Act GMA Joint Planning INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, is entered into by and among -the cities of Airway 1-leights, Cheney, Deer Park, Fairfield, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood, Rockford, Spangle, Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Waverly, hereinafter sometimes jointly referred to as "Cities," and the County of Spokane, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "County," jointly, hereinafter referred to along with the Cities as the "Parties," or "Jurisdictions." FURTHERMORE, THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, having been re- negotiated and finalized at the October 9` 2003 Steering Committee meeting, will replace the GMA Joint Planning lnterlocal Agreement, as amended, and originally adopted August 24, 1995 by Resolution 94-1686. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.70A.210, the legislative authority of a county that plans under the Growth Management Act (GMA) shall adopt a Countywide planning policy or policies in cooperation with the Cities located in whole or in part within the County; and WHEREAS, the Parties realize the Countywide Planning Policies call for the continued collaboration and cooperation among the parties in their respective obligations under the Growth . Management Act (GMA) to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations implementing such plans; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.70A.110, each county that is required or chooses to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) shall designate an urban growth area or areas in consultation/agreement with cities within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisionsof chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public agencies may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and GiL9 Joint Planning interlace Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 WHEREAS, pursuant to the above -cited statutory provisions, the parties hereto desire to enter into an interlocal cooperation agreement pursuant to which the parties will (1) establish a Steering Committee of elected officials and other committees to perform certain duties and provide recommendations to the Parties in conjunction with their respective obligations under the Growth Management Act (GMA); (2) establish the responsibilities of the Steering Committee of elected officials and other committees; (3) establish a process to amend the adopted Countywide Planning Policies; (4) establish a distribution formula for grant funds received from Washington State Department of Commerce, Trade and Economic Development or its successor for-growth management; and (5) provide for other matters related to the preceding items. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual obligations hereinafter set forth, and as authorized by chapter 39.34 RCW, RCW Section 36.70A.210 and RCW Section 36.70A.110, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: Section 1: PURPOSE The parties hereto recognize that it is in the public's interest that local governments cooperate with each other and coordinate their respective obligations for planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that the County adopt Countywide Planning Policies in cooperation with cities located in whole or in part within the county. Additionally, the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that the County designate urban growth areas in cooperation and consultation with Cities within the County. The parties have entered into prior interlocal cooperation agreement(s) establishing a collaborative process for the adoption of Countywide Planning Policies and related matters. These interlocal agreement(s) terminate upon the County's adoption of Countywide Planning Policies. The parties now desire to enter into another interlocal agreement which will continue the cooperative and collaborative process in conjunction with their respective obligations under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The purpose of this interlocal agreement is to (1) establish a steering committee of elected officials and other committees to perform certain duties and provide recommendations to the parties in conjunction with their respective obligations under the Growth Management Act (GMA); (2) establish the responsibilities of the steering committee of elected officials and other committees; (3) establish a process to amend the adopted Countywide Planning Policies; (4) establish a distribution formula for grant funds received from the Washington State Department of Commerce, GMA Joint Planning lnterlocal Agreement page A2 Trade and Economic Development or its successor for growth management; and (5) provide for other matters related to the preceding items. Section 2: ESTABLISHMENT OF STEERING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS, EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS TFIEREOF, AND A TECHNICAL SUPPORT COMMITTEE There is hereby established a steering committee of elected officials, hereinafter referred to as the Steering Committee, having those responsibilities set forth in Section 3 hereof The Steering Committee shall consist of three (3) County Commissioners from the Spokane County Board of Commissioners, three (3) elected officials from the City of Spokane, two (2) elected officials from the City of Spokane Valley, one (1) elected official each from Liberty Lake, Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Medical Lake and Millwood; and one (1) elected official to represent the five towns of Fairfield, Latah, Rockford, Spangle and Waverly. Representatives will be selected by the legislative bodies of each jurisdiction in any manner they choose. Jurisdictions may also appoint alternates, who must be an elected official. Alternates may vote during the absence of the regular representative. The Steering Committee will strive for consensus on all matters; however, when a vote is required, each member shall have one vote and a majority of 2/3 of the voting members in attendance is required for a motion to succeed, unless otherwise specified within this interlocal agreement. In order to conduct business, a quorum must be present; a quorum will consist of a simple majority of the total Steering Committee voting membership. The chair and vice -chair of the committee shall be elected from the membership on an annual basis. In addition to the voting members of the Steering Committee, the Steering Committee shall also include six (6) ex -officio (non voting) members as follows: three (3) members representing the junior taxing districts districts, water districts, and fire protection districts), one (1) member representing the electrical / gas / telecommunications utilities, and two (2) members representing'the unincorporated areas of Spokane County. Ex- officio members, with the exception of those representing unincorporated areas of Spokane County, are nominated by consensus among their peers and are then appointed by the Steering Committee. The two members representing the unincorporated areas of Spokane County shall be nominated by the Board of County Commissioners and appointed by the Steering Committee. A Technical Support Committee, is hereby established to advise and provide support to the Steering Committee. The Technical Support Committee shall consist of the staff personnel of the Parties plus GMA Joint Planning lnterlocal Agreement page A3 the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, representing the disciplines of planning, transportation, public works/engineering, finance, geographic information systems, and other 'appropriate agencies of local government. The junior taxing districts and / or electrical / gas / telecommunication utilities may assign staff representatives to meet with the Technical Support Committee. I.n the event that additional general purpose governmental entities are created through incorporation, they shall become represented in such number(s) as may be hereafter agreed -to by -the Steering Committee on the effective date of their incorporation, and their adoption of this document. In all subsequent decisions, the number of the Steering Committee members needed to reach a decision will be adjusted to account for the new member(s). However, prior decisions will not be reconsidered and re- voted. Such entities shall be entitled to a non - voting seat (in the manner of junior taxing districts) until the official date of incorporation. The Representatives will be selected by the legislative body in any manner it chooses. Section 3: RESPONSIBILITIES OF STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee, as established under Section 2, will have those responsibilities as set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies adopted under RCW Section 36.70A.210. Rather than repeat those responsibilities verbatim within this section, the parties agreed to generally outline those responsibilities referencing the exact policy. It is expected that the parties, when necessary, will look to the exact language when further explanation is necessary of any responsibility set forth hereinafter. The parties further recognize that from time to time the Countywide Planning Policies may be amended as provided for in section 4 hereinafter. In instances where such amendments occur, the parties agree that the responsibilities set forth within this section shall automatically be amended, when applicable, to include . such changes without the necessity of formal amendment of the agreement. The general outline of Steering Committee responsibilities are as follows: A. Recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Spokane County . The Steering Committee will: • 1. establish a date by which each jurisdiction will submit proposals for interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGAs) (Urban Growth Areas #4). GMA Joint Planning lntcrlocal Agreement page A4 2. analyze each jurisdiction's interim and final Urban Growth Area (UGA) proposal (Urban Growth Areas #6). 3. analyze each jurisdiction's UGA amendment proposals and population allocations for recommendation to the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners. 4. oversee development of a carrying capacity study for regional capital facilities (Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #8). 5. recommend allocation of population growth to jurisdictions (Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #9). 6. review amendment proposals to the Countywide Planning Policies and/or UGAs (interlocal agreement). B. Recommendations to all the jurisdictions The Steering Committee will: 1. specify minimum levels of service (Urban Growth Areas #2 and Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision. of Urban Services #1). 2. establish employment projections and ratios in cooperation with the Spokane area business community (Urban Growth Areas #9). 3. develop regionally consistent programs to protect natural resource lands, critical areas, and open space (Urban Growth Areas #15). 4. oversee preparation of a regional utility corridor plan (Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #11). 5. identify or establish siting and service delivery criteria to locate essential public facilities (Siting of Capital Facilities of a Countywide or State wide Nature #2). 6. establish a process for distributing essential public facilities among jurisdictions (Siting of Capital Facilities of a Countywide or State - wide Nature #3) C. Miscellaneous responsibilities -The Steering Committee will: 1. prepare a regional formula to designate and acquire public access to open space corridors (Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #4). 2. pursue strategies for regional water resource management (Promotion of Contiguous and„ Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #14). 3. promote a proactive planning approach between Washington and Idaho to establish uniform environmental protection measures (Economic Development #6). GMA Joint Planning interlocal Agreement page A5 Section 4: AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Upon initial adoption of Countywide Planning Policies by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.70A.210, the Parties agree that such adopted Countywide Planning Policies may be amended only through the following procedures: 1. The Countywide Planning Policies may be reviewed and amendments considered, as appropriate, once every five years following the initial adoption date of the Countywide Planning Policies and each successive five year period thereafter. Amendment proposals must be submitted for Steering Committee consideration by a voting member of the Steering Committee. Members of the general public must submit amendment proposals through a voting member of the Steering Committee. All such amendments shall be considered concurrently so the cumulative effect of each individual proposal can be ascertained. 2. The Countywide Planning Policies may be reviewed and amended more frequently than prescribed in paragraph #1 above. Such amendment proposals must be submitted for Steering Committee consideration by a voting member of the Steering Committee. Members of the general public must submit amendment proposals through a voting member of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee must pass a motion by an affirmative vote of 213 of the total voting membership in order to place such an amendment proposal before the Steering Committee for review and recommendation. The Steering Committee may establish criteria to help assess the need for processing such amendments. 3. The process of amending the Countywide Planning Policies shall be consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) provisions for original adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies. The Steering Committee in reviewing and making recommendations on proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies shall take into consideration the intent that Countywide Planning Policies are a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a Countywide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed, amended, and adopted. As such, each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan relies upon the long term goal or vision statement of each policy. There is an expectation of policy stability which must be weighed, along with the impact to each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, when considering an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies. 4. The Steering Committee shall establish procedures for processing,.reviewing, and recommending amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. GMA Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement page Ab 5. The Steering Committee's recorninendation or action on each and every amendment proposal shall be forwarded, together with all amendment proposals to the Board of County Commissioners in order for the Board to have the benefit of considering the amendment proposal(s) concurrently so the cumulative effect of each individual proposal can be ascertained. Section 5: TERM, AMENDMENT, OR TERMINATION OF AGREFME,NT The term of this interlocal agreement shall commence upon the County's adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies as provided for in RCW Section 36.70A.210. This interlocal agreement may be amended or terminated by an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the total voting membership of the Steering Committee. Section 6: FUNDENG Grant funds received from the Washington State Department of Commerce, Trade and Economic Development or its successor for Growth Management Act (GMA) responsibilities shall be distributed to the Parties pursuant to a distribution formula mutually agreed upon. Prior to the end of each fiscal year, the distribution formula will be re- evaluated. Factors included in such re- evaluation will include per capita allocation based on the annual Office of Financial Management estimate of population and the projected need for multi jurisdictional programs requiring special skills consultants. Section 7: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Upon termination of this interlocal agreement, all real or personal property acquired by any of the Parties hereto with monies which they have respectively received under Section 6 herein above, shall remain the sole property of such Parties. 2. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, shall, as provided for in RCW Section 39.34.040, file an executed copy of this interlocal agreement with the Secretary of State and Spokane County Auditor. GMA Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement page A7 3. The section headings in this intcrlocal 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. 4. This interlocal agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties_ No other understandings, orator otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this interlocal agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto. 5. Should (1) any section or portion thereof of this interlocal agreement be held unlawful and unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, and/or (2) should the Washington State Legislature adopt any legislation which is subsequently signed by the Governor affecting any sections or portions thereof within this interlocal agreement, and/or (3) should the qualified electorate voters approve a combined City - County form of government as provided for in Amendment 58 of the Washington State Constitution, the Parties agree to immediately meet and amend this interlocal agreement as may be deemed necessary. GMA Joint Planning into Agreement page A8 TN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this interlocal agreement to be executed on the date shown below their signature block. CITY OF AIRWAY HTS., WASHINGTON cm OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Dated: Dated: cITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON TOWN OF FAIRFIELD, LD, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Dated: Dated: TOWN OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Dated: Dated: TOWN OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON TOWN OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Dated: Dated: TOWN OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Dated: Dated: GMA Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement page A9 CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Dated: Dated: Dated Dated: TOWN OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Mayor Chair, Spokane County Commissioners Spokane County Commissioner Spokane County Commissioner GMA Joint Planning Intcr]ocal Agreement page Al 0 s jValley Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager and Members of City Council/ From: , Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director CC: Nina Rigor, Deputy City Manager . Date: October 9, 2003 Re: Follow -up on Future Senior Center Operations Attachments: Letter from Dave DeWitt to Mike Jackson 1017/03 Minutes: Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association Oct 2, 2003 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.org bl�b. This memorandum is an update on the operation of the Spokane Valley Senior Citizen Center. As you will recall, this matter was discussed at the September 16, 2003 City Council meeting. On October 2, Mayor DeVleming and I met with the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association (SVSCA) Board. Please note we were not present for the entire meeting. The minutes of that meeting and a letter from Board President, Dave DeWitt, dated October 7, 2003, are attached to this memo. As noted in Mr. DeWitt's letter, the Board has requested that their financial obligations to the City continue status quo, until such time as the facility moves to CenterPlace. Essentially, the Board would like to continue to rent the space at the Senior Center to outside groups and continue to pay the City of Spokane Valley $12,000 per year. On the matter of the $5,000 that the Board was paying the county for the Senior Center Coordinator's salary, the Board feels they should not be obligated to that amount. Additionally, the Board would like to utilize that $5,000 to help fund a full time employee, hired by them, to help operate the Senior Center. With regard to the future CenterPlace operations, the SVSCA Board was receptive to the concept of a joint committee with the Board, the City and other members of the community. The Board felt it would best to start this process in January. However, they did appoint a temporary committee to begin identifying the issues they would like to see addressed. I told Dave DeWitt that I would be forwarding the Board's request to you and to City Council for consideration. If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please let me know. .FelloWsbip Recreation Education Social Health Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association October 7, 2003 Mike Jackson Director of Parks and Recreation City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mike, Per your request following our Senior Center Board of Directors meeting of October 2, 2003, I am submitting the following information. 1 The board of directors of the Valley Senior Center voted to recommend to the City of the Spokane Valley, that the renting of the building and our payment of rent to the city stay as it has been when we were affiliated with the county until such time as we move to the new building at Mirabeau Point. The rentals bring in approximately $16,000 per year and our rent is $12,000 per year, leaving approxi- mately $4000 per year for us to spend on civic activities or other center expenses. 2. In 2002, to bring on board a part-time director, we made a deal with the county that we would pay the - first $5000 of the director's wages. When the city took over, we were told by Mr. Hutsinpillar, that the city would not be asking for this $5000 because the director is now a full time city employee. Because she is now a full time city employee, we do not feel we should be obligated to pay any part of her wages. The city is not asking any other organization to pay any part of an employee's wages. 