Loading...
2008, 04-22 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 136th meeting. Attendance: Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 22, 2008 City Staff: Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Steve Worley, Senior Engineer John Hohman, Development Engineer Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Father John Steiner of St. Mary's Catholic Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: At Mayor Munson's request, a "Life" Boy Scout led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Wilhite: reported that she attended the 100 -year anniversary of the Spokane Valley Baptist Church, which included a slide presentation on the history of the church and the valley; attended a GMA meeting; a regional Water Conference hosted by the Mayors of Post Falls and the City of Spokane; and a spaghetti dinner at Edgeclift hosted by SCOPE. Councilmember Schimmels: no report Councilmember Gothmann: said that he also attended the Spokane Valley Baptist Church 100 -year anniversary; attended the Armed Forces person of the year banquet; the Chamber breakfast; the Arbor Day tree planting at CenterPlace; the Edgeclift SCOPE dinner; and mentioned that he spoke with Tim Crowley concerning the HUD proposed grants which were approved by the County at their last meeting. Councilmember Taylor: no report Councilmember Dempsey: said that she attended the Chase Youth Break of Champions; the Spokane Valley Business Association meeting; and mentioned that our Student Advisory Council (SAC) has had some setbacks in the progress of some of their plans, but has scheduled another meeting for this Thursday; and that she attended the Spokane City Forum on community safety. Council Regular Meeting: 04 -22 -08 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 05 -13 -08 Deputy Mayor Denenny: mentioned he attended a meeting concerning the aquifer, and attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Board meeting MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Munson reported that he attended the City's finance meeting last week where they continued discussion of financial challenges; as a result of attending a GMA meeting, he requested the amendment to tonight's agenda to include item 11 to discuss Regional Urban Growth Boundaries; that he was interviewed by KXLY Radio; attended the Armed Forces person of the year award, the STA meeting, the Water district meeting, the CenterPlace Arbor Day tree planting; and that he met with John Nelson who is a representative of the Spokane Valley Fire Fighters Local 876 concerning "passing the boot" within our city limits, and explained that the City is not discouraging the continuation of the campaign, but that we do not want fundraising efforts to block traffic, and that he has invited Mr. Nelson to make a presentation to Council, which is scheduled for May 20. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited public comment. Representative Schindler: asked why there is no public comment on the agenda item concerning the support of Crime Check, and asked if she could speak to that ballot issue. Mayor Munson explained that it is Council's policy once a public hearing has been held on a topic, not to take further public comment on that issue, as the intent is to keep the comments confined to the public hearing process, and therefore, no comments would be taken tonight on those two ballot issues which Council will consider supporting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Steve Worley Mayor Munson opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and explained the procedure for conducting the hearing; then invited Engineer Worley to explain the proposal. Mr. Worley explained that on June 26, 2007, Council adopted the 2008 -2013 Six Year TIP; and since that adoption staff submitted several grant applications and received funding for the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction project, the Bowdish Sprague Intersection, and the Broadway Avenue Grind /Overlay project; and that staff recommends the 2008 TIP be amended to reflect the deletion of projects that did not receive funding, and the inclusion of those projects added to the 2008 construction year. Mr. Worley then explained the proposed amended TIP chart and the significance of the colors thereon. Mayor Munson opened the floor for public comments; no comments were offered and Mayor Munson closed the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2008 Budget — Ken Thompson Mayor Munson opened the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. and explained the procedure for conducting the hearing, then invited Finance Director Thompson to explain the proposal. Mr. Thompson explained that the 2008 budget was adopted October 2007, and that several adjustments are needed, which the Finance Committee briefly discussed at their April 11 meeting. Those changes, Mr. Thompson explained, include recognizing a state grant awarded in late 2007 for joint planning; budgeting for costs remaining from 2007 for the street master plan; budgeting for arterial street capital projects costs which were anticipated being spent in 2007 but were not; earnings on monies left over from the prior year in fund 102; recognizing two Community Block Grant awards, and budgeting for street capital projects including Broadway, I -90 to Park Road, and Appleway /Tschirley to Hodges. Mr. Thompson said that the budget process includes holding this public hearing, and later in tonight's agenda is the first reading of the ordinance to amend the budget. Mayor Munson opened the floor for public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Munson closed the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: list dated 4/9/2008, beginning w/ #14125, ending w/ #14275, total amount $1,883,768.13 b. Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31, 2008: $303,298.85 Council Regular Meeting: 04 -22 -08 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 05 -13 -08 c. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 15, 2008: $220,453.74 d. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 2008 Council Regular Meeting e. Approval of Barker Road Bridge DNR Easement Agreement f. Approval of Splashdown Six -month Lease and Concession Agreement g. Authorization to staff to negotiate with Splashdown owners for a possible long -term lease and concession agreement. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -008 Stormwater and Surface Water Utilities — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 08 -008. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained the background of this proposed ordinance, and how in adopting the UDC this fund was inadvertently removed, and that this is merely a housekeeping item to reestablish the stormwater and surface water utility. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -009 Amending 2008 Budget — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to advance Ordinance 08 -009 to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson explained the proposed changes as mentioned previously, and added that Section 1 C will also be modified prior to the second reading, to account for the extra $50,000 in interest earnings. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Ballot Issue Deliberation /Decision — Mike Jackson Mayor Munson explained that in adherence with Council policy, once Council has held and closed a public hearing, that there would be no further public comment accepted. Deputy City Manager Jackson explained that council held such a public hearing April 8 on this ballot issue, and that Council now has the opportunity to deliberate concerning whether to take any action concerning this ballot issue. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to support proposition #1, Continuation of Existing Sales /Use Tax for Public Transportation Services Deputy Mayor Denenny explained that this entity (STA) operates on a "pay as you go" basis; he shared a "Spokane Transit Financial Projection" slide showing actual and projected finances for 2006 through 2020; and also shared hard copies of several PowerPoint slides of the fiscal principles of STA. In reference to a sunset clause, Deputy Mayor Denenny said he opposes adding a sunset clause, as that would be analogous to asking the police department to look at reducing officers every five years, that such an analysis encompasses a large amount of energy and resources to accomplish that every five years; that STA has proven its financial accountability, and he asked Council for support of the measure. Council discussion included comment from Mayor Munson that once in place, the public always has the option of bringing issues back on a future ballot; Councilmember Dempsey mentioned that she would feel better if the sunset clause was included; Councilmember Taylor voiced opposition to the 3 /10ths and prefers staying with 2 /10ths and having a sunset clause, as he argued that the present STA Board won't always be there and a sunset clause is the best way to maintain accountability. Councilmember Gothmann stressed the importance of having a stable revenue source to maintain a long -term transportation system; Councilmember Wilhite said she favors putting this to a vote of the people, and Councilmember Schimmels said he would recommend approval as well. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Council Regular Meeting: 04 -22 -08 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: 05 -13 -08 Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmember Schimmels, Wilhite, and Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmembers Taylor and Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 7. Motion Consideration: Interoperability Ballot Issue: Deliberation /Decision — Mike Jackson As with the previous agenda item, Mayor Munson explained that in adherence with Council policy, once Council has held and closed a public hearing, that there would be no further public comment accepted. Deputy City Manager Jackson added that council held such a public hearing April 8 on this ballot issue, and that Council now has the opportunity to deliberate concerning whether to take any action concerning his ballot issue. It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to support Proposition No. 1, one -tenth of one percent sales and use tax solely for emergency communication systems and facilities to include equipment, crime check and the reverse emergency notification system. Councilmember Wilhite said she feels this issue should be placed on the ballot for people to voice their opinions; and that she feels this issue is the top priority issue, and added that she supports the reverse 911 notification process as an additional means of saving lives. Councilmember Taylor acknowledged that the infrastructure is needed, but stated that this is the exact measure that failed last year, and said that he would support this measure if it did not include crime check or the reverse 911; that the funding shortfall in 911 should be taken up with our State Legislature to find alternate funding mechanisms, and that crime check as a reporting system has value, but this is not as pressing as the other issues, and therefore, he will not support the measure. Deputy Mayor Denenny also voiced opposition to the crime check aspect of the measure, which he stated only collects data, and with the same amount of funds, said we could add four or five police officers on the streets. Councilmember Gothmann and Councilmember Dempsey both agreed this is a decision for the voters; and Councilmember Schimmels said the previously failed ballot issue was confusing, but the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Mayor Munson stated that he realizes interoperability is an issue that needs to be addressed, that he is disappointed in the State legislators for not increasing the tax of 911 funds, and that crime check should be a separate issue with separate funding. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Councilmembers Schimmels, Dempsey, Gothmann and Wilhite. Opposed: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 8. Motion Consideration: City Center Property Letter of Intent — Mike Connelly It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to approve and authorize execution by the City Manager or Designee, of the `Letter of Intent to Purchase, between the City of Spokane Valley and University City, Inc." City Attorney Connelly explained that on September 4, 2007, Council authorized staff to begin the specific site selection process, and this letter is a culmination of that effort. Mr. Connelly briefly discussed the contingencies outlined in the letter, and said if Council approves this letter, staff will meet tomorrow and outline the terms of a sale and purchase agreement, which agreement will be brought back in detail to council for further deliberation. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that regarding the specific property, there is some flexibility due to the uncertainty of the Library's plans as they consider two locations. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 9. Motion Consideration: Community Re- Licensing Interlocal Agreement — Cary Driskell It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to approve the interlocal and authorize the signature of the City Manager or designee. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that Council previously authorized staff to apply for a grant to help lower the number of cases; that this community re- licensing program was discussed with the City of Spokane and Spokane County; that the grant application was approved for $75,000 for the year 2008; and the cities would each be allocated $37,500; and that Spokane Valley's portion would be turned over to the Spokane County Public Defender. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. Council Regular Meeting: 04 -22 -08 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: 05 -13 -08 • • PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Munson invited general public comments; no comments were offered. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Customer Service Improvement Plans/Permit Process — Greg McCormick, John Hohman, Mary Kate Martin Engineer Hohman explained that Council previously approved a budget adjustment to add five staff to development services; and since that time, the budgeted staff has been hired and trained; he explained the PowerPoint slides addressing the key timeline issues, the explanation of how the improvements were implemented with the adoption of the UDC; that an oversight team manager system was implemented which included him, Greg McCormick, and Mary Kate Martin; and that they held four developer forums to get with the development community to exchange ideas, and take in complaints and constructive criticism. Planning Manager McCormick explained about the final steps in the approval process, followed by an explanation from Ms. Martin about future steps, including developing on -line permitting as an option, and she explained some of the challenges and advantages of such a system. 11. Animal Control Ordinance Discussion — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell discussed some of the background of this topic as explained in his April 22, 2008 Request for Council Action Form, and mentioned the questions generated from previous discussions; specifically whether the City could require veterinarians to notify SCRAPS when they treat an unlicensed dog or cat; and whether the City could have different noncompliance fees and penalties then those of Spokane County. Discussion followed concerning the process to have different fees, and that it would necessitate further negotiation with the Board of County Commissioners; which lead to Council consensus that staff should begin drafting a letter to the Commissioners to address the idea of the City of Spokane Valley having individual fees. Councilmember Wilhite also mentioned that Maricopa County was spending approximately $18 million dollars a year on stray animals and under the Sheriff's direction, the animal shelters are staffed and operated by prisoners, that the prisoners receive training, and that the budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Mayor Munson brought attention to the April 8, 2008 letter to him from the County Commissioners, which letter explains that the County has committed the necessary staff and financial resources to complete and adopt the UGA update by the end of 2008, and seeks Spokane Valley's similar commitment. City Attorney Connelly explained some of the elements to be considered for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding shared costs with Spokane County and other jurisdictions; i.e. (1) financial contributions should be based upon area actually studied and population projections for that area; (2) include an agreement by Spokane County to support the designation of all adjacent UGAs, existing or contemplated, as Joint Planning Areas; (3) identify what steps each jurisdiction intends to take in the next twelve months regarding UGAs, Comprehensive plan changes, and future annexation areas; (4) identify the area to be studied. It appears that only the increased UGA areas will be the subject of the study; (5) the agreement should reference and define its relationship to the ongoing MOU process being supported by CTED; and (6) the agreement should specifically state that it will not affect the ability of jurisdictions to enter into Joint Planning Agreements for any area. In