3 We (the senior center) have put on a full employee through the end of 2003, Jaynee Koch. To pay her wages, we need to retain the reyenue generated by the rentals and not pay the $5000 to the city. incerelyorours 11423 E. Mission Ave. Spokane WA 99246 Associated with the Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation Department The S VSCA is a federal 501 c 3 =romp orga i ataon . Phone: 509 -926 -1937 Fax: 509- 924 -8929 Email• Kcoaiell@valleyseniotcenter.org Web Site: WWW.slsokanevalleyseniors.com :uiurizuua ra :aa rnx UCUING 16001/002 Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Assn. Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, October 2, 2003 Attending: all board members except Russell Yates and Mitchell King, plus Center Director Karen Cornell, Mayer Mike DeVleming and Parks & Recreation Director Mike Jackson. President Dave DeWitt called the meeting to order at e:37 a.m. Minutes from the September 5, 2003 board meeting were approved. The Treasurer's report was also approved. Roland Williams noted that September wag a good revenue month with 52,222.24 over expenses, however year to date net Income is still negative (S- 5,157.45). OLD BUSINRSa: 1) Collecting RentWaying City Rant: Treasurer Williams said the new clty can't deny us the right to collect rent for outside events and sill charge us $12,000 per year rent. Lsatyear's board president Roger Twists agreed, noting that it helps us breakeven or at - teast not lose as much. He said that the canter has had difficulty covering the Increase In rent It pays from $7,700 In 2001. He added that rental coordination handled right at the center also helps logistics for events. Karen noted that she already has rental reservation requests through Fall 2004, so It would be helpful for center event planning and renters to know how the city will handle this situation in 2004. MOTION: To propose to the City that they keep the rent situation as it currently Is until the senior center moves to Rs new building. (Motion by Roland, seconded by Margaret. passed) 2) Committee with City to work on Changeover Issues: City officials agreed that a• committee can be named by the now SVSCA Board In January 2004, however the Mayor suggested the current board begin a list of issues for the committee to address (staffing, finances, grants etc.). He added that he wants the January committee to Include board members plus other votunteera, since he expects a big jump in membership like the YMCA experienced with the opening of its new Mlrabeau facility. The current SVSCA Board named Margaret Cadwallader, Roger Twigs and Roland Williams to be the Interim liaison committee with the city, until the January contmltttee la selected. • 3) SVSCA Board Is Advisory or Directive under the now city? The Mayor said the new Babson committee can review this issue. Board members noted that South Hill and Corbin senior centers are independent, but get financial help from the city of Spokane. Roger saki his concern was that Karen hive time to do grant writing but indefinite staffing Levels plus communication needs vtth the new cRy are not allowing tor that. The Mayor sate that 2004 permute, issues are not as eat In atone as yet, but that Karen is the only full - time budgeted person for the center at this time, with custodial duties falling to a - contract company after the move. Ho added that grant writing could be one or several missions that the new task conuntttee wfli indicate for Karen in 2004. He addod that tho task commttttee would not be permanent, but operate as long as needed in the tranaMon. 4) New Center. ground breaking in November is expected with construction taking "about a year'. 5) Can the City pay half of Karen's assistant's wages If Jaynes gods tun time? MOTION: To propose that the City pay half of Jaynee's wages and non - insurance benefits In 2004. (Motion by Faun, seconded by Roland. NOT passed) MOTION: To Increase Jaynes to full tiros, 40 hours per week, and for SVSCA to pay her as an employee (not a contract worker as she has been) through the end of this year and continuing through 2004,11 SVSCA Is not obligated to pay the 55,000 per year portion of Director Karen's salary that It has paid In the past. (Motion by Roger, seconded, passed) - 1 . �.. �.0 ,o.a;, rein 'VUD:Hi -- LW) RCUINC October 2003 SVSCA Board Minutes /164G 6) Web sites: The city is working on a brand now web alts which Mike Jack ( Jackson says j (J 2144dr SVSCA can update once someone from the center Is trained to do so. 11 was agreed � �a. that this would possibly save money over having an independent web site and Roland � � /y�.lw. Agreed to refund current spokenevaUeyseniors.corn advertisers for unused Ilnkha time. �. /,/,l./ MOTION: To kill the SVSCA web site www.spokanevalleyseniors.com and use the city's web site for senior umber news and events. (Motion by Faun, seconded by Roger, passed) 7) September Events: Everyone agreed that the mystery dinner theater event was a big success and Margaret said there were lots of compliments all arountL 11) October Everts: Croft Show Chairperson Faun reported that the tables are sold out, but that donations are *1111 needed for the raffle. Dave Bald that for the raffle to be legal raffle tickets must state the value of the most expensive and least expensive item. Faun Bald she expects income from this semi -annual event to be about 6300 for lunches, $200-300 for t bake sale, pins table rentals. Dave said that he would be donating his photography services for the Costume Dance October 31" featuring the Men of Rhythm band. Karen explained that she cannot attend any these special events outside herwortking hours because oily requirements are that she receive over time pay. She is not allowed comp time, cannot "volunteer her time" and le encouraged not to do over time. Board members agreed that this is a bad situation because she is popular with Center members and °expected" by them to be at big events. Board members said they would support efforts to change the city's mind if paealble. 9) Fundrateing, Grants, Auctions, etc: Leon expressed his willingness to research grants at the library and Roland offered to help. Their goal le to seek Gash for personnel rather than for specific projects, until the mew center task committee has speelnc genie which would tit other available grants. 10) Volunteers: Recepttanlst Shirley will be traveling in October and several board members volunteered to cover her desk Monday through Thursday morning, Oct 6 -16. 11) Neweletlae Advertising coordinator WebsitesWest Cominunlcations was requested- to have advertisers provide more Inserts In the future, because Rosepointe Retirement Community had been short for the October mailing. Margaret and Jeanne volunteered to help with proof reading on future Issues. It was suggested that the tsetse month should be on each page. 12) Prospective Board Members: Candidates include a retired attorney, a retired pastor, Bob Anderson, our custodian and someone named John who ran for city councW and • is currently running for the Fire Department. Candidates will be announced at the November General Meeting, biographies are planned for the November and December newsletters and candidates will be urged to attend Center events and tunchea prior to voting for them the second week of Desernber. NEW BUSINESS: 1) Proposed By-Lew Change: Faun's suggested change to Section li-A regarding undetermined board meeting dates will be put on the November General Meeting agenda. Board members indicated however that they are opposed to not having a set meeting day. A two -thirds vote at the General Meeting will decide the status of the proposal. 2) Keys to Canter. MOTION: To authorize the Director to call in ail keys and detormtne who to reissue them to. (Motion by Roger, seconded iby Leon, passed) Pool players wan not have keys In the future, but will wait for Karen to open the carter. 3) Proposed purchase of CD Player and Punch Bowl• MOTION: To authorize up to 6150 to be spent on a CD player and new punch bowl to luthance our facilities for event rentals. 4) Computers will be gotten rid of and desks kept In the former "computer lab" room. Meeting was adjourned at 17 a-rn. Minutes submitted by Secretary Jeanne Gates e 002/002 DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN T IffE C1TV OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into among Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," Spokane County Sheriff, having office for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "SHERIFF," and City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "PARTIES." W1TNESSETH: WHEREAS, A.S, pursuant to RCW 35.02 the City of Spokane Valley established midnight, March 31, 2003 as its official date of incorporation and upon that date commenced operations as a city; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.02, as of the date of incorporation, local governmental authority and jurisdiction with respect to the newly incorporated area transferred from Spokane County to the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), authorizes counties and cities to contract with each other to perform certain ftrnctions which each may legally perform; and WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.28 RCW, the Sheriff of Spokane County is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and conservator of the peace in Spokane County and shall have, among other responsibilities, the duty to arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it; and WHEREAS, SCOPE is a non- profit corporation, licensed within the State of Washington exclusively for charitable and educational purposes including, but not necessarily limited to the furtherance of the public safety of the citizens of Spokane County and the performance of lawful activities which may be necessary, useful or desirable for the furtherance, accomplishment, fostering or attaining public safety, either directly or indirectly and, either alone or in conjunction with organizations of any kind or nature; and WAER.EAS, the COUNTY, SHERIFF and SCOPE under Resolution No. 00 -0043 entered into an Agreement for SCOPE services in the unincorporated areas of Spokane County entitled "AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMSIONERS, SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF AND SPOKANE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE) "; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above -cited statutory provisions, The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, under Resolution 03 -0238 and the City of Spokane Valley, entered into an Agreement entitled " INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY"; and WHE:RE.AS, PARTIES desire to add SCOPE to the Base Level Services, and the PARTIES wish to amend their Agreement pursuant. to Section 19.1. NOW THEREFORE for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter and as provided for in the above - referenced recitals, the PARTIES do hereby agree to amend Sections 3.1 and 5 of that Agreement entitled "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY" to add SCOPE services. All other terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect without any change or modification whatsoever. SECTION NO. 3: SERVICES 3.1 Base Level Services. SCOPE. SCOPE shall be responsible for providing, when sanctioned by the SHERIFF, the following services: (1) Community/governmental resource information; (2) Neighborhood reporting; (3) Area problem referrals; (4) Problem solving partnership with responsible public and private agencies concerning public safety issues; (5) In addition to the above- enumerated services, SCOPE agrees to provide such other services as PARTIES may from time to time request. SECTION NO. 5: COST OF SERVICES RAFT DAFT 5.1 Base Level and Optional Services. CITY agrees to compensate COUNTY thirty thousand seven hundred and thirty -three dollars ($30,733) for SCOPE services from June 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The cost for SCOPE services was calculated by developing a percentage equaling the number of SCOPE stations providing services within the CITY and multiplying that percentage by the actual costs of providing SCOPE services. For 2003, this percentage was created by taking the number of SCOPE stations in CITY (4 for 2003) compared to the total number of SCOPE stations (15 in 2003), which equated to four fifteenths (4/15) or twenty -six point seven percent (26.7 %). This percentage (26:7 %) was than multiplied by the total cost of providing SCOPE services. For 2003 only, this number was than multiplied by seven twelfths (7/12) to reflect the fact that the CITY officially incorporated on June 1, 2003. For 2003, the total cost of SCOPE services included sixty -nine thousand seven hundred and ninety -seven dollars ($69,797 X 26.7% = $18,636) for salaries and benefits of SCOPE Coordinator, SIRT Coordinator and Maintenance and Operation expenses and one hundred twenty -seven thousand five hundred and thirty-six dollars ($127,536 X 26.7% _ $34,052) for a Lieutenant's salary and benefits who supervises SCOPE. $18,636 26,7% of SCOPE personnel + M &O $34.052 26.7% of Supervising Lieutenant 552,688 Addition of both percentages x 7/12 Partial year $30,733 . Total SCOPE costs to CITY for 2003 For 2004 and subsequent years the Agreement is renewed, this method of calculating the CITY's cost. for SCOPE services will be used. IN WITNESS WJ:IIEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Amendment to the original Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: . SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF: MARK K. STERK DRAFT DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON Attest: JOHN ROSKELLEY, Chair ATTEST: VICKY M. D ALTON CLERK OF THE BOARD PHI;LLLT,P D. HARRIS, Vice -Chair BY: Daniela Erickson, Deputy M. KATE McCASLIN DATED: City Clerk (Title) Approved as to form only: Acting City Attorney DATED: SCOPE: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Its: BONNIE APERNATHY, COORDINATOR. Spok • Ualley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Capital Facilities Element Community Development Department November 18, 2003 Washiogtort state Office of Community Development GRAkly*date sPOKA.EcUM St 1. .00Valley Steering Committee c 0 0_ GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT Planning Goals • Urban Growth - efficient • Reduce Sprawl • Transportation-efficient multi-modal • Housing affordability for all • Economic Development fa Property Fights • Permits — timely & fair • Natural Resource Industries • Open Space & Recreation • Environment • Citizen Participation & Coordination • Public Facilities & Services • Historic Preservation Gapital F Elemien GM d � ey � u� �I r�e� d� r _ _J _ 1� J • Roads, sewer, water, stormwater, fire, police, parks, jails, libraries. • Future development adequately served by public facilities and services. • Capital facilities support growth envisioned in Land Use Element • Sound fiscal policies to provide facilities and services consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Ca pit a l Facilities PIian (CFP) • Inventory showing locations and capacities of existing facilities. • Forecast of future needs (based on demand and adopted levels of service). • Proposed locations for new facilities. • 6 -year plan that will finance needed facilities, with revenue sources identified. • Not a wish list Interim Plan Goals • Establish local Levels of Service • Ensure public facilities and services support development at LOSs • Implement a Capital Facilities Plan • Coordinate facilities and service plans to ensure consistency with comp plan. Levels of Service (LOS) • Quantifiable measures of amount of public facilities or services provided to community. • City must adopt minimum LOS for facilities and services • Direct relationship to quality of life • Low LOS = $ High LOS = $$$$ Facility � Level of Ser►ice'Standard * - Domestic Water 800 gallons per residential equivalent per day. Sanitary Sewer Public sewer required where densities exceed 2 equivalent residential units per acre. Transportation LOS for operational analysis shall be as contained in the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction. Maintain travel corridor time as established by Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Stormwater New development shall not increase runoff volume off -site. Prevent flooding of property during a 25 -year storm. Prevent damage to buildings from a 100 -year storm. Stormwater discharge to any surface or ground waters will be allowed unless the discharge will degrade water quality below standards. 1.01 officers per 1000 /population. 3.04 jail beds per 1000 /population. Law Enforcement Parks 1.4 community park acres per 1000 /population. Libraries .41 square feet per capita . Solid Waste Solid waste processing will meet Federal and State regulations. Street Cleaning Implement adopted plan as identified in Transportation Element. Public Transit As adopted by Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors. Fire and Emer enc y Services Urban areas served by Fire District with at least a Class 6 Insurance Rating. Fire Flow and hydrant placement per Uniform Fire Code. Urban areas must be within 5 road miles of station with Class A pumper. Urban areas shall be served by a basic life support (BLS) agency. Public Schools To be determined by individual school district CFP. Spokane County Levels of Service Concurrency • GMA requires facilities and services in place concurrent with development • Facilities must be available and adequate. • GMA requires concurrency for transportation • GMA strongly suggests concurrency for water and sewer • New development must be denied if concurrency requirement not met • Revenue shortfalls may require reevaluation of the LOS and Plan amendment •-• _ ' ' ..'': .:• ,._ .„. ■ ■ 1 • , : ,.: : . ■ ' . ri '..: .. ■ -. :t•__--;.i. ' - .i:=•:-. - - ., -.._•.:- - •- ' ...-,- -•_,-;" :..-:-:=•-: .._ • - CAPITAL - _IT : ; ::. 7, ...... . I . 00 - li DV I S . I t - ILI: . ' ^. ' ° 0 i ti#S . 1 ' *, C _ ,. . .... .., .... . . . .._ ,,.. : , , I . . , . i r - - '. . - , . . I - '. ; ...... . 1 ,_. - Costs/Revenues 2000 2001 (4 _ 2002 . • 5 . 2003 16 93.0 , / 6) 2004 7 2005. 2006 9 Total Sanitary. Se‘yer TransJortation • 15,456.0 16.695 0 • 25.954,6 . . 159,779.0 11871 0 36,769.6 34,071.0 3 3 628.0 44.!77iJ .30267.0 . 25A440 29.322,0 29.271,0 28051.0 _ [ StoiImvater 80.0 1.080 0 ..700.0 ... ••• 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 • • 0.0 -- 1,860.0 __. ...... County Jail Addition 0.0 ...., 0.0 5 0.0 4.781.0 1.000.0 . 2,850.0 8,000.0 2_660,0 6.000,0 3,350.0 0.0 1 350 0 - 15_000.0 22,910.0 , .....„.=,... Public Buildinss 2.566.0 •=. - 3 . Conservation Land 4 067 0 1,846.0 2.14.0 . 1 000.0 1 000.0 000,0 1.970 0 _______ 11,097.0 Parks d Recreation . , 0.0 18,650.0 38.566,0 Total Costs _ .._. __. Total Revenues 56 248.0 56,248.0 71,319.0 51 199.0 48,78&0 69,116 0 82 610.0 , 84 092.0 469,372.0 71,319.0 57, 48,788.0 _.._. 69,116.0 82 I 84 9 092.0 469,372M Balance 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 CFP Summary — Interim Plan Next Steps • Inventory existing facilities and services. • Coordinate with public and private service providers • Develop alternative Level of Service scenarios • Develop 6 and 20 year capital facilities analysis • Develop 6 -year Capital Facilities Plan • Seek early and continuous community involvement CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 18, 2003 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business 111 new business ❑ public hearing X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Right -of -Way and Cross - Circulation between Appleway and Sprague. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: This topic was discussed as and agenda item at the Council Meeting of October 7, 2003. During the discussion there were several items of information requested by the Council. Those items are as follows: 1. Cost for acquisition and construction of cross connection streets between Appleway and Sprague. The total cost of the cross streets are on the order of $1900 - $2300 per linear foot of roadway. This estimate is based on the following: • Engineering • 700' road length • Typical 40' wide road • Two 12' wide driving lanes • Two 8' wide parking lanes • Curb, gutter, and 6' sidewalk • Traffic Signals (if required) • Chain Link Fencing (if required) • Estimated RAN costs ($18 /sf) (add business costs if required) The approximate cost for each street would be $1,610,000. 2. Cost to convert Appleway and Sprague to two -way arterials. This item was discussed by the Roads Committee in their report to the City Council dated November 23, 2002. The following is taken from that report: Alternative 2 -- Converting Appleway and Sprague into two, two -way arterials Under this alternative, the present one -way portion of Sprague (Thierman to University) would revert to a channelized, five -lane road. Appleway would also become a channelized, five -lane road. A preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is in the $4.84 M range, see Table 6 -2. Note that Appleway, as presently designed, is not wide enough to support the five lanes necessary for an arterial. Therefore, more and would have to be purchased, at a cost of $1.5M. A more detailed cost estimate of this project would probably fall in the $3.5 -6M range. The capacity of this system would be less than 50,000 vehicles per day (vpd). For year 2025 and a volume of 50,000 vpd, the operation of the following intersections would be considered unacceptable: Thierman /Sprague, Thierman /Appleway, Sprague/ Park, and SpragueNista. This system would also have a higher incidence of collisions, because one -way roads are inherently safer than two -way roads. Grants would probably not be available because of the newness of the present roads. 3. How have the emission levels been affected by the opening of Appleway? Spokane Air Pollution Control Authority maintains a permanent air quality monitor at the fire station at Sprague and Balfour. There has been no exceedance of carbon monoxide standards either before or after the opening of the couplet. SAPCA does not maintain historical records of the actual measured values. Eric Skelton reports that he would expect that air quality has been improved with the reduction of intersection delay and the higher travel speeds. 4. Current status of the Couplet Project -Phase II from University to Evergreen. See attached letter from Transportation Improvement Board dated November 4, 2003. 5. How were the business signs determined and what are other options? The County followed the MUTCD requirements in terms of size of the signs. Each business had the option of paying $75 to have their business logo on the sign (the business provided the panel to Spokane County) or the County simply added their name to the sign. The signs are typically 4'x4' or 4'x6' depending on how many businesses are listed. The next biggest sign in accordance with the MUTCD is an 8`x12' sign on double posts. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS TIB Members Gotrncll.rnrnbor WithamGaniey CM.. CV of Eettle Ground Commasslonm Loa Bowmen Vico Chair. Banton County Mr. Jahn Akers, P.E. coy of Eltenabory Mr. Thetas Ballard, P.E. Pierce County Ma. Bonnie Belt Berk and Associates Mt. Goxgs Cress Port of Longview Ms. Kathleen Da :ls WSDOT Mr. Dan D1Ctlllo CfatLam Transit CounclImerrhm Mary Gales City of Fade e1 Way Ms. Paula Hamrrond, P.E NSDOT Council Prnsidanl Rob 1-eggins CO of Spokane l unclirnorrbor Rob McKenna King Campy Mr. Dick Mtxlnley Cuy of Setewhnm Ms. Dave Nelson Grant County Mr. Dave O'Connell Mason County Mr. Paul Robert: City of Evm elt Comnissionor /Mar S,elon is'and County Mr. Arnold Torus Bicrofa Affmnso of Washiipton Ms. Jay Weber County Moan Adrrz'ri Soars' M. Theo Yu Office of Financial Management Ms Klm Zerrz, P.E Spokane Translf Atancre ty I& Stevan Corso-slot Executive Director P.O. 3as 40901 O»yrtiaia.WA 83504 - 0901 Phone: 36PS9fr i 140 Fix 36DS95.1165 vrvrw.lit.va.gev Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Mr. Neil Kersten Public Works Director City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mr. Kersten: The original budget for the project submitted in 1999 was: Design $ 401,500 Right -of -Way $1,300,000 Construction $5,315,500 Total $7,017,000 The original funding partners were identified as: TIB $4,210,200 60.0% County $2,336,800 33.3% WSDOT $ 470,000 6.7% Total $7,017,000 100.0% The TIB funds remain available to the project at this time. Investing in your local community November 4, 20003 Valley Couplet, Project 2 University Rd. to Evergreen Rd. TIB No. 9- E- 032(015) -1 This letter will confirm our recent telephone conversations regarding TIB funding authorized for the Valley Couplet project. The original application was submitted by Spokane County in the fall of 1999, and the project was selected by the TIB in January, 2000. The original schedule submitted by the County called for design and right -of -way activities to begin in mid- to Tate -2000. This initial effort was delayed when adjustments to the regional transportation plan compiled by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council did not include the project. When the incorporation vote for the City of Spokane Valley was scheduled for November 2002, the County opted to delay the start of the project until after the election. With the successful incorporation vote, the County reported to TIB that the project would be transferred to the new city. Recognizing the time required for Spokane Valley to organize and develop its Comprehensive Plan, TIB staff discussed a nominal two -year delay with Interim Public Works Director Dick Warren, to about December, 2004, to allow the new city to determine whether it wished to proceed with the project. TIB Members CouncBrnar7ter William Ganlay Chair, City of Bartle Ground Comnf'ssioner l.eo Bowman Vra Choir. Berton County Mx. John Akers, P.E. City a0 Ei.'enstorp Mr. Thomas Ballard. P.E. Rome County Ms. Bonnie En...* Berk ens' Assorabies Mr. George Cross Pon or Longview - Ms. Kathleen Dais W DOT Mr. Dan DiGulEo CYa)'am Trans. Councirrmmber Mary Gatos Gay of Federal Way Ms, Paula Hammond, P.E. 4YSDOT Council President Rob Higgins City of Spoken Count ilmerrbor Rob McKenna King County Mr. Dick McKinley Ciy of BOST/tarn Mr. Dave Nelson Gam County Mr. Dave O'Connell Mason County Mr. Pout Roberts City of Evewrt Comrris onor MJco Shelton tslaM Comfy Mr. Arnold Tormc SYcyGe Affiance of Nesheptan Mr. Jay Weber Co/am/Road A.a.n. itstr ciao atop/ Mr. Theo Yu OJ u of Friarriot Management Ms, KimZemx. P.E. Spokane Tenn;. Authority Mr. S avan Dor:oster Ecocutiva Director- P.O. Bou, 40901 0Iyn la.WA 935414 -0901 Phone: 350.586.1140 Fax 360. 5861165 www.ta,va.gov Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Page 2 of 2 The original scope of work is the construction of a new 3 -lane east -bound roadway, extending the existing Appleway couplet, and the conversion of Sprague Avenue to one -way westbound between Evergreen Road and University Road. As we discussed, there are several options available for the city's consideration. Among them are: • Proceed with the project and begin the design and right -of -way phase in 2004 • Request a later project start date • Request changes in the project scope and /or funding package • Withdraw the current pending project. The city would then be able to apply and compete for TIB funds in a future year for a similar or reconfigured project As is our usual practice, the last three courses of action would require review • and approval of the full Board. TIB staff is available to meet with the Spokane Valley staff or City Council to discuss the project in detail. Please contact Gloria Bennett, P.E., TIB Project Engineer, or me, if desired. We Zook forward to working with you in meeting the needs of Spokane Valley's arterial street network. Sincerely, Robert W. Moorhead, P.E. Region Manager Investing in your local community Roads Committee Report to the City Council City of Spokane Valley November 23, 2002 Rev. A 7 nom, z-c\ 74( Acknowledgements This report could not have been prepared without the enthusiastic participation of citizens of the new City of Spokane Valley who formed the Roads Committee. These include the following: Eileen Allen, Kirk Appleby, Jay Bookhout, Jim Bowles, Bob Davis, Doug Demmerly, Kerry Farrar, Bill Gothmann, Myrna Gothmann, Rod Holmes, Regan Lane, Gae Ann Moffat, Hal Moffat, Randy Noble, James Olinger, Loyd Petersen, Rico Reed, Chet Reilly, Gary Schimrnels, Lance von Marbod, Robert Westby, and our able Chair, Deanna Hormann. We gratefully acknowledge the many hours of participation of the staff of the Spokane County Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, including Ross Kelley, P.E., County Engineer, James Haines, P.E., Assistant County Engineer, Phil Barto, P.E., Maintenance and Operations Chief, Bob Brueggeman, P.E., Traffic Maintenance and Operations, and Pat Harper, County Office Administrator. The Washington State Department of Transportation Regional Traffic Engineer, Ted Trepanier, P.E., has contributed greatly to our understanding of the new City's relationship with the State of Washington. Bill Gothmann, P.E., Editor Revisions Rev. A Changes: Page 11: Pgh 3.2(B) concerning grace period. Pages 12 -13 moved title 3.2(C) to top of page 12 Page 2 Table of Contents Section 1. Introduction 1 -1. Purpose 1 -2. Scope 1 -3. Method used 1-4. Organization of report Section 2. Im Actions, Recommendations, Pitfalls and Alternatives 2 -1. Introduction 2 -2. Immediate Actions 2 -3. Recommendations 2-4. Pitfalls 2 -5. Short range alternatives 2-6. Medium range alternatives 2 -7. Long range alternatives Section 3. Introduction to Valley Roads 3 -1. Introduction 3 -2. Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities 3 -3. Present Design and Construction of County Roads and Bridges 3-4. Maintenance of Roads 3 -5. Administrative Services Section 4. RCWs, Boards, and Programs Applicable to Roads 4 -1. Introduction 4 -2. RCWs 4 -3. Boards, Progarns, and Committees Section 5. Financing for Roads 5 -1. Introduction 5 -2. Equipment Purchases 5 -3. Roads Budget Section 6. Project Studies 6 -1. Introduction 6-2. The Valley Couplet 6 -3. Bridging the Valley 6-4. Bigelow- Forker Connector 6 -5. Sullivan and Barker Bridges 6 -6. Spokane Valley Transportation Projects Completed 6 -7. Projects in Progress in Spokane County 6 -8. Funded Projects That Will Not Be Completed Prior to Incorporation 6 -9. Other High Priority Projects 5 7 10 17 20 25 Page 3 Section 7. City Studies 7 -1. Introduction 7 -2. City of Burien 7 -3. City of Yakima 7-4. City of Coeur d'Alene 7 -5. City of Post Falls 7 -6. City of Liberty Lake 38 Section 8. Contacts for Further Information 46 Section 9. Index of Subjects 48 Page 4 Section 1. Introduction 1 -1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide information to the new City Council of the City of Spokane Valley so they can make effective decisions regarding roads in the new city. 1 -2. Scope This document is informational, rather than decisional. The City needs to know what is required by them about the roads, and what alternatives are available to them. Thus, we present the background, alternatives, and what other cities have done. Where a decision is controversial, we have tried to provide a variety of opinions. This report is limited to the roads. There are other reports on such public works facilities as sewers and solid waste disposal. 1 -3. Method Used The Committee on Roads first thoroughly investigated the extent of what will be our road facilities, how they are presently maintained, and how they are being developed. To do this, we received extensive presentations by the Spokane County Engineer and his staff. These meetings also gave us a great window into the capabilities of Spokane County and how these might be utilized by the City, and were extremely helpful to the Committee. Next, the Committee contacted a range of cities to determine how they served the public through their roads. Through these varied contacts, we were able to identify several strategies to meet the needs of the public. 1 -3. Organization of Report This report is organized with the "quick look" data up front, and the more detailed reports toward the end of the report. Thus, section 2, presents an overview of actions, recommendations, pitfalls, and alternatives available to the council for both maintenance and construction of streets. Section 3, Introduction to Valley Roads, introduces the reader to the roads as we presently know them -- what we will own and the obligations this public trust involves. It also details what services the County now performs on Valley roads. In the city, these are called "streets." In the unincorporated areas, these are called "roads." Since this report involves both areas, we shall call them roads, for simplicity. Page 5 Section 4, RCWs, Boards, and Programs lists the major RCWs applicable to streets. This section also discusses the many boards and councils that now exist for transportation and roads. The City will wish to be a part of each of these. Section 5, Financing for Roads, discusses the expenses and capital outlays the City should expect. Section 6, Project Studies, discusses road projects now in progress, those on the drawing boards, and the long -range plan the County has been using for roads in our community. Section 7, City Studies, details phone interviews the Committee had with several cities about their roads. Section 8, Contacts for Further Information, provides a list of people who could be contacted for further information on a wide list of subjects. Section 9 is an index of subjects in this report. Page 6 Section 2 Immediate Actions, Recommendations, Pitfalls and Alternatives 24. Introduction The purpose of this section is to discuss things the Council needs to know immediately: immediate actions, recommendations, pitfalls, short range, medium range, and long range alternatives. 2 -2. Immediate Actions A. Set up a separate street fund as soon as possible, so that revenues for the improvement of streets can be received by the City from the State. (RCW 47.24.040) B. Set up a separate arterial fund as soon as possible, so that revenues for the improvement of arterials can be received by the City from the State. (RCW 47.26.270) C. Develop at least an interim contract with the County for maintaining City Streets (formerly County roads) beyond the grace period. The County is required by RCW 35.02.220(2) to maintain County roads for 60 days after incorporation or until 40% of the County R.oad Portion of the property tax has been received by CSV, whichever occurs first. The contact at the County is Ross E. Kelley, P.E. D. Develop at least an interim contract with the County for maintaining the State roads, themselves, starting with the date of incorporation. The contact at the County is Ross E. Kelley, P.E. E. Develop at least an interim contract with the State for maintaining the signal lights of the State Roads starting with the date of incorporation. The contact for the State is Ted Trepanier, P.E. P. Determine disposition of the 30,000 road documents that the County will turn over to the City on the day of incorporation. 2 -3. Recommendations A. At the present time, the County completely repaves a street that has been trenched for utilities [See Section 3- 3(A) }. The Committee recommends the Council continue this program. B. The City should consider setting up a dedicated road fund modeled after the level of service we now receive from the County. This would assure adequate maintenance Page 7 of the capital investment we now have in our road infrastructure. [See Section 3- 4(B)( C. The City should meet with WSDOT to initiate a design study of the 16th/Pines /SR 27 /Saltese intersection. 2 -4. Pitfalls The single, greatest pitfall that we found the new Council should avoid was shorting Road Funds: Balancing Construction and Maintenance Expending Construction and Maintenance funds is a very delicate balancing act. Construction funds are very attractive to the Council, since about $4 can be obtained in grants for every $1 of City funds. Thus, it is very tempting to short maintenance funds in favor of more glamorous construction projects. Flowever, construction funds usually fund arterials, a small part of the overall road miles maintained by the City. A small amount of maintenance of a local road can result in extending its life, preventing massive expenditures reconstructing that road later. 2 -5. Short Range Alternatives I.n the short range, all of the cities who have recently incorporated, have contracted with the County for road services, at least on an interim basis. There are several reasons for this: A. The goals of the cities have not yet been determined by the date of incorporation. B. The staff is still being hired. C. The large, expensive equipment required for maintenance has not been acquired. These costs are listed in Section 5 -2. D. The technical expertise is not yet available to the City This would seem a logical choice for the City of Spokane Valley. The City should also join and/or develop interlocal agreements with the Committees, programs, and agencies listed in Section 4 -3. 2-6. Medium Range Alternatives Once incorporation has been accomplished, the city needs to determine its goals. Out of these goals will come strategies to meet these goals, and one of these strategies will be what to contract out and what to do themselves. Several choices are available: 2 Washington State Department of Transportation Page 8 A. Maintenance Except for targeted tasks, the County may be a better choice for maintenance. Experience from some of the cities we have investigated shows that most private firms are not interested in doing the sanding, sweeping, plowing, and deicing. These tasks require a large investment in equipment, but may vary considerably from year to year, and, thus, not be a good business venture for independent contractors. Thus, County resources may be a better choice. However, striping would not vary from year to year, and would prove a good investment. Thus, contractors are willing to do this task. B. Eneineering There are firms willing and able to do the design of city roads. In addition, the County has this capability. Thus, the City will have to evaluate each of these resources and make the appropriate choices. C. Construction. Most construction work is now done by private contractors. This would be a logical choice for the City. Note that, in each of these choices, the City is required to evaluate the resources, negotiate contracts, administer these projects, and manage these projects. Thus, strong engineering, contract administration, and project management skills are required. 2 -7. Long Range Alternatives The City must adopt a City Plan, that embodies the philosophy of who we are and why we are a city. This plan should have input from a wide range of citizens. Out of this plan will come the solution to which services we contract, and which we do ourselves. Page 9 3 -1. Introduction The purpose of this section is to provide basic information about Spokane Valley Roads -- a kind of tutorial on roads. We like to call it ROADS 101. As in any field of endeavor, there are buzz words. These are defined in the footnotes, where used. You will find considerable discussion about the role of Spokane County. This is done for two reasons: (a) it provides the reader with a great example of tasks that need to be done by the City of Spokane Valley, and (b) it provides the reader with an idea of the capabilities of Spokane County, should the Council choose to contract services with them. 3 -2. Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities A. County Roads Section 3 Introduction to Valley Roads Upon incorporation, the County of Spokane will transfer title of about 450 miles of County roads to the City of Spokane Valley (CSV). The County retains ownership of those areas that are not yet considered road rights of way. For example, they could, if they chose to do so, retain title to the future couplet extending from University Rd. east to Appleway. The County is required to maintain County roads for 60 days after incorporation or until 40% of the County Road Portion of the property tax has been received by CSV, whichever occurs fu CSV will then be totally responsible for maintenance and construction of these roads. Maintenance includes the following services: 1. Snow removal from streets 2. Sanding and deicing of streets 3. Street cleaning 4. Maintenance of 20,000 street signs 5. Maintenance of signal lights at 70 signalized intersections 6. Maintenance of 115 road miles of traffic stripe representing 325 lane miles 7. Pay the power bill for 1,930 street lights 3 A mile of road includes all lanes. Road length can also be measured in lane miles: one lane for one mile is one lane mile. 4 Striping can either be totaled in road miles or in lane miles. One stripe for one mile is one lane mile. S The utility companies own most of the luminaries (street lights) and perform the maintenance. All charges are included in the flat rate for the electricity. Luminaires installed after 1991 (about 20 to 30) that are on traffic signal poles are County owned and we do the maintenance. Electricity is metered on these lights. Page 10 B. State Roads 8. Street drainage (some shoulders, ditching, culvert repair, drywells, stormwater swales and ponds) 9. Vegetation, litter, guard rail, and sidewalk repairs. 10. Pavement repair (includes pothole patching, crack filling, pavement removal and repair, chip seal , and thin overlays All the costs of maintenance of public roads are borne by the CSV. In general, no grants are available for this purpose. All costs of construction of public roads are also the responsibility of CSV. However, there are grants available for this purpose. Presently, Spokane County spends approximately one dollar of County funds for every four dollars it receives in grants from state and federal agencies. The CSV should strive to emulate this model. CSV will be responsible for maintaining (but not construction of) two state highways: 4.55 miles of State Route 27 (Pines Rd) and 8.54 miles of State Route 290 (Trent). The State permits the CSV no grace period after the date of incorporation before the CSV must maintain State Roads. CSV is totally responsible for maintenance of these roads. Unlike present County roads, pavement repair remains the responsibility of the State. All other maintenance becomes the responsibility of the CSV. This includes the following: 1. Snow removal 2. Sanding and deicing 3. Street cleaning 4. Street signs 5. Signal lights at ten signalized intersections 6. Striping of roads 7. Maintenance of 122 street lights 8. Street drainage (some shoulders, ditching, culvert repair, drywells) 9. Vegetation, litter, guard rail, and sidewalk repairs. It should be noted that the State and the County differ in the types of traffic signals they use. Therefore, it would be more logical to contract with the State for the repair of such signals (since they have the proper test gear), and contract with the County for other road maintenance New construction to increase capacity of a State Road is done by the State. New construction that does not increase capacity is the responsibility of the CSV. Many times developers, the State, and other agencies share in this expense. r. Chip seal is when the road is oiled, and gravel -type material is then laid down. T One stripe for one mile is one stripe mile. Page 11 C. Interstate Highways The Washington Department of Transportation will continue to be responsible for maintenance of I -90. D. Bridges The CSV will assume ownership, maintenance, and operation of the County's 15 bridges. In addition, the Trent bridge over the Spokane River will be the property of the CSV. Bridges over I -90 are the responsibility of the agency that controls the roadbed of the bridge. Overpasses on state highways are part of the State highway system. The CSV is responsible for the maintenance, and the State is responsible for the structure. E. Railroad Crossings In general, the railroad is responsible for the 40 rail crossings within the CSV. However, where damage occurs in which the culprit is unidentifiable or where he is identifiable but uninsured, the City would share costs with the railroad. 