response, Councilmember Taylor remarked that we have identified what areas we want, but have only had one discussion on future UGAs; and he asked if that included in this request. Planning Manager McCormick explained that the County was starting the process of looking at the regional UGA and updating it, but the new population figures were coming out and it stopped. Mr. McCormick said he would have to look at the actual map (County staff took the draft map from different jurisdictions) to see Council Regular Meeting: 04 -22 -08 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 05 -13 -08 • what made it on to the initial study map; and said that we need to work on that to accommodate the 20- year growth projection. Further discussion included mention of the need to finalize the terms of such agreement; that changes would need to be made to the comprehensive plan and that staff are working on land quality analysis; inquiry about the Saltese Flats; areas in question and the processing of wastewater; and that there was Council consensus to allow staff to move this forward in the negotiation process. Mayor Munson said he would also like to bring the draft Transportation Benefit District ordinance to his meeting tomorrow and there was no objection as Mayor Munson stated he will confirm to those in that meeting that this is a draft which has not been approved nor completely discussed by this Council. INFORMATION ONLY: The Spokane Transit Authority Cooperative Funding Project Sprague and Bowdish, Library Quarterly Report, Department Reports and Spokane Valley Fire Department January — March 2008 Quarterly Report were for information only and were not reported or discussed. Other Comments: Valley Hospital: Councilmember Taylor briefly mentioned the resale of the Valley Hospital by Empire Health Services, and said that he received a request for some statement of support from this council to support that acquisition. Mayor Munson replied that he is working to coordinate that as a future council agenda item. Police Department Charts: Mayor Munson asked the Police Department to incorporate the graphs that Councilmember Gothmann devised, and Councilmember Gothmann stated that he would get those graphs and database to our Police Chief. Mayor Munson added that he would like the Police Department report maps to include a range of numbers on the map legend instead of only a color -coded system. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTES Lt, Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting: 04 -22 -08 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 05 -13 -08 April 8, 2008 • Mayor Rich Munson City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 RE: Update of Urban Growth Area Boundary SPoMt ' l as OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TODD i \11ELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • MARK RICHARD, 2ND DISTRICT • BONNIE A. MAGER, 3RD DISTRICT RECEIVED APR - 9 2008 City of Spokane Valley Spokane County has committed the necessary County staff and financial resources to complete and adopt the UGA update by the end of 2008 and is seeking your commitment to the same. Through the Spokane County Countywide Planning Policies, we, the County and the local jurisdictions therein, have required the revision of the Urban Growth Area Boundary at least every five years. The first such review was initiated by the County on April 21, 2005 however this important task is far behind schedule. We believe that all of the local jurisdictions recognize that significant resources were devoted to the development and adoption of the Countywide Planning Polices and that each jurisdiction, as do we, views the CWPP seriously. Based upon this mutual respect for the CWPP's we are asking for your commitment to the following: • Completion and adoption of an updated UGA and associated Capital Facilities Plan be listed among your high 'priorities for 2008. • Cost sharing for consultants in the preparation of an integrated environmental analysis for the "metro area" UGA and Capital Facilities plan. Cost to be shared on the basis of each jurisdiction's total population allocation. (See attached information for a preliminary estimate of proportional cost allocation, scope of environmental review, and population allocation) We are committed to continuing the collaborative process that has begun among us as local jurisdictions, that includes and respects your interests in developing a UGA that is a regional work product. We are further committed to a planning process that serves the needs of our community and achieves our collective goals. We recognize that each of you have a vital role in this extremely important work. We all share responsibility for achieving compliance with the adopted Countywide Planning Policies. Demonstrating compliance with our own policy 1 1 16 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0100 • (509) 477 -2265 9-2-Z -i•CP that we all worked hard to clearly articulate is of critical importance. On March 3, 2008, at a meeting with the Planning Directors Technical Advisory group and some of your elected officials, we along with Spokane County staff presented a specific strategy to achieve the above - stated goals along with a work program and timelines designed to clearly articulate our objectives and the responsibilities of each of the participating jurisdictions. We firmly believe that our collective commitments will result in a transparent process that includes significant public participation, demonstrates compliance with our respective Comprehensive Plans, Capital Facilities Plans, and sets a predictable path for growth and development for the next 20 -year planning horizon. We look forward to your timely response. If you have any questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Bonnie Mager, Chair pc: Gerry Gemmill, County Operations