3 -3. Present Design and Construction of County Roads and Bridges In this and the next sub - section, we will present the details about the design , construction, and maintenance of our roads. We should note that this is a discussion of only County roads -- it excludes the State roads. However, we believe that an understanding of theprocess is essential to an understanding of our roads. A. The Engineering Phase Note: The City of Spokane Valley is required by statute to have and maintain a six year road plan. This plan must be completed by July 1 of each year, and must include the following costs: (a) engineering, (b) acquiring the rights of way, and (c) construction. The County has supplied us with the plan they were using before the incorporation vote. This plan can be used as a starting point in developing our own plan. This plan is available from the Roads Committee as a separate document, "City Of Spokane Valley, lnterim Transportation Improvement Program for the Years 2003 - 2008" The County has a revolving, progressive, 6 -year plan that is available for the public to view on their web page. Their Plan is being continually updated for the next six years. Whenever they plan a project, they project traffic counts out 20 years. Their present plan excludes valley streets for the years 2003 -2008, because these will be the responsibility of the CSV. The CSV may choose to contract with the County for development and maintenance of their plan. Once a project has been proposed, the County does engineering and traffic studies to determine the solution. (The County does over 400 traffic counts per year). Page 12 There are established design criteria as to when such items as traffic lights and signs are appropriate for a road. Criteria also exist for when it is appropriate to install what type roadway. The County must then seek funds for the project. To do this, they apply for grants from both the Federal and State governments. These grants provide the bulk of new construction funds: the County is able to receive about four dollars in grants for every dollar it expends in matching funds. Successful grant writing is a MUST for the new city. The County also does its own surveying of property, and works with local surveyors to lay out the job. All of this data is entered into the County's database for roads. It should be noted that counties within Washington State do a much better job than cities in documenting their roads. The County must also obtain rights of way -- either through direct negotiation with the property owner, or through the courts. Part of the design process is to obtain input from the residents of the area. Thus, multiple public meetings can be held. These meetings can get quite heated, so it is important to have a CSV representative who is cool under fire. The County has an aggressive sewer construction program. Grants pay for repaving the street above the trench. However, the County has a practice of repaving the entire street, and they bear this extra cost -- $1.8 -2.OM per year. Bridges are assigned a rating system, with 100 being a bridge in new condition and 0 being a bridge incapable of carrying traffic. When the score falls below 50, the bridge may be eligible for federal bridge replacement funds. Those approaching this score are: (a) the west half of the Argonne bridge over the river, and (b) half of the Sullivan bridge over the river, and (c) the Barker Road bridge over the river. The County has its own engineering section for bridge design. B. The Construction Phase Most road construction within the County is done by contractors. These contractors bid on jobs proposed by the County making use of road standards used by the county. These road standards are available on the County's web page. Note: The City of Spokane Valley must develop road standards and make these available to contractors in order to assure the continued quality of our roads. Once a bid has been accepted, the County has its own inspectors that assure adherence to the contract. The County is certified such that they can do their own inspections which are accepted by the State or the Feds. Page 13 3 -4. Maintenance of Roads Again, we wish to note that this discussion involves only County roads. State roads will also be maintained by the new city. The costs that are stated in this sub - section are very preliminary cost estimates given to the Committee at an early stage in its investigation. They are useful for ball -park estimates and for comparisons of various County activities. Subsequent data, presented in the section on "Financing for Roads" is considered more recent data and accurate data. However, that data is not as detailed as in this sub - section. A. Introduction to Maintenance In this section, we shall discuss the maintenance of our roads as it is presently being done. This maintenance includes (a) keeping the road surface in sound repair, (b) keeping the road surface and right -of way clean, and (c) maintenance of the signals and signage. The County estimates that this will require 60,000 labor hours per year, or about 30 full -time employees with a budget of $3.5 -4.5M per year. 13. Keeping the Road Surface in Sound Repair Some time ago, the County realized that tax dollars could better be spent if officials developed and executed an orderly surface maintenance program -- one that provided routine repair of the surface, rather than waiting until the surface deteriorated into a state requiring total reconstruction. They hired a consultant and, as a result, developed their Smart Maintenance Program. Through this program, roads are routinely maintained through such techniques as routine inspection (each road is inspected every two years), crack repair, chip seals (these last an average of seven years), and overlays. Such a program has two very important outcomes: 1. The prevention of more serious deterioration as evidenced by potholes. To quote Phil l3arto, P.E., Maintenance and Operations Chief of the County, "If you have a big pothole program, you are doing something wrong." Shorting the road maintenance program will show up in five years as very serious deterioration requiring, not repair, but reconstruction, thereby wasting scarce taxpayers dollars. 2. The goal of the County is to focus dollars on new construction, where they can obtain matching dollars. They do this by doing proper maintenance of roads, preventing more serious problems, which would drain the treasury. The County estimates that the City of Spokane Valley will spend $1.0 -1.5M per year for roadway surface maintenance. Page 14 C. Cleaning the Road and Right-of Way Because of our weather, winter maintenance is one of our greatest challenges. The basic rule for winter maintenance is that you cannot please everybody. In fact, the hardest decision the County has to make is when and how much to plow the roads in winters. During a full-blown snow campaign, it takes five days and 85 pieces of equipment to plow every road in the County. This translates into 12, twelve -hour shifts for each of six plows, totaling 450 -500 man -hours for plowing the City of Spokane Valley. The County estimates that winter maintenance will cost $450,000 per year for CSV. However, this could vary from $100K. for a light snow year to $1.0M for a heavy snow year. This would also require three sander trucks and 2 liquid deicer trucks, to distribute the estimated 400,000 gallons of liquid deicer and 6000 cubic yards of sand The liquid deicer trucks can also be used to distribute herbicides. Cleanup is started in the spring as soon as possible, with their goal being June 1 for completion. Some pine needle sweeping is done in the fall to clear drywells and culverts. The County estimates the cost for cleanup for the CSV at $150K per year. There is also some ditching, shoulder repair, and bridge maintenance required. D Maintenance of Signals and Signage The County receives many requests from citizens about providing more signs because of speeding motorists. The CSV will take over the following maintenance responsibilities from the county: 1. 20,000 signs, costing $120K per year 2. 70 signalized intersections, costing $220K per year for maintenance and electricity 3. 115 miles of arterial striping at a cost of $90K per year 4. Street pavement markings at a cost of $35K per year' 5. 1930 street lights at a cost of $300K per year 3 -5. Administrative Services The CSV would be responsible for the following services now performed by the County: A. Land use actions. For example, how would rezoning a particular parcel affect road traffic? 8 The County has two stockpiles of sand: one at Flora Road, and one at Carnahan Hill. These stockpiles contain 75 pounds of salt per cubic yard of sand. 9 In addition, there are 10 signals on State roads we are required to maintain 10 Will take two to three weeks with one striper " Two months, three- person crews Page 15 B. Reviewing development projects. For example, what traffic would be generated by a particular development? C. Arranging to receive surety bonds for improvements. By requiring these bonds, the County prevents a project from being abandoned, uncompleted due to inaction of the contractor. D. Arranging for insurance. The County insures itself and, in addition, is part of a mutual insurance pool with other counties. Note: The City must develop an insurance program for casualty and liability. This could involve (a) self - insurance, and/or (b) pooling with other cities. E. Processing citizen road complaints. The County received over 5100 of these last year. Each must be investigated and processed. F. Requests from a wide variety of people for road files and maps. Note: The County is making arrangements to transfer over 30,000 road file documents to the CSV on the day of incorporation. The CSV needs to determine disposition of these records. G. Creating Local Improvement Di.stricts when citizens want a particular irnprovement. H. Road vacations and road closures" 1. License agreements (agreements to lease city property which can be recalled within 30 days) J. Franchises (long term commitments, especially for water, sewer, electrical, and telecom that give the utility the right to be in a City road right of way). The City of Spokane charges franchise fees; the County of Spokane does not. 12 These can be done for water, sewers, roads, drainage, and lighting. 13 Title of the road is given up by the county and acquired by another person or group 14 The road is closed to traffic, but title remains with the county. This could be a temporary event. Page 16 Section 4. RCWs, Boards, and Programs Applicable to Roads 4 -1.. Introduction The State of Washington has its set of laws known as the Revised Code of Washington (RCWs). in addition, each department has adopted administrative codes to implement its mission. These are known as Washington Administrative Code (WACs). In this section, the RCWs applicable to roads are presented. In addition, there are many committees and boards that involve transportation and, certainly, justify involvement by the City of Spokane Valley. Each of these is discussed in this section. 4 -2. RCWs The following are some of the RCW's applicable to city streets: RCW 47.24 RCW 47.24.040 RCW 47.26.270 R.CW 35A.47 RCW 35.02.220 RCW 70.94 RCW 70.94.527 4 -3. Boards, Programs, and Committees A. Commute Trip Reduction Program City Streets as a Part of State Highways Street fund -- Expenditures on streets forming part of state highway. Matchi.ng Funds Requirements [for arterial funds] Highways and Streets [of cities] Duty of county and road, library, and fire districts to continue services during transition period -- Road maintenance and law enforcement services. Clean Air Act Transportation demand management -- Requirements for counties and cities. [Commute Trip Reduction Plans] The City of Spokane Valley must "adopt by ordinance and implement a commute trip reduction plan for all major employers" who are affected by the Commute Trip Reduction Law [RCW 70.94.527]. Major employers are affected if: • 100+ employees arrive at single worksite • Work is scheduled to begin between 6a.m. and 9:00a.m. • Work is scheduled 35+ hours per week (Monday- Sunday) • Work is scheduled on 2 or more weekdays (Monday - Friday) • Work is scheduled in a position that will last for 12 continuous months. The City of Spokane Valley has eighteen CTR- affected employers. And, the City of Spokane Valley also becomes a CTR - affected employer [RCW 70.94.527 (4) (d)) Page 17 Spokane County, as the lead agency, contracts with all five local jurisdictions to administer and implement the CTR Program. This seamless system allows for consistent implementation of CTR county -wide, efficient use of public funds, revenue - neutral agreements, with administrative requirements fulfilled by Spokane County staff Because of this arrangement, Spokane County employers have one of the highest success rates in the entire state. B. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) The SRTC is a regional planning organization, set up under federal law to develop a coordinated transportation plan for the Spokane region. All of the new city is within this region. This planning includes all transportation options within our region: rail, auto, bicycle, and so forth, for both people and products. The SRTC is governed by a board, which appoints its director. This board consists of two each from the City of Spokane, County of Spokane, WSDOT, the private sector, and the small cities within Spokane County. Interlocal agreements cover both representation on the board and cost of joining SRTC. At the present time, both the City of Spokane and the County of Spokane contribute $45,000 each year in dues. The City of Spokane Valley will have to work out an interlocal agreement with the Board covering both dues and representation. SRTC advises Spokane County on regional transportation issues. Their Metropolitan Transportation Plan identifies projects that we wish to do over the next 25 years. Each of these projects must be regionally significant. That is, it must have an impact on the region. Examples include light rail, Bridging the Valley, and arterial development. Unless projects are listed in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, they will not be approved. That is, a recommendation will not go forward to the Federal Government for approval of funds. For example, the extension east of the Valley Couplet is not yet in the plan. Therefore it is not yet eligible for Federal funds. At a meeting with the Roads Committee, the Director of SRT'C, Glenn Miles, pointed out that light rail is a desirable community asset. Developers look upon light rail stations as a permanent addition to the infrastructure, and are more willing to invest their assets in developments around these stations. Light rail gives people an additional choice. C. Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC). This center, located at the Spokane bus /train terminal, monitors (or ultimately will monitor) traffic throughout the greater Spokane region. By monitoring, the Center will be able to readjust signals and traffic flow to meet needs that arise throughout the day. For example, if there were an incident blocking the freeway, they could adjust the signals on the Valley Couplet to account for the higher flow of traffic. Page 18 The Operators of the center are WSDOT employees. Each has a workstation that accesses the cameras on the arterials. The operators will be able to both monitor and control traffic signals in the greater Spokane area. The cities themselves will be able to monitor all cameras, but would only be able to control the signals vvith.i.n their jurisdiction. These field devices (cameras, signals, etc) belong to the agency within which they are located; cameras are purposely aimed to prevent individual identification, and these images are available on the web. At the present time, the center operates 6AM -9:30 PM, M -F. They would eventually like to see it grow to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The RTMC is governed by representatives from STA, the State, the County, the City of Spokane, and others through interlocal agreements. Presumably, the City of Spokane Valley could also participate through such an agreement. It is funded through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council using mostly Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Presently, there is an annual charge of S20,000 to the participating agencies D. In addition to the above committees, we should seek membership on the following roads- related boards and councils: a. Spokane Transit Authority b. One Call [This is the consortium of all utilities whom you would call when you wish to dig. They will come out and identify underground utilities]. c. Airport Board d. Growth Management Steering Committee Page 19 Table 5 -2 lists the equipment required to do major asphalt maintenance, such as repairing larger areas of pavement failure. QTY. DESCRIPTION 5 -1. Introduction This section presents data on expenses and capital outlays of the new City. 5-2. Equipment Purchases This section presents two lists of road maintenance equipment that the CSV could choose to purchase. Table 5 -1 lists the equipment required for basic maintenance of the streets. The table assumes that we would contract out such things as signs, signals, and pavement markings. Based upon utilization, the County recommended that there be a mix of new and used equipment. 1 Sedans 6 Pickups 2 Gen. Purpose Trucks 5 Dump Trucks 5 Motor Graders 1 Front End Loaders 1 Tractor Backhoes 2 Flush Trucks 5 Street Sweepers 1 Kick Brooms 1 Asphalt Patch Truck 1 Crack Filler Machine 1 Air Compressor 1 Shop Repair Truck 1 Equipment Trailer 1 Vactor Misc. Small Tools TOTAL Section 5. Financing for Roads Table 5 -1 Equipment Required for Basic Road Maintenance PURPOSE Administrative Supervisor/Worker Transport/Traffic Worker Transport/Haul Materials Haul Materials /Snow Removal /Sand Snow Removal /Gravel Road Maint. Load Materials /Snow Removal Drainage Maintenance /Load Sand Clean Streets /Liquid Deicer Clean Streets Clean Streets Pavement Maintenance Pavement Maintenance Pavement Maintenance Equipment Repair Haul Equipment Drainage Maintenance AGE COST New $20,000 New $120,000 New $80,000 Used $150,000 Used $200,000 Used $50,000 Used $30,000 New $280,000 New $650,000 New $35,000 New $100,000 New $30,000 New $20,000 Used $30,000 Used $15,000 New $180,000 New $150,000 15 Data courtesy Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 9 -9 -02. $2,140,000 Page 20 5 -3. Roads Budget Reporters: Eileen Allen and Bob Davis A. Introduction Table 5 -2 Equipment Required to do Major Asphalt Maintenance' 6 QTY. DESCRIPTION 1 Paver 1 Roller 1 General Purpose Truck 1 Pickup 1 Small Grader 3 Upgrade Dump Truck. TOTAL AGE COST New $80,000 Used $50,000 New $40,000 New $20,000 Used $30,000 Used $60,000 $280,000 The roads budget has two primary components: (a) Maintenance & Traffic and (b) Capital Projects (new construction). The following tables present the estimated budget over the first 7 1/2 months and succeeding year of CSV operation. 13. Dedicated or Non- dedicated Funds The city must choose to allocate dedicated or non - dedicated funds for road maintenance. Dedicated funds allow for more reliable funding and projected maintenance programs. C. State Roads 'Washington State statute mandates that a city with a population of over 22,500 is responsible for the maintenance of the state roads within its city limits ID. Sewer Repaving The past practice of repaving the roads, curb to curb, after the sewer has been laid allows the city to repave and upgrade older roads at a fraction of costs, because the sewer project pays for repaving over the sewer line. F. Notes to the budget. 1. These figures reflect the first year estimate of costs to maintain a level of service at 70% of the optimum level, or roughly $1 per mile per year. (Paving over three- quarters of an inch is considered new construction.) 2. Weather greatly affects road maintenance. The amount of snow and ice within a season greatly affect such items as snow removal and pavement deterioration. ie Data courtesy Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 9 - 9 - 02. Page 21 3. Utilities and rights of way can affect the construction costs. 4. These costs exclude such things as Administration and Engineering Services. Thus, final costs to the City will vary from these listed costs. 5. The capital projects budget reflects those projects that have been designed, and grant monies acquired. The City need only contribute the necessary matching funds for state and federal grants. The rate of participation by the grantor varies. 6. Capital expenditures occur mostly during the warm months. Maintenance, however, occurs during the entire year. 7. For detailed information concerning the budgets of each project, refer to the City of Spokane Valley Interim Transportation Improvement Program For the Years 2003 -2008 (Six Year Road Plan). 8. Table 5 -3 details the annual cost of each task in the Roadway Maintenance line item of the budget. Note that this is for a whole year, and only includes what are now county roads. That is, it excludes the State roads. Table 5 -3 Details of Roadway Maintenance Line Item in Budget Task Annual Cost Pothole Patching 230,000 Asphalt Prelevel 226,000 Crack Sealing 74,000 Full Depth Pvt. Repair 571,000 Chip Sealing 350,000 Fog Sealing 20,000 Shoulder Maintenance 68,000 Gravel Road Maintenance 36,000 Dust Palative Preparation 16,000 Total 1,591,000 Page 22 Table 5 -4 June 1 - December 31, 2003 Road Department Budget (Excludes Administrative and Eneineering Services Costs) City Grants + Total Income Funds LUDs Funds City of Spokane Valley Funds Maintenance 3,782,522 3,782,522 Capital Construction 3,587,000 3,587,000 Federal Grants 2,433000 2,433,000 State Grants 5,877,000 5,877,000 Local Improvement District Assessments 170,000 170,000 ROAD DEPARTMENT INCOME 7,369,522 8,480,000 15,849,522 Expenditures Capital Construction Urban Construction 16th. Ave., Dishman- Mica -SR27 182,000 1,167,000 1,349,000 16th. Ave., Evergreen - Sullivan 407,000 1,459,000 1,866,000 Park Road BNSF Grade Separation 100,000 100,000 Mission. McDonald to Sullivan 498,000 2,006,000 2,504,000 Evergreen, 2nd. To Evergreen 501,000 2,003,000 2,504,000 Park Rd., 2nd. To 8th. 194,000 778,000 972,000 Valley Corridor Environmental Study 20,000 125,000 145,000 Valley Couplet, University to Evergreen 50,000 772,000 822,000 Sewer Paveback 1,000,000 1,000,000 Minor Urban Improvements 240,000 240,000 Pathway Construction 200,000 200,000 Local Improvement Districts 30,000 170,000 200,000 Traffic Safety Improvements 165,000 165,000 TOTAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION 3,587,000 8,480,000 12,067,000 Road Operations State Roads Maintenance 233,456 233,456 Street Lighting 21,996 21,996 Traffic Control 48,581 48,581 City Streets Maintenance 1,580,544 1.580,544 Street Lighting 152,319 152,319 Traffic Control 408,626 408,626 Snow and Ice Removal 332,000 332,000 Street Cleaning 510,000 510,000 Storm Drainage 382,000 382,000 Structures 8,000 8,000 Sidewalks 4,000 4,000 Roadside Development 101,000 101,000 TOTAL ROAD OPERATIONS 3,782,522 0 3,782,522 ROAD DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 7,369,522 8,480,000 15,849,522 Page 23 Table 5 -5 2004 Calendar Year Road Department Budget (Excludes Administrative and Engineering Services Costs) City Grants + Total Income Funds LIDs Funds City of Spokane Valley Funds Maintenance 4,707,522 4,707,522 Capital Construction 3,722,000 3,722,000 Federal Grants 1,372,000 1,372,000 State Grants 3,722,000 3,722,000 Local Improvement District Assessments 170,000 170,000 ROAD DEPARTMENT INCOME 8,429,522 5,264,000 13,693,522 Expenditures Capital Construction Urban Construction Valley Couplet, University to Evergreen 993,000 3,234,000 4,227,000 Valley Couplet, Evergreen to Sullivan 80,000 194,000 274,000 BNSF Grade Separation, Park Road 300,000 1,140,000 1,440,000 Barker Road 31,000 198,000 229,000 Euclid and Flora Roads 600,000 600,000 Minor Urban Projects 240,000 240,000 Sewer Paveback 1,000,000 1,000,000 Pathway Construction 200,000 200,000 Local Improvement Districts 30,000 170,000 200,000 Traffic Safety Improvements 165,000 165,000 Barker Road Bridge 83,000 328,000 411,000 TOTAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION 3,722,000 5,264,000 8,986,000 Road Operations State Roads Maintenance 235,000 Street Lighting 29.315 Traffic Control 59,207 City Streets Maintenance 1,591,000 Street Lighting 203,000 Traffic Control 498,000 Snow and Ice Removal 832,000 Street Cleaning 710,000 Storm Drainage 432,000 Structures 8,000 Sidewalks 4,000 Roadside Development 106,000 TOTAL ROAD OPERATIONS 4,707,522 ROAD DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 8,429,522 5,264,000 235,000 29,315 59,207 1,591,000 203,000 498,000 832,000 710,000 432,000 8,000 4,000 106,000 0 4,707,522 13,693,522 Page 24 Section 6. Project Studies 6 -1. Introduction This section presents the various road projects completed, in process, or contained in plans by the County for the future of the portion of the Valley occupied by the City of Spokane Valley. We will first discuss several large, future projects that have been part of the County's long range plans, sections 6 -2 through 6 -5. These are summarized in Table 6 -1. Next, we will discuss what projects have been completed, section 6 -6, then those projects that are now in progress, but are expected to be completed by the date of incorporation, section 6 -7. Projects that will not be completed, but for which funding is available, are detailed in section 6 -8. The CSV will have to decide whether to complete these. However, they may have to return the funding if they decide not to complete them. Section 6 -9 discussed three projects that are important to the Valley, but are not funded completely. Table 6 -1 Major, Long -term Valley Transportation Projects' (Thousands of Dollars) Grants Local Total Valley Coupet 11,650 3,204 14,854 Bridging the Valley 49,730 2,456 52,186 Bigelow Gulch /Forker 17,983 4,871 22,854 Sullivan Rd River Bridge 3,374 844 4,218 Barker Rd River Bridge 5,810 1,453 7,263 SubTotal 88,547 12,828 101,375 6 -2. The Valley Couplet The Valley Couplet was designed to carry traffic from Thierrnan (I -90 and Sprague area) to Country Vista Rd. just west of Liberty Lake. Thus far, the County has completed the Couplet from I -90 to University Road. When completed, the total cost of the project will be $14.85M, with $3.20M coming from local funds. With what has been expended so far, the remaining cost of the project is $7.02M, with $2.34M coming from local funds. 17 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8 - 23 - 02 Page 25 The Committee devoted one meeting to a discussion of the couplet. The comments from that meeting are discussed in the Paragraph (A). Subsequent to the meeting, additional data was obtained from the County about the cost of alternatives. These three alternatives (discussed in Paragraphs 13 -D) are: 1. Leave Sprague and Appleway as they are. 2. Convert both Sprague and Appleway into two -way arterials 3. Convert Sprague into a two -way arterial and convert Appleway into a limited, high -speed expressway with intersections every mile. A. Comments from the Roads Committee Meeting Some citizens have expressed concern about the couplet, and the Committee devoted one meeting to these type of projects. Characteristics of and arguments for the couplet were stated as follows: 1. The reasons for the valley couplet were: (a) the high traffic volume, (b) collisions, and (c) congestion. 2. The original design was for a limited access expressway on Appleway with traffic two way on Sprague. However, many of the businesses on Sprague were concerned about loss of business on such a road. Therefore, the engineers were instructed to design the couplet to meet these concerns. 3. Appleway is two lanes narrower than Sprague, making it easier for pedestrians to cross. 4. The couplet is funded to go to Evergreen. 5. The specie of trees used for Sprague has been selected to prevent visibility problems. 6. One -way streets permit lights to be timed, reducing stop and go traffic. 7. Two -way streets have a higher incidence of collisions than one -way streets. Thus, one -way streets are inherently safer. The major concerns stated by participants about the couplet relative to business were: 1. The rental price of business establishments has decreased by 25 % -75% 2. The volume of vacant business establishments has increased substantially. 3. Gary Schimmels, on a recent Sunday, tallied empty businesses along Sprague, based upon vacancy signs His results were as follows: Page 26 Sprague, Havana to Fancher 7 vacant properties Sprague, Fancher to University 27 Sprague, University to Pines 16 Sprague, Pines to Sullivan 23 Sprague, Sullivan to Barker 6 Appleway, Fancher to University 1 Total, Havana to Barker 80 From this data, it would appear that the number of vacancies per ride along the one -way portion of Sprague was less than the number of vacancies per mile along the two -way portion of Sprague. Comments from participants concerning the couplet: 1. The new city council needs to evaluate the couplet relative to its long range plans. We need to develop our own comprehensive plan and then see how the couplet fits within those plans. 2. The new council needs to consider the needs of business as it develops a plan for the couplet. 3. We need to stay on course, and take the couplet to Evergreen 4. There is a parallel along Trent, where there is no business on one side. Businesses on the other side have a difficult time of being successful. 5. Businesses are moving into the couplet corridor. The Display House and Dakota Direct are two examples. A mattress store has outgrown its facility and is expected to expand. 6. We need not only to consider businesses, but those who use the couplet. Perhaps we could do a survey by phone. 7. One alternative would be to extend Appleway east as planned, but leave Sprague two -way from University east. However, this has the disadvantages of (a) an unequal number of east and west lanes, and (b) no possibility for signal synchronization along the two -way portion of Sprague. B. Alternative 1 -- Leaving the couplet as it is. Under this alternative, no additional capital funds would have to be expended upon the completed portion of the Couplet. The capacity of this system is about 60,000 vehicles per day for the year 2010 according to traffic studies performed for the Supplemental CIS 1 8 . 1 " Environmental Impact Study Page 27 C. Alternative 2 -- Converting Appleway and Sprague into two, two -way arterials Under this alternative, the present one -way portion of Sprague (Thierman to University) would revert to a channelized, five -lane road. Appleway would also become a channelized, five -lane road. A preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is in the $4.84 M range, see Table 6 -2. Note that Appleway, as presently designed, is not wide enough to support the five lanes necessary for an arterial. Therefore, more land would have to be purchased, at a cost of $1.5M. A more detailed cost estimate of this project would probably fall in the $3.5 -6M range. The capacity of this system would be less than 50,000 vehicles per day (vpd). For year 2025 and a volume of 50,000 vpd, the operation of the following intersections would be considered unacceptable: Thierman/Sprague, Thierman/Appleway, Sprague/ Park, and Sprague/Vista. This system would also have a higher incidence of collisions, because one -way roads are inherently safer than two -way roads. Grants would probably not be available because of the newness of the present roads. D. Alternative 3 -- Converting Appleway to a high -speed expressway. Under this alternative, Sprague would be converted into a two way arterial and Appleway would be converted into a limited access expressway, with exits spaced about one mile apart. A rough estimate of the cost of this alternative is in the $10- 15M range, and a bottleneck would be created in the Sprague/Thierman area. There would be an increase in air pollution because of congested intersections, causing an environmental problem. Grants would probably not be available because of the newness of the present roads. Carrying capacity of such a system would be 75,000 vehicles per day if the facility could be widened to seven lanes. Page 28 Widen Appleway 9 feet to provide a 14' two -way, left -tum lane Remove curb and sidewalk Const. new curb and sidewalk Pavement and base $680,000 Purchase right -of -way on Appleway to accommodate wider road and modified intersections. Special areas of right -of -way concern: Vista Mobile Home Park Rose Haven Mobile Home Park Pring !Appleway- buy right -of -way on north side from Sargent To David. Light rail right - of-way should be preserved. $1,500,000 Remove drainage inlets and install new inlets at curb line to accommodate extra width. $12,000 Reconstruct drainage swales on Appleway $50,000 Modify signals $520,000 Restripe both arterials for two -way traffic. $270,000 Modify UPRR railroad signals and gates $60,000 Add signage for two way operation. $10,000 Construct islands on both Sprague & Appleway to channelize signalized intersections. 60,000 Widen Thierman to 5 lanes to store additional vehicles. $260,000 Remove and replace 10' and 20'radius curb returns at each intersection on Sprague and Appleway and reconstruct to 35' radii. $80,000 Remove and replace short road tapers in westbound direction on Appleway at University, Dishman Road, and between Girard and Park Road. $120,000 Delete bike lane on Sprague. Road width between gutters would be 14' +12 +14 +12 +14 = 66', thus deleting the bike lane. 0 Modify Dishman Landfill site for added roadway width. $100,000 Contract Total $3,722,000 Preliminary Engineering @10% $372,200 Construction Engineering @10% $372,200 Contingency $372,200 Table 6 -2 Valley Couplet Conversion to Two, Two -Way Arterials Total Scope: Restripe Sprague Avenue to five lanes. Eliminate bike lane on Sprague. Install concrete island channelization on both arterials. Reconstruct curb retums to 35 feet on both arterials. Add signal equipment at signalized intersections and modify to a two -way operation. Widen Appleway to provide for 14 +11 +14 +11 +14=64 feet Modify UPRR gates and signals on Appleway Revise curb tapers for westbound traffic on Appleway Widen Thierman to 5 or 6 lanes Modify Dishman Landfill site for widening of Appleway 19 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8 -21 -02 $4,838,600 Page 29 6 -3. Bridging the Valley Spokane County and Kootenai County have a long range program for Bridging the Valley. This project consists of abandoning the Union Pacific (UP) railroad tracks (except for sidings), and moving train traffic onto the present Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. The BNSF tracks are those which are just to the south of and run parallel to Trent Ave. The UP track presently runs from just west of Playfair, along the south of Felts Field, crosses Trent at about Woodruff, continues along Shannon and Indiana, then crosses to the north side of the Spokane river just west of the Sullivan Bridge, and continues east about a mile south of the BNSF tracks. This project would also move the UP yard from its present site between Sprague and the Fairgrounds, Fancher and Havana, to some as yet unidentified site in Northern Idaho. It should be noted that the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroads have been very cooperative in this project and are partners in this process. The project would provide bridges over each of the major railroad crossings similar to the bridge at Argonne and Trent. Thus, cars and trains would be separated, and collisions between the two greatly reduced. The bridge with the highest priority, due to the number of trains and auto traffic would be constructed over the tracks at Park Road. Table 6 -3 details the source of funding for this Park Road Project. Note that some of the grants have not yet been received. FMSIB $257,000 $335,570 $4,407,430 STP(U) TPP Railroad City Total Table 6 -3 Funding for the Park Road Bridge Over the Rail.road Project Engr. Right -of -Way Construction $315,500 $400,000 $74,500 $200,000 $1,247,000 $211,745 $268,456 $50,000 $134,228 $1,000,000 $2,627,755 $3,331,544 $620,500 $1,665,772 $12,653,000 Total $5,000,000 $3,155,000 $4,000,000 $745,000 $2,000,000 $14,900,000 Progress 20 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads dated 8 -23 -02 21 Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board 22 Transportation Improvement Board 23 Surface Transportation Prop drn, Urban (a federal program) 24 Transportation Partnership Program Grant applications to TIB and FMSIB submitted Communication with RR initiated. Page 30 6 -4. Bigelow- Forker Connector One of the higher traffic counts has been traffic that wishes to go from the valley to the north side. Bigelow Gulch now handles 18,000 vehicles per day, with 15% of them being trucks. This project would provide a 5 -lane road from Havana to Forker to Progress to Sullivan Roads. 6 -5. Sullivan and Barker Bridges One -half of the Sullivan Bridge over. the Spokane River was built around 1915 -20 and is in need of replacement. The Barker Road Bridge is also in need of replacement. 6 -6. Spokane Valley Transportation Projects Completed Table 6 -4 lists the Spokane Valley transportation projects that are completed. Funds are still being sought for the Park Road/BNSF Grade Separation Study. This is part of the overall plan for Bridging the Valley. Page 31 Project Name 48th Avenue - UPRR Crossing Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation Central Valley School Signals Chronicle Sewer Paveback Eight Avenue Sewer Paveback Walnut Sewer Paveback Woodlawn Sewer Paveback Spokane Area Stormwater Quality Study Sullivan Road Voluntary CTR Sprague Avenue Rebuild Beverly Hill Sewer Paveback 12th Avenue RID 12th Ave. (Park to Coleman) RID Yardley Central Sewer Phase 11 Paveback Knox, Dollar Rd., Mansfield RID Mission Avenue - Project 1 Sprague Avenue Valley Couplet - Stage Valley Couplet - Stage 3 Valley Couplet - Stage 4 Sprague Ave. Argonne/Mullen 32nd Pines Road Sidewalk Dishman Mica Overby Fancher Road Overlay Progress Road Sullivan Road University Road Wellesley Mansfield Skyview Pave back Woodlawn, Sinto, Dean Skipworth, Johnson alleyway, Motler Sprague Park Road!BNSF Grade Separation Study Spokane Regional Bicycle Enhancements Table -4 Completed Construction Projects for City of Spokane alley s Valley (north) Valley (north) Location Sands & Dishman Mica Park Road to Dishman Road 32nd & Pines Valley Area (West) Valley Area (SW) Valley Area (West) Valley Area (SW) Valley Area SR 90 to SR 290 Havana to Fancher Valley Area (SW) Valley Area (SW) Valley Area (SW) Valley Area Valley Area Argonne Road to Herald Road Sullivan Road to Tschirley Road Dishman Rd. to University Road Thierman Rd. to Dishman Road Thierman Rd. to Argonne Rd. Havana to Fancher Sprague to Mission University to Pines 24th to 32nd 16th Ave. to Appleay Blvd Trent to Broadway Wellesley north 1180 feet 16th to 32nd Main to Mission Progress to Sullivan Trent to Fancher Valley (south) Indiana to Montgomery Valley Area Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Completed Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Completed Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Under Contract - Completion 2002 Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being Project being closed out Project being closed out Project being closed out Project being closed out Project being dosed out Project being closed out Project being closed out Project being closed out Project being closed out Seeking funding Project completed Status closed ou 1 28 closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out closed out 25 Data courtesy or Spokane County Public Works, .Division of Engineering and Roads, dated May 30, 2002 26 Commute Trip Reduction 2' Road Improvement District '" Project is completed and file in process of bcing closed out_ Page 32 6 -7. Projects in Progress in Spokane County Table 6 -5 lists all those projects that Spokane County is in the process of doing. The table lists two classes of projects: A. TJnder Construction, Completion 2002 This class of projects consists of those projects that are now being constructed and will be completed within the 2002 calendar year, 13. In Design/ROW - 2002 Completion This second class of projects within Table 6-4 consists of those projects that are now in the design and Tight-of-way acquisition stage_ That is construction has riot yet started_ However, those in this second class are expected to be completed by the end of the 2002 calendar year The Broadway restriping project is one which is designed to convert Broadway from a four-lane road to a three lane road (too one -way lanes, a center turn lane and bicycle lanes) between Park Road and Sullivan Load, There are an inordinate number of collisions on Broadway, with more than half occurring between si.gial intersections, The project is designed to reduce the number of collisions while maintaining the capacity of Broadway_ A similar project on Mission resulted in a 50% reduction in collision while maintaining the same traffic volume. However at a meeting between the County Engineers and the local residents, there was vocal opposition to the project_ The objections stated by residents at the meeting were; (a) it would slow down traffic on Broadway, (b) backing out of driveways would be more difficult, and (c) traffic would back up at intersections. As a result, the County is turning the project over to the CSV for action_ All of the funds have been approved and are available; however, the grants will expire in 18 months. -. Funded Projects That Will Not Be Completed Prior to Incorporation This class of projects, Table 6-6, consists of those projects in which the design is completed and the right-of-ways are available, However, the County not be able to complete these projects by the time the CSV will have been incorporated. Therefore, the County will turn the design and the right-of-way over to the CSV for it. 5.; 7 he CSV can choose to complete the projects, or it can choose not to complete the projects. However, if it chooses not to complete the projects, it may have to return the grant money allocated for that project. Table 6 -7 lists the source for funding these projects. Page 33 Table 6 -5 Construction Projects in Progress for Spokane Valley to be Completed in 2002 Proj ect Under Construction - Completion 2002 16th Ave., SR 27 to Evergreen 10th Ave, 13th Ave. Warren, Marigold RID Mission Ave., McDonald to Evergreen Mission Ave., SR 27 to McDonald In Design /ROW - 2002 Completion Broadway Restripe, Park to Sullivan Broadway School crossing at Pierce Centenial Mid. School crossing at Ella Pines Road Overlay, 32nd to 40th Sullivan Overlay, Trent east bound ramp to Wellesley Sullivan Rd. at SR 290 Signal Transit passenger Waiting Areas on Sullivan Montgomery Avenue Sidewalks, Locust to UPRR Sullivan Road Overlay, 16th to Sprague Dishman -Mica Road, 40th to University Rd. FEDERAL STATE SPOKANE TOTAL AID AID COUNTY Status 2,094,000 239,000 782,000 721,000 350,000 270,000 70,000 70,000 221,200 171,700 275,000 247,500 20,000 161,200 550,000 400,000 630,000 903,000 119,500 625,700 52,500 52,500 561,000 Under Contract 119,500 Under Contract 156,300 Under Contract 721,000 Under Contract 80,000 17,500 17,500 Transfer to City Awarded to Colvico Awarded to Colvico 221,200 Completed 171,700 Under Construction 27,500 Under Construction 15,000 5,000 Under Construction 129000 32,200 Bid Awarded 550,000 Under Contract 400,000 Under Contract 29 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated July 30, 2002 30 Road Improvement District 3 1 Right of Way Page 34 In Design /ROW - 2003 Completion Total 16th Ave. , Evergreen to Sullivan Evergreen Road, 2nd. To 16th. Mission Ave., Evergreen to Sullivan Burns Road RID - (Mission bet. Evergreen & Sullivan) Marcus Road RID - (Mission bet. Evergreen & Sullivan) 1,866,350 3,302,500 2,514,151 Park Road, 1,161,500 8th. To Appleway Valley Corridor Environmental Study, University to Appleway Valley Couplet, University to Evergreen Table 6 -6 Projects the County will Turn Over to The City of Spokane Valley for Completion 16th Ave., 2,718,500 2,351,503 Dishman -Mica to SR 27 Fed. Aid • State Aid Local Status 848,861 610,290 407,199 Ready to bid in 2003 2,641,800 660,700 Condemnation on each end 2,013,834 500,317 Design 90% completed 0 RID terminated 0 RID terminated 929,200 232,300 Being surveyed 32 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 7 -30 -02 33 Right of way 3" Road improvement district — 50% completed Awaiting Environmental Completion 366,997 Fed Aid ROW approved Page 35 Evergreen Road 16th. Ave. to 2nd Ave" 16th Ave, Evergreen to Sullivan Mission Avenue, Evergreen to Sullivan 16th Ave, Dishman Mica to SR 27 Park Rd, 8th Ave to 2nd Ave Valley Couplet, University to Evergreen Table 6 -7 Sources for Funding for The Projects In Table 6 - 6 35 Al P City Total AIP Fed City Total STP(U) City Total AIP City Total Project Engineering $158,800 $39,700 $198,500 $236,990 $64,505 $64,505 $366,000 AIP $244,509 City $60,751 Total $305,260 $147,050 $22,950 $170,000 $90,000 $22,500 $112,500 TP P 43 $240,900 STP(U) WSDOT City $160,600 $520,000 Total $401,500 $1,300,000 Right of Construction Way $992,000 $1,491,000 $248,000 $372,800 $1,240,000 $1,863,800 $322,545 $610,290 $848,861 $303,756 $407,199 $626,301 $1,866,350 $160,200 $2,013,834 $39,800 $500,317 $200,000 $2,514,151 $898,303 $1,306,150 $140,198 $203,850 $1,038,501 $1,510,000 $213,600 $625,600 $53,400 $156,400 $267,000 $782,000 $780,000 $3,189,300 $470,000 $1,656,200 $5,315,500 33 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8 -23 -02 36 Arterial Improvement Program '7 Design 80% complete, right of way acquisition 20% 38 Design 95% complete, right of way 98% 39 Design 95% complete, right of way complete 40 Surface Transportation Program, Urban (a federal program) 41 Design 50% complete, right of way 30% 42 Design starting, right of way 0% 43 Transportation Partnersh.ip.Program 44 Environmental assessment 75% complete; should be complete in January 45 Washington State Department of Transportation Total $2,641,800 $660, 500 $3,302,300 $1,169,825 $913,366 $775,460 $2,858,651 $2,418,543 $600,868 $3,019,411 $2,351,503 $366,998 $2,718,501 $929,200 $232,300 $1,161,500 $4,210,200 $ - $470,000 $2,336,800 $7,017,000 Page 36 6 -9. Other High Priority Projects The following three projects are considered high priority, but need to be designed and grants have yet to be requested 1. 32nd. Ave., SR 27 to Sullivan $3.7M, with $498K from CSV 2, Barker, 1 -90 to Trent $_5i, with $479K from CSV This would also include adding a new, STA bridge. 1 SR 27 (Pixies) - Indiana, Montgomery, Mansfield This project is a cooperative effort among the W DOT CSV, developers, and wants. Total cost of the project is $3.23M, with $2..5910 in grants, $50,000 from the CSV, $50,000 from WSD T, and $547K from private developers_ It is expected to greatly improve traffic flow in this area. Table 6-8 details the funding for the. project. Note that funds are not yet available, Table -8 Funding for the SR 7 /IndianalMontgornery/Mansfield Proj ect 4 TPP $216,000 $324,000 $2,048,174 $2.588,174 Grant applications submitted to TIB -0e WDOT $50,000 $50,000 WSDOT and private funding committed_ Private $4,000 $81,000 5462,044 S547 City $50,000 $50,000 Total $70,000 $405,000 $2,560,216 $3,235,216 a Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, bivision of Engineering and Roads, dated 8- 2.3-02 a7 Transportation Partnership Progran as Transportation Improvemeut Board 44 'ashin gton State. Department of Transporaition Page 37 Section 7 City Studies 7 -1. Introduction Members of the Roads Committee researched a number of cities to obtain their views and answers to the following questions. Each member then wrote a report based upon the responses be/she received. These reports are included as individual sub- sections to this section. A. Where are they now? 13. How did they get there? C. What were your goals and pitfalls? D. Date of incorporation C. How does your experience apply to us? F. Number of miles (or lane miles) of roads G. What was your starting organization? H. How did the organization progress from that point? 1 . . Cost per mile (or unit) or roads for maintenance J. Population K. Number of city employees L. What services do you contract out? M. Do you buy or lease your equipment? N. Does the city have a dedicated road fund? O. Do you have a roads management program? 7 -2. City of Burien, Reporter: Myrna Gothmann The city of Burien was incorporated on Feb. 28, 1993 with a population of 29,000. Current population is 31,810. The goals for incorporation were: (1) to oppose the third runway at Sea -Tac., (2) to do their own planning and have more control, and (3) to improve the economic tax base for developmental revitalization. Burien began with an interim council of seven, elected at large by a special election on Sept. 15, 1992. They took office in October. The interim council hired an interim city manager. The interim city manager contracted with other cities for finance manger, city clerk, department assistant, and a couple other positions. These people worked in the position and helped the interim city manager hire permanent employees. As this was accomplished the temporary employees went back to their other jobs. The interim council served until the general election in Nov. 1993, at which time all but two of the seven retained their seats. In this initial election some were elected for a two year term and sorne for four years. Now, council members serve in a staggered four year term. Three are elected on one odd year and four are elected on the next odd year. The council's job is to set policy through debate, approval of motions, laws and resolutions. They hold business meetings on the first and third Mondays of the month and study sessions on the second and fourth Mondays. A mayor is elected from within Page 38 the council and serves for two years. He presides over city council meetings and performs ceremonial duties. The permanent city manager was hired by the permanent city council. The city manager oversees city operations, implements council's policies through the preparation of the city budget and capital improvement program. The council has final approval. The City of Burien contracts for all services so, it neither owns nor rents equipment.. They contract with both county and private contractors. They select the one that is best for that particular job. They believe that multi contractors help to keep providers honest and the cost down. They also contract for new design. They have limited in- house services. The philosophy is, we (the city) are the project managers and have 100% project management. They stressed that they must have staff" to manage these contracts. The city currently has 45 employees, nine of which are in the public works department. They recommended that there be a traffic engineer dedicated to safety. There are 200 lane miles in Burien. $700,000 is budgeted for maintenance. The city has a pavement damage system to evaluate what kind of work is necessary to keep roads in good condition. Burien has a three -part dedicated roads fund: (1) arterials fund, (2) street fund, and (3) capital transportation fund. The new city experienced two pitfalls: (1) The city manager spent a lot of time educating the council members about their role, since many were becoming involved in government for the first time. It was hard for the council to work as a group. They had to learn that no one's own interest is above serving the best interest of the community. (2) The initial road money received from the County looked like a lot, but it really wasn't. It did help the city get started with a strong revenue base. Lessons from Burien: 1. Hiring professional interim staff from surrounding communities worked very well for them. 2. The City Manager may, initially, spend a great deal of time educating the Council in their role. 3. Contracting all services works very well for them. 4. Some services were better contracted with the County, whereas some services were better contracted with private parties. 5. The City needs adequate support staff for project management and contract administration. Jnformation provided by the following City of Burien personnel: Jan Hubbard, City Clerk, 206 - 241 -4647 Page 39 Steve Clark, Director of Roads, 206 -248 -5514 Phyllis Dickey, Secretary, 206- 248 -5515 7 -3. City of Yakima, Reporter: Doug Demmerly 1. Date of incorporation - 1886 2. Population - 73,040 (updated) 3. Miles of roadway - 348.4 4. Number of city employees - 623 5. Land area - 19.26 sq. mi. 6. Roads employees - 32 7. Do you buy or lease equipment? We purchase a majority of our own equipment. 8. Do you contract for any services? Yes, street sweeping and small patching areas. 9. Cost per year for roads maintenance; $600,000 per year. Snow affects cost 10. Do you have a road management program? Yes -roads are rated EVERY year 11. Does the city have a dedicated roads fund? YES- inventory all roads from bad to good, and number of cracks and size every 100' 12. What was your starting organization? Mr. Adams has been with the city for 2.5 years and has no information in this area. 13. Where is your city roadway program now? We have almost no potholes and keep up with our maintenance program strictly while not borrowing from other funds. 14. How did your organization progress from that point? We require a safe driving surface to the public. We annexed 17 mi. of expanded roads from the county w/o curb and gutter or sidewalks 15. What were your goals and pitfalls? Keep ahead of the high maintenance roads. Example: gravel roadway. The cost in maintenance after three years overshadows the cost of pavement, which has an average life of ten years. Challenges include the financing issues. 1 strive to make one dollar do the work of five if possible. This is done by utilizing federal matching funds: one -half percent interest loans and grants. We have learned that public hearings bring out the more vocal citizens. In order to get a complete view of the community, we also send interviewers to the neighborhood to get a true representation of opinion for any roadway changes or proposals. Contact: Kay Wendall Adams, City Engineer Interviewed by Doug Demmerly Aug.12, 2002 Page 40 7 -4. City of Coeur d'Alene, Reporter: Kirk Appleby A. Where are they now? Coeur d'Alene has a full Service Road Department 13. How did they get there? Historic C. What were your goals and pitfalls? Historic D. Date of incorporation 1887 E. How does your experience apply to us? There are three areas in which citizens can see the benefit of their tax dollars. 1) Roads 2) Fire protection 3) Police Gas taxes fund their capital improvements. Impact fees fund 90% of their new roads. They have a progressive General fund to make additional improvements (reconstruction and overlays) F. Number of miles (or lane miles) of roads. Coeur d'Alene has about 200 road miles. G. What was your starting organization? Historic H. How did the organization progress from that point? Historic 1. Cost per mile (or unit) for road maintenance $13,000 per road mile includes maintenance & reconstruction per year. Their annual cost of their roads department is $2,100,000 maintenance, salaries, overhead, equipment, etc. plus $600,000 for improvements. J. Population About 34 K. Number of city employees The City of Coeur d'Alene has 250 full time employees, 23 are street department plus 2 seasonal employees. L. What services do you contract out? Page 41 Coeur d'Alene contracts the construction of new roads. Everything else except in special cases is done by City staff M. Do you buy or lease your equipment? They buy on 4 to 5 year contracts. N. Does the city have a dedicated road fund? Funds from gas tax are dedicated to street maintenance and construction ($1,500,000) in addition to gas tax the City Council has allocated $600,000 for upgrading and running the Street Department. 0. Do you have a roads management program? Yes, they use the same pavement management program as Spokane County but with just visual inspection. They rate their roads annually. Contact: Gordon Dobler, Coeur d'Alene City Engineer 7 -5. City of Post Falls, Reporter: Kirk Appleby A. Where are they now? They are slowly gaining ground on years of an under funded road system. Their tax base is low because it is mainly residential. They chip seal on a 5 -7 year rotating schedule. B. How did they get there? Developer funded road improvements, impact fees, L.I.D.'s, urban renewal districts within the city, funds from their general fund, and Tax Increment Financing were all used to finance their improvements. Their main funding source for capital improvements has been from grants. C. What were your goals and pitfalls? Historic D. Date of incorporation 1891 E. How does your experience apply to us? 1. The recommendation was to search for and hire quality management (City Manager, Public Works Director, Engineering Manager and Street Superintendent) and compensate them and retain them. 2. They felt we should contract with our current service providers until service starts to break down. 3. Contracting out striping, signing, mowing and flushing streets and catch basins is very expensive and more economically done by city staff. Page 42 4. Ernphasize guarding road funds_ 5. Tax Increment Financing is one o:F the best tools for making road improvements. Tax Increment Financing is an urban renewal tool., The developer of either a deteriorated area or a border community can apply for an area to be declared an urban renewal district_ in Idaho, if the 5- member Urban Renewal Board (appointed by the city) approves the application, the taxes to the agencies who receive the tax (such as schools, fire departments, cities) are frozen for a period of time (year or years). Once the area is improved, the assessment will, naturally, go up, and the owners of the area will pay their usual (now increased) tax, The difference between what the owners pay and what the agencies receive is used by the Urban Renewal Board to increase the infrastructure of the area ( inncluding roads). Post Falls has used it for Harpers Furniture, their downtown area and the business area around Jacklin and the Outlet stores, The Washington State version permits a City Council or County Commissioners to declare a Tax Increment Financing District_ The Council/ Commissioners act as the Urban Renewal Board. Experience indicates this tax method will yield about 5% of the increase in assessment for infrastructure_ F. Number of miles (or lane mies) of roads. About 100 miles with a wide variety of road conditions from surface treated gravel roads to newly constructed 5 lane arterials_ I Many of their roads are old, G 'What wa,. your starting organization? Historic R. I-Iow did the organization progress from that point? Historic I. Cost per mile (or unit) for road maintenance They feet they would like to spend 50 cents per square yard for chip seals, crack seal, patchin curb and sidewalk replacement. This is somewhat high but their roads are old. For new road construction projects Post Falls uses a 20 year design life. On older residential clip sealed roads they rehabilitate rasing a 10-12 year design life because oflack of funding. Lack of funding can be attributed to lack of public support of L,I.D's. Their annual cost of their roads department is as follows: Salary &. Benefits — $315.000 Operating .Expenses — $356,000 Capital Expense — $235,000 including Street construction J. Population About 18,000 (their population has doubled in the last I0 years) Page 43 K. Number of city employees Total number of city employees is 200 -240 depending on season. The street department has 9 full time plus up to 5 temporary summer employees (not including Engineering and fleet maintenance). Engineering has 5 full time employees and fleet maintenance has 2 employees. The water and waste water department has 17 employees L. What services do you contract out? Chip Sealing, Large Projects and Traffic Signal Maintenance (Thorco) are contracted out. Nothing is contracted out to other agencies but sometimes they swap labor with the highway district. i.e. they will plow a county road and the county will plow a city road. Consultants do most of their design work. When consultants are used they need to be managed as though they are city staff. Post Falls has had good and bad experiences using consultants. The majority of construction work is contracted out. They sometimes will do the paving work on small projects once curbs, gutters, storm water systems and base has been done by contractor. Their employees' experience is not specialized in construction and paving but maintenance, and their time is limited. Therefore larger projects are left for contractors. The city also contracts out garbage collection and final sewer sludge disposal. M. Do you buy or lease your equipment? They like to buy new equipment. 'flew equipment is more reliable and requires less maintenance than used equipment." They feel they have equity in purchased equipment. In the past they purchased used equipment and found it to require a lot of maintenance. They also own their own new sweeper truck that bought with CMAQ funds. They also like the freedom of being able to deploy their own equipment when it is needed for unexpected emergencies rather than having to find a rental or get a contractor at a moment's notice. N. Does the city have a dedicated road fund? Yes. But previously their roads were funded out of a general fund. 0. Do you have a roads management program? Yes, two to three years ago they did a visual inspection of the roads and scored them from 1 to 10. From the scoring they created a five year plan. They feel it is time to re- inspect and reevaluate. Contacts: Bill Melvin, Post Falls City Engineer, 208- 773 -4235 Jerry Basler, Planning Department, 208 - 773 -8708 Page 44 Mike Cady, Consultant on Tax Increment Financing, 509- 979 -2983 Marshall Farnell, Spokane County, 477 -2600 7 -6. City of Liberty Lake, Reporter: Gary Schimmels 1. Date of Incorporation: 2001 2. Population: 4,600 3. Miles of roadway: Unknown 4. Number of employees: 13 (including golf course) 5. Land area: four square miles; 1 1/2 miles presently under annexation 6. Road maintenance: Private contractors and Spokane County 7. Budget for 2002: $276,000 8. Road management program: New, being formatted 9. Road plan: Formulating Six-Year Plan 10. What was your starting organization: Private contractors 11. Does your city have a dedicated road fund? No, it is general fund monies. 12. Where is your city roadway program now? Patching crack sealing, shoulder maintenance and striping. Spokane County contracted for pavement striping, signals, and signs. 13. What were your goals and pitfalls? To new, planning and zoning. Page 45 Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads: County Engineer Ross E. Kelley, P.E. 477 -3600 Assistant County Engineer James S. Haines, P.E. 477 -7467 Traffic Maintenance and Operations Bob Brueggeman, P.E 477 -3600 Maintenance and Operations Engineer Phil Barto, P.E. 477 -3600 Director of Administrative Services Marshall Farrell 477 -2600 2. Washington State Department of Transportation Regional Traffic Engineer Ted Trepanier, F.E. 324 -6550 trepant@wsdot.wa.gov Highways and Local Programs, Operations Engineer Al King, P.E. 360- 705 -7375 3. Boundary Review Board Susan Winchell swinchell @spokanecounty.org 4. City of Burien City Clerk Jan Hubbard Director of Roads Steve Clark Secretary Phyllis Dickey 5. City of Yakima City Engineer Kay Wendall Adams 6. City of Coeur d'Alene City Engineer Gordon Dobler 7. City of Post Falls City Engineer Bill Melvin Section 8. Contacts for Further Information 206 -241 -4647 206 - 248 -5514 206 - 248 -5515 208- 773 -4235 rkelley@spolcanecounty.org jhaines@spokanecounty.org bbrueggeman®spokanecounty.org pbarto@spokanecounty.org mfarnell@spokanecounty.org Page 46 Planning Department Jerry Basler 208- 773 -8708 8. Consultant on Tax Increment Financing Mike Cady 509- 979 -2983 9. King County Mary Coltrane 206 -296 -3724 mary.coltrane @metrokc.gov Mary works with other cities in developing local contracts between them and King County 10. Spokane Regional Transportation Committee Glenn Miles, Director 343 -6370 srtransportation @gwest.net 11. Liberty Lake Lewis Griffin, City Manager Page 47 air pollution, 28 Airport Board, 19 alternatives, 3, 5, 7, 26 Appleway, 10, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35 arterial, 15, 26, 28, 29 arterial fund, 7 arterials, 7, 8, 19, 26, 28, 29, 39, 43 Barker Bridge, 31 bicycle, 18 Bigelow - Forker Connector, 3, 31 bike lane, 29 Boundary Review Board, 46 bridge, 12, 13, 15, 30, 37 Bridging the Valley, 3, 18, 25, 30, 31 Broadway rest iping, 33, 34 budget, 14, 21, 22, 39 Burien, 4, 38, 39, 46 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe, 30 business, 9, 26, 27, 38, 43 cameras, 19 capital projects, 22 carrying capacity, 28 channel, 28, 29 chip seal, 11, 14, 22, 42 City Council, 1, 5, 42, 43 city manager, 38, 39 City of Spokane Valley, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 ,11,12,13,14,1 35 City Plan, 9 CMAQ, 19, 44 Coeur d'Alene, 41, 42, 46 collisions, 26, 28, 30, 33 Commute Trip Reduction, 17 complaints, 16 construction, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 33, 42, 43, 44 contacts, 46 contract administration, 9, 39 contracting, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47 contractors, 9, 13, 39, 44, 45 Section 9. Index of Subjects County of Spokane. See Spokane County County roads, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14 couplet, 3, 10, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 36 comments, 26 culvert, 11, 15 deicer trucks, 15 deicing, 9, 10, 11 design, 9, 12, 13, 33, 39, 43, 44 Dishman Landfill, 29 ditching, 11, 15 documents, 7, 16 drainage, 11, 16, 29 drywells, 11, 15 engineering, 2, 9, 12, 13, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44 equipment, 8, 9, 15, 20, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 Evergreen Rd., 23, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36 expressway, 26, 28 Fairgrounds, 30 Felts Field, 30 financing, 3, 6, 14, 20, 42, 43, 45 Tax Increment, 43, 45, 47 five -lane road, 28 franchises, 16 goals, 8, 38, 40, 41, 42 grant, 11, 13, 23, 33, 37, 40, 42 grant writing, 13 gravel, 11, 40, 43 herbicides, 15 incorporation, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 25, 38, 40, 41, 42 insurance, 16 interim council, 38 interlocal agreements, 8, 18, 19 King County, 47 L.I.D.. See Local Improvement District land use actions, 15 lease, 16, 38, 40, 42, 44 Liberty Lake, 45 license agreements, 16 Page 48 light rail, 18, 29 Local improvement District, 16, 23, 42 Luminaires. See street tights maintenance, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17,20,21,23,38,39,40,41, 42,43,44,45,46 matching dollars, 14 matching funds, 13, 40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 18 One Call, 19 one way streets, 26 overlays, 11, 14, 41 overpass, 12 Park Rd., 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Park Rd./BNSF Grade Separation Study, 23, 31 pavement markings, 15 pavement repair, 11 Pines Rd., 8, 11, 27, 32, 34, 37 pitfalls, 5, 7, 8, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45 Playfair, 30 plow, 15, 44 plowing, 9, 15 ponds, 11 Post Falls, 4, 42, 43, 44 pothole, 11, 14, 22 project management, 9, 39 projects, 6, 9, 16, 25, 26, 31, 33, 37, 43, 44 completed, 25, 31, 32 future. 25 high priority, 37 in progress, 33, 34 major lone term, 25 uncompleted, 25, 33, 35 public hearings, 40 public works, 5, 39 railroad, 18 railroad crossing, 12, 30 RCW, 7, 17 reconstruction, 14, 41 Regional Transportation Management Center, 18 repair, 11, 14, 15 right of way, 10, 12, 13 road closures, 16 road files, 16 road fund, 7, 38, 42, 44, 45. See street fund road management program, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45 road maps, 16 road money, 39 road standards, 13 road surface, 14 road vacations, 16 Roads Committee, 1, 2, 12, 1 8, 26, 38 sand, 15 sander trucks, 15 sanding, 9 Sea -Tae., 38 sewers, 5, 13, 16, 44 sidewalk, 11, 29, 43 signal lights, 7, 10, 20 signalized intersections, 10, 11, 15, 29 signs, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20, 26 Six-Year Plan, 12, 22, 45 Smart Maintenance Program, 14 snow, 15, 23 Snow removal, 10, 11 solid waste, 5 Spokane City, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 32, 35 Spokane County, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, 46 Spokane County Engineer, 5, 46 Spokane Regional Transportation Council, 18, 19 Spokane Transit Authority, 19 Spokane Valley. See City of Spokane Valley Sprague Rd., 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 SR 27, 8, 11 SR 290, 11 State roads, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 23 State Roads, 21 stormwater, 11 street fund, 7. See road fund street lights, 10, 11, 15, 23 striping, 9, 15, 42, 45 Page 49 Sullivan Bridge, 31 Sullivan Rd., 3. 13, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,35,36,37 surety bonds, 1 surveying, 13 swale, 11, 29 sweeping, 9. 15. 40 Tax Increment Financing. 42, 43 telecom, 16 traffic light, 12 traffic signals, 11, 19 traffic studies, 1 trench, 7, 13 Trent Rd., 11, 12, 27, 30, 32, 34, 37 two way streets, 26 Union Pacific, 30 University Rd., 10, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32. 34,35,36 urban renewal, 42, 43 Urban Renewal Board, 43 vacancy signs, 26 Valley Couplet. See couplet Washington State ]Department of Transportation. See W S D D T wale water, 44 water, 16, 44 WSr OT, 8, 12, 19, 46 Yakima, 4, 40, 46 Page 50 Meeting Date: November 18, 2003 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent D old business 0 new business ❑ public hearing X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Wastewater Issues Discussion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Discussion of Metropolitan Municipal Corporation: The City of Spokane passed a resolution 03 -104 on October 27, 2003, calling for an election to establish a Metropolitan Municipal Corporation in the County of Spokane Urban Growth Area (see attached resolution). In response the County Commissioners have set a Public Hearing for December 17, 2003(see attached notice of hearing). I have also attached a copy of a briefing memo from the County Attorney that was given to the Commissioners at there Board meeting on November 4, 2003. Discussion of the letter form DOE dated November 7, 2003 in response to the five questions developed by the technical committee and sent to DOE on October 10, 2003. Both letters are attached for your review. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 03 -104 Resolution of the City of Spokane Calling for an Election to Establish a Metropolitan Municipal Corporation in the County of Spokane for the Urban Growth Area WHEREAS, it is the public policy of the state of Washington to provide for the people of the populous metropolitan area.s in the state the means of obtaining essential services not adequately provided by existing agencies of local government. WHEREAS, the growth of urban population and the movement of people into the Urban Growth Areas of Spokane County has created problems of water pollution abatement, garbage disposal, water supply, transportation, planning, parks and parkways which extend beyond the boundaries of the cities and special districts in Spokane County. WHEREAS, for reasons of topography, location and movement of population, and land conditions and development, one or more of these problems cannot be adequately m et by the individual cities, counties and districts of the metropolitan area of Spokane County. WHEREAS, Washington State Law, RCW Ch.35.58 provides a means by which cities in the County of Spokane and the County of Spokane are enabled to act jointly to meet these common problems in order that the proper growth and development of the metropolitan area of Spokane County may be assured and the health and welfare of the people residing therein may be secured. NOW, THEREFORE, IT 1S HEREBY RESOVLED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE that an election is hereby called and shall be held in Spokane County for the purpose of creating a Spokane Metropolitan Municipal Corporation under and pursuant to the provisions of Washington law and RCW Ch. 35.58 which shall provide the following function: Metropolitan water pollution abatement within the boundaries identified a.s that portion of the urban growth area designated by Spokane County under the provisions of the Growth Management Act that encompasses and is contiguous to the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the form.ation of the metropolitan municipal corporation will be conducive to the welfare and benefit of the persons and property within the metropolitan area. 1 Res 03 -104 Amended 10/27/03 IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that it is understood by the City of Spokane: 1. That upon receipt of this resolution calling for a.n election on the formation of a metropolitan municipal corporation, the Board of Commissioners of Spokane County shall fix a date for a public hearing thereon which shall be not more than sixty nor less than forty days following the receipt of such resolution or petition. 2. That notice of such hearing shall be published once a week for at least four consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the metropolitan area. 3. That the notice shall contain a description of the boundaries of the proposed metropolitan area, shall name the initial metropolitan function or functions and shall state the time and place of the hearing and the fact that any changes in the boundaries of the metropolitan area will be considered at such time and place. 4. That at such hearing or any continuation thereof, any interested person may appear and be heard on all matters relating to the effect of the formation of the proposed metropolitan municipal corporation 5. That the County Commissioners may make such changes in the boundaries of the metropolitan area as they shall deem_ reasonable and proper, but may not delete any portion of the proposed area which will create an island of included or excluded lands, may not delete a portion of any city, and may not delete any portion of the proposed area which is contributing or may reasonably be expected to contribute to the pollution of any water course or body of water in the proposed area when the petition or resolution names metropolitan water pollution abatement as a function to be performed by the proposed metropolitan municipal corporation. 6. That if the commissioners shall determine that any additional territory should be included in the metropolitan area, a second hearing shall be held and notice given in the same manner as for the original hearing. 7. That the commissioners may adjourn the hearing on the formation of a metropolitan municipal corporation from time to time not exceeding thirty days in all. 2 Res 03 -104 Amended 10/27/03 8. That at the next regular meeting following the conclusion of such hearing the commissioners shall adopt a resolution fixing the boundaries of the proposed metropolitan municipal corporation, declaring that the formation of the proposed metropolitan municipal corporation will be conducive to the welfare and benefit of the persons and property therein and providing for the calling of a special election on the formation of the metropolitan municipal corporation to be held not more than one hundred twenty days nor less than sixty days following the adoption of such resolution. FINALLY, IT IS RESOLVED that the Clerk of the City of Spokane shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the board of Commissioners of the Spokane County. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2003. Approved as to Form: Assistant City Attorney City Clerk 3 Res 03 -104 Emended 10/27/03 NO. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITHIN PORTIONS OF SPOKANE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT BACKGROUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to State law, the City of Spokane adopted and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County City Resolution No. 03 -104 executed on October 27, 2003. That resolution called for an election to be held on the formation of a Metropolitan Municipal Corporation having certain specified boundaries for the purpose of carrying out the function of water pollution abatement. Upon receipt of City of Spokane Resolution No. 03 -104, the Board of County Commissioners is required to hold a public hearing. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the. Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to RCW 35.58.080, that a public hearing will be held by the Board at 5:30 P.M. on December 17, 2003, at Board's Hearing Room, lower level of the Public Works Building, located at 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, Washington 99260. Any interested person may appear at the above scheduled hearing and present testimony on all matters relating to the effect of the formation of the proposed Metropolitan Municipal Corporation set forth in City of Spokane Resolution No. 03 -104. City of Spokane Resolution No. 03 -104 describes the boundaries of the proposed Metropolitan Municipal Corporation area as follows: City of Spokane Resolution No. 03 -104 names the description of the initial function to be performed by the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation: After considering public testimony at the above scheduled public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may make such changes to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation as proposed by the City of Spokane which the Board of County Commissioners deem reasonable and proper. However, the Board of County Commissioners may not delete any area from the boundaries of the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation as proposed by the City of Spokane in Resolution 03 -104 which would create an island of included or excluded lands, delete a portion of any city, or delete any portion of an area which is contributing or may reasonably be expected to contribute to the pollution of any water course or body of water in the proposed Metropolitan Municipal Corporation. Page I of 2 That portion of the urban growth area designated by Spokane County under the provisions of the Growth Management Act that encompasses and is contiguous to the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley. Water pollution abatement. (Water pollution abatement is defined by law to include sewage disposal and stormwater drainage.) if the Board of County Commissioners determines that additional ten - itory beyond that proposed by the City of Spokane in Resolution No. 03 -104 should be included in the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation, a second hearing shall be held and notice given in the same manner as the present hearing. The Board of County Commissioners may adjourn the above scheduled hearing from time to time not to exceed 30 days. At the next regular meeting following the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall adopt a resolution: A map describing the boundaries of' the proposed Metropolitan Municipal Corporation set forth in City of Spokane Resolution No. 03 -104 may be viewed at the offices of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County located at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA, or will be mailed free of charge by contacting the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners at (509) 477 -2265. Additional information with respect to the description of the boundaries of the proposed Metropolitan Municipal Corporation set forth in City of Spokane Resolution No. 03 -104 may be obtained by contacting Bruce Rawls, Spokane County Director of Utilities at (509) 477 -3604. ATTEST: ViCKY M. DALTON Clerk of the Board By: Publish: Page 2of2 (1) Fixing the boundaries of the proposed Metropolitan Municipal Corporation; (2) Declaring that the formation of the proposed Metropolitan ivtunicipal Corporation will he conducive to the welfare and benefit of the persons and property therein; (3) Calling for a special election on the formation of the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation to be held not more than 120 days nor less than 60 days following the adoption of such resolution; and (4) Submitting to the voters residing within the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation at the special election on the formation of the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation a proposition authorizing the .Metropolitan Municipal Corporation, if formed, to levy at the earliest time pern by law on all taxable property located within the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation, a general tax for one year of $0.25 per $1,000.00 of assessed value in excess of any constitutional or statutory limitation for the authorized purposes of the Metropolitan Municipal Corporation. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2003. Daniela Erickson, Deputy The Valley Herald t• I:Vstotices\tnciro establishment -11 0603.duc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON JOHN ROSKELLI Y, Chair PHILLIP D. HARRIS, Vice -Chair M. KATE MCCASLIN Page 1 of 3 BRIEFING MEMORANDUM ON METROPOLITAN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (CHAPTER 35.58 RCW) This document is intended only to provide a general overview of the topic. • Purpose: A municipal corporation. Its purpose is to enable cities and counties to meet common problems in order that proper growth and development of metropolitan areas may be assured. • Functions: (Within boundaries of Metropolitan Municipal Corporation) 1. Water pollution abatement (sewage disposal and stormwater drainage). 2. Water supply. 3. Public transportation. 4. Garbage disposal. 5. Parks and parkways. 6. Metropolitan comprehensive planning. • Formation: 1. Petition — 40% of qualified voters within metropolitan area. 2. Resolution by: • City council of central city (largest city in metropolitan area). • Two city councils of two or more component cities other than central city. • Board of County Commissioners of central county (county containing largest population in metropolitan area). 3. Prerequisites of resolution or petition: • Description of boundaries on metropolitan area. • Listing of metropolitan functions. • Statement that formation is conducive to welfare and benefit of persons and property in metropolitan area. • Responsibilities of Board of County Commissioners upon receipt of petition or resolution: 1. Hold a public hearing not more than 60 nor less than 40 days after receipt of petition or resolution. 2. Publish notice of hearing four consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation within metropolitan area. 3. At such hearing or continuation Board may: • Change boundaries to delete area except: a. May not delete portion which will create an island; b. May not delete portion of city; c. May not delete area contributing to pollution of watercourse. • Change boundaries to enlarge area after a second public hearing. 4. Adopt resolution: (1) fixing boundaries, (2) declaring formation conducive to public welfare, and (3) calling for special election to be held not more than 120 days nor less than 60 days from such resolution. • Election 011 formation of metropolitan municipal corporation. 1. Majority of persons voting on formation within central city and majority of persons voting on proposition residing in metropolitan area outside central city required to establish. • Election on levy of initial one year property tax of $0.25 for each $1,000.00 of assessed value must be approved by 40 %, validation and 60% o of persons voting. • Additional functions: 1. By resolution or petition similar to formation. 2. By resolution of municipal corporation and concurrence by each component county and component city of first class and two /thirds of other component cities. • Governing body: 1. Metropolitan council: • Agreed to by component counties and component cities. • Must meet constitutional mandate of one person -one vote (i.e., if persons on council are members solely because of their election to position then constitutional mandate is applicable. For example if all three county commissioners are on the council then mandate is applicable. If one county commissioner is on the council appointed by a majority of the others, then constitutional mandate not applicable). 2. Assumption of governance by board of county commissioners (chapter 36.56 RCW). • Boundaries must be coterminous with county boundaries. • Requires adoption of ordinance or resolution and public. hearing after advertising four times in newspaper of general circulation. • After public testimony and adoption of resolution or ordinance voters must approve: a. Majority of persons within central city vote in support thereof. b. Majority of persons residing in metropolitan area outside central city vote in support thereof. Page 3 of 3 • Functions of metropolitan municipal corporation: 1. To prepare comprehensive water pollution abatement plan. 2. To purchase, condemn, add to, improve, replace, repair metropolitan facilities for water pollution abatement within or without metropolitan area. 3. Sewer facilities owned by a county, city, or special purpose district may be acquired or used only with the consent of the legislative body of such entity. 4. Fix rates and charges for use of metropolitan water pollution abatement facilities. 5. Establish minimum standards for construction of water pollution abatement facilities. 6. To acquire by purchase, condemnation, or gift, and to construct, add to, improve, maintain, operate, and regulate local collection of sewage or stormwater not contained within city or special district and with the consent of the legislative body of city or special district to exercise such powers within their jurisdiction. 7. Issue general obligation bonds for capital purposes after vote of people requiring 40% validation and 60% of persons voting. 8. Levy a one year property tax in such dollar amount as council may determine subject to 40% validation and 60% of persons voting. October 10, 2003 Mr. Dick Wallace Water Quality Program Interim Manager Washington Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98505 -7600 Dear 11r. Wallace, SU13JI: CT: SIUZ LOAN FP4094/SPOKANE COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER PLANT In February of this year, Spokane County completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan and environmental review, which was approved by the Department of Ecology. The Plan recommended implementation of a new 8 million gallon per day (MGD) regional wastewater treatment plant in the Spokane Valley, under the Design Build Operate (0130) delivery approach. Subsequently, the County applied for a SRF Loan for the project, and Ecology extended an offer on the Final SRF Offer List. Since that time, the City of Spokane Valley has been formed, and the City of Spokane has determined that they need wastewater treatment capacity in the eastern part of their city to help them in their solution for. CSO management The City of Spokane would like to convey 2.5 MGD of sanitary sewage to the new regional plant, and would prefer to move the location to a site closer to their trunk sewers, commonly known as the Playfair site. Consequently, some new regional wastewater interests have arisen. It may be advantageous to modify certain elements of the project scope to accommodate the new interests. Our consultant team is presently prcpadng a conceptual analysis of the feasibility and cost to implement a 10 MGD plant at the Playfair site, compared to the original preferred site, known as the Stockyards site. A future second phase, in about year 2020, would add 8 MGD capacity for the. regional wastewater treatment needs. We are interested in Ecology's response regarding SRI loan FP4094, if certain elements of the project scope were changed. Our questions are. highlighted in bold at the end of each of the following numbered points. 1. The presently approved Facilities Plan and environmental documents are based on a project at the Stockyards. If 'Mayfair proves to be more advantageous for the region, we would propose an amendment to the Facilities Plan and EIS documents. These amendments could be completed and approved by July of 2004. If we choose to make this revision to the project scope, is Ecology willing to make the same revision to the scope in the SRF loan agreement? 11 the amendments to the — 2 — November 13, 2003 reports arc completed and approved by Ecology by July, is there any concern by Ecology regarding the delay in signing the SRF loan offer, as long as it is prior to the offer deadline? 2. The presently approved Facilities Plan and environmental documents are based on a Phase 1 project of 8 MGD (average flow). Our water quality modeling in the present Facilities Plan was for up to 12 MGD of effluent into the Spokane River at two alternative locations. If we amend the Facilities Plan and EIS document to increase the size to 10 MGD, is Ecology willing to make the same revision to the scope in the SRF loan agreement? 3. The SRF loan application was based on a project to be delivered using the 0130 approach. If we proposed to change the delivery approach to a traditional Design, Bid, Build method, is Ecology willing to make the same revision to the scope in the SRF loan agreement? Or alternatively, if we proposed to change the delivery approach to Design Build, with a separate Operations Contract or municipal operations, is Ecology willing to execute a loan agreement on that basis? 4. The SRF loan application was submitted by Spokane County. Since that date, the City of Spokane Valley has incorporated. The majority of the future flow to the new regional plant will originate in the City of Spokane Valley. At this point, there are ongoing discussions regarding who should own and implement the new regional plant. It could continue to be Spokane County, it could be Spokane Valley, or we could form a partnership. If the City of Spokane Valley becomes the party to implement the new plant, is Ecology willing to extend SRF Loan FP4094 to the City of Spokane Valley, in lieu of Spokane County? 5. The regional municipal wastewater agencies are very concerned about the uncertainties related to the upcoming TMDL for the Spokane River. The modeling completed to date would indicate that wastewater discharges into the Spokane River may not be allowable in the future. Therefore, a Use Attainability Analysis is underway cooperatively by the dischargers and the Eastern Regional Office of Ecology. Because of these ongoing efforts, it is probable that the TMDL and resulting load allocations will not be completed until year 2005 or later. We cannot wait until then to commence the new regional treatment plant, if we are to successfully have new capacity on line in time to meet regional needs. In anticipation of these issues, Spokane County has chosen to voluntarily plan and implement All Known and Reasonable Technologies (AKA.RT) in the new regional plant, which will result in effluent quality far superior to what is required for today's water quality standards. However., we are reluctant to spend nearly $100 million building a new regional treatment plant, if we are uncertain that it will be permitted for a reasonable design life of such facilities. Are we correct to understand that Ecology will issue an initial discharge permit for the plant on the basis of and consistent with the projected effluent quality in the approved Wastewater Facilities Plan? Or, is Ecology willing to execute an Agreed Order that would assure that this first phase of the plant will be permitted for its design capacity life, projected Sincerely, N. Bruce Rawls, F.E. — 3 — November 13, 2003 to be 10- years, before a major change in effluent discharge standards is required? As you can see, our region is faced with some major decisions regarding wastewater management. If you can answer these questions outlined above, it will help us make the decisions and move on with implementation of a new regional wastewater treatment plant project. Hopefully, you can respond quickly, to help us make decisions on the regional treatment plant project and move forward. If you have any questions, or would like to meet with representatives of the. regional wastewater dischargers, give me a call. CC: Neil K.ersten, City of Spokane \Talley Public Works Director Steve Carley, Financial Assistance Manager, 'Washington Department of Ecology Len Bramble, ERO, Washington Department of Ecology Jim Ballaty, ERO, Washington Department of Ecology Dale Arnold, City of Spokane Wastewater Manager 11- 12 -03: 2:48pm;sonkane County Utii ' 7, 2003 Mr. N. Bruce Rawls, P.E. Utilities Division Spokane County Public Works Dept. 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 -0430 RE: Spokane County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities and State Revolving Fund Loan (SRF) Agreement Offer Dear Mr. Rawls: STATE Of WASHINGTON EPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY __PAO. Box 47600 O Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 '360) 407 -6000 0 'MD Only (Hearing impaired) (3601 407.6006 :5051 477 4716 n 2/ Thank you for your October 10 letter with inquiries regarding how Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, and Ecology can partner to provide better wastewater service and water quality to the region. In the first part of your first question you asked about changing the scope of the project. Ecology is willing to write the project description in the loan agreement to be consistent with the content and intent of the funding application, the wastewater facilities plan, and the supplemental environmental impact statement. The scope of the loan agreement must reflect the content and recommendations of the approved documents.. In the second part of your first question you asked about Ecology's concern with delays in signing the SRF loan offer as long as it is prior to the offer deadline. Our concern regards meeting certain time requirements in implementing the project as described in the funding application and approved engineering documents. The first concern is that the agreement must be signed within twelve months of the publication of the SRF Final intended Use Plan. Our August 15, 2003, loan offer letter states that you have until August 16, 2004, to negotiate and sign a loan agreement with Ecology. The second concern is the need to demonstrate both project initiation within sixteen (16) months of the loan offer plus ongoing and routine progress thereafter, no more than one time extension, of no more than twelve months, may be made when there are valid reasons for the extension and when the extension is included in the signed funding agreement with Ecology. Valid reasons for a time extension allowing a start date more than sixteen months after the publication date of the Final Intended Use Plan are limited to schedules included in water quality permits, consent decrees, enforcement orders, or the recipient and Ecology agree there is a need to do work during an environmental window in a specific season of the year. If the funding recipient has one of these valid reasons to wait longer than sixteen months to start the project, the reasons why it will take longer and the schedule the recipient will 11- t2 -03: 2:46PW 5pnkgne County Utll lvtr. N. Bruce Rawls, P.E. Page 2 November 7, 2003 ;SO9 477 4716 J 3/ 4 follow must both be stated clearly in a signed loan agreement. 1t would be beneficial for County staff and Ecology staff to review the project schedule beginning with the procurement process so that both parties are clear on what can be done in the necessary time frame and also clear on what is eligible for reimbursement. Additionally, a project mu st be completed within five (5) years of the loan offer. An exception to the five -year rule is that a time extension of up to 12 months may be granted by Ecology for valid reasons. Valid reasons for a time extension are limited to schedules included in water quality permits, consent decrees, enforcement orders, or the recipient and Ecology agree there is a need to do work during an environmental window in a specific season of the year. In addition, the extension must be requested no less than three months before the loan agreement is due to expire. In the second question you asked if the facilities plan and environmental impact statement (EIS) are amended to accommodate an increase to 10 MGD whether Ecology would be willing to make the same revision to the project description in the SRF loan agreement. The answer to this question is yes although the project description in the loan agreement generally does not need to be specific on hydraulic capacity. In the first part of your third question you asked if the County proposed to change the delivery approach to a traditional Design, Bid, Build method and is Ecology willing to make the same revision to the project description in the SRF loan agreement. Ecology can develop an agreement with an appropriate amount of funds to reflect the design portion of the project with a conventional procurement process. However, die County or other designated public entity would need to submit a separate funding application for the construction phase of the project. Further, the regulations include a cap on. the SRF award amount during a funding cycle of 50 percent of the funds available in the facilities category. In fiscal year fiscal year (FY) 2004 that cap was $33.7 million. Further, completing the design of a large wastewater treatment project by the start of FY 2006 funding cycle that begins in September 2004 will be a significant challenge for the County and its consultants. In the second part of your third question you asked if Ecology is willing to execute a loan agreement on the basis of Design Build with either a contracted operation or municipal operation if it is proposed to modify the project to that approach. Our response is yes; doing such is consistent with the pilot rule and other applicable state and federal procurement statutes and rules. However, costs for routine operations and maintenance are not eligible costs for either the state or federal funding prograns. In your fourth question you asked if Ecology is willing to extend the SRF loan resulting from funding application PPO4094 to the City of Spokane Valley, in lieu of Spokane County, if the City of Spokane Valley becomes the party to implement the new plant. Our response is yes, provided that a properly executed memorandum of agreement (AMA) is provided to Ecology and that the agreement adequately addresses responsibilities for managing the project, meeting the financial obligations, protecting water quality, and ensuring a quality project meeting permit requirements and public expectations. Ecology is also assuming that the MCA is It—s2-03; 2:46PM;SpOk,ne County Utll Mr. N. Bruce Rawls, P.E. Page 3 November 7, 2003 executed soon enough so that the appropriate language and conditions can be incorporated into the loan agreement. In the first part of the fifth question you asked if the County is correct in understanding that Ecology will issue art initial discharge permit for the plant on the basis of, and consistent with, the projected effluent quality in the approved wastewater facilities plan. Ow- response is yes; the initial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be developed, written, and consistent with the projected effluent quality in the approved wastewater facilities plan. In the second part of the fifth question you asked if Ecology is willing to execute an Agreed Order that would assure that the first phase of the plant will be permitted for its design capacity life (projected to be 10- years) before a major change in effluent discharge standards is required. State and federal law prohibits Ecology from issuing a discharge pernut for a term longer than five years. Consequently, Ecology is unable to assure that the effluent limits in the initial discharge permit will remain unchanged for a ten -year period. However, the Department is willing to exercise its enforcement discretion by issuing an Agreed Order with a compliance schedule tied to the 10 -year desigm capacity for the new facility to come into compliance with any new requirements that may be included in the forthcoming Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Ecology is willing to exercise our discretion in this manner so long as: a) at the time of construction completion the subject facility will produce the best possible quality effluent consistent with AKART requirements, and b) the design of the subject treatment works incorporates flexibility for adding whatever additional treatment the forthcoming TMDL may require as part of the second phase of the facility. Thank you for sharing your questions and concerns regarding such an important issue. It is encouraging indeed to see such an interest in combining efforts to facilitate Long -term wastewater treatment strategies for the greater Spokane area. I can assure you that the Department of Ecology will do whatever it can to assist in this effort while being protective of the environment around us. Please feel free to contact me at (360) 407-6405 or the Eastern Regional Office Ecology staff in Spokane as we continue to work together on this project. Sincerely, Richard K. Wallace, Manager Water Quality Program cc: Neil Kersten, City of Spokane Valley Public Works Director Dale Arnold, City of Spokane Wastewater Manager Steve Carley, Financial Assistance Manager, Washington Department of Ecology Jim Bella tty, ERO, Washington Department of Ecology Len Bramble, ERO, Washington Department of Ecology ;509 477 4715 N. 4/ 4 To: Council & Staff From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of November 14, 2003 9:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative November 25, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Nov 141 I . PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Amendment 2003 Budget [10 minutes] b. Adoption of 2004 Budget [10 minutes] 2. CONSENT AGENDA: [5 minutes] a. minutes; b. payroll; c. claims; d. Resolution Authorizing Participation in Flood Insurance Program 3. Proposed Franchise Ordinance No. 03 -085 for One - EIGHTY Networks, Inc. — Second Reading [5 minutes] 4. Proposed Ordinance Amending 2003 Budget:— First Reading [5 minutes] 5. Proposed Annual Appropriation Ordinance for 2004 Budget — First Reading [5 minutes] 6. Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter Relating to Adult Retail .Businesses —First Reading [15 minutes] 7. Adoption of Proposed Fee Resolution for 2004 [15 minutes] 8. Motion Consideration: Approval of GMA Steering Committee Interlocal Agreement [ 10 minutes] 9. Motion Consideration: Approval of Library Agreement [10 minutes] 10. Motion Consideration: Approval Amendment to Public. Safety Interlocal Agreement (SCOPE) [10 minutes] 11. Motion Consideration: Confirming Ivlayor Appointments to Boards and Commissions [15 minutes] 12. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] a. Towing Ordinance Discussion [10 minutes] b. Municipal Code Ordinance Discussion [10 minutes] 13. Information Only: [no public comment] Fire District Annexation Issues Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns Planning Commission Minutes Joint Council /Planning Commission Notes Department Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: 135 minutes* ] December 2, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Nov 21] 1. Executive Session (4:30 p.m.) — Reconvene into regular meeting 6:00 p.m. 2. Proposed Ordinance Amending 2003 Budget — Second Reading — Ken Thompson [5 minutes] 3. Proposed Annual Appropriation Ordinance for 2004 Budget — Second Reading— Ken Thompson [5 minutes) 4. Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter Relating to Adult Retail Businesses — Second Reading [15 minutes] 5. Proposed Towing Ordinance — First Reading [5 minutes] 6. Motion Consideration: Approval oflnterfund loan from City's Street Fund to City's General Fund [5 minutes] 7. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] a. Street Vacation Ordinance Discussion [15 minutes] b. Office of Professional Standards Presentation [20 minutes] c. Draft MOU re STEP Agreement [15 minutes] d. Proposed Stormwater Ordinance Discussion [15 minutes] e. Proposed Sewer Ordinance Discussion [15.minutes] f. Advance Agenda Additions [5 minutes] 8. Information Only: [no public comment] Minutes Planning Commission Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns [estimated meeting time: 120 minutes*] Advance Agenda— Draft Page i of 3 Revised: 11/14/2003 9:04 AM December 9 —13, 2003 National League of Cities (NTLC) Congress of Cities, Nashville, Tennessee December 9, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. — NO MEETING December 16, 2003 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date Dec 5] 1. Wastewater Issues Discussion —Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 2. Stormwater (208 swalcs review) — Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 3. Motion to Approve MOU re STEP Program — Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 4. Police Station Occupancy Agreement - Dave Mercier (20 minutes) 5. Boards and Commissions /Committee Appointments — Mayor DeVleming — (20 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 7. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) December 23, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date 1. PUBLIC REARING: Adoption of Municipal Code 2. Proposed Towing Ordinance — Second Reading — Cary Driskell 3. Proposed Sewer Ordinance — First Reading 4. Proposed Stormwater Ordinance — First Reading 5. Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance — First Reading 6. Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — First Reading 7: Administrative Reports: [no public comment] 8. Information Only: [no public comment] Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns Planning Commission Minutes Department Monthly Reports December 30, 2003 - NO MEETING January 6, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Spokane Transit Budget Process 2. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 4. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) (due date Dec 261 TOTAL MINUTES: 105 Max mtg time: 120 minutes Dec 121 [10 minutes] [5 minutes] [10 minutes] [10 minutes] [10 minutes] [5 minutes] [estimated meeting time: 50 minutes* ] TOTAL M.E�NIJTES: Max mtg time: 120 minutes January 13, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Jan 2] I . Appointments of Council to Standing Committees: Finance, Public Safety, Community Economic Development, Public Works 2. Mayor Appointments /Council Confirmation: Cable Advisory Board 3. Proposed Stormwater Ordinance — Second Reading 4. Proposed Sewer Ordinance — Second Reading 5. Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance — Second Reading 6. Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Second Reading 7. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] a. Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2004 8. Information Only: [no public comment] Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns Minutes of Planning Commission [25 minutes] [5 minutes] [15 minutes] [15 minutes] [5 minutes] [5 minutes] [60 minutes] [estimated meeting time: 130 minutes* ] Advance Agenda — Draft Page 2 of 3 Revised: 11/14/2003 9:04 AM January 20, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date ,Tan 9] 1. Council Check in — Dave Mercier(10 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 3. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: Max mtg time: 120 minutes January 27, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Jan 16] 1. Motion Consideration: Approval of 1- lotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2004 [10 minutes] 2. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] 3. Information Only: [no public comment] Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns Minutes of Planning Commission [estimated meeting time: minutes* ] January 28 and 29, 2004 City Legislative Action Conference, Olympia, WA February 3, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date Jan 231 I. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor .DeVleming (5 minutes) 3. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: Max mtg time: 120 minutes February 10, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. 1. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] 2. Information Only: [no public comment] Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns Minutes of Planning Commission [due date Jan 3111 [estimated meeting time: minutes* ] February 17, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date Feb 6] 1. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeV Leming (5 minutes) 3. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: Max mtg time: 120 minutes February 24. 2004 Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] 2. Information Only: [no public comment] . Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns Minutes of Planning Commission [due date Feb 131 [estimated meeting time: minutes* ] [* estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments] Advance Agenda — Dtaft Page 3 of 3 Revised: 11/14/2003 9:04 AM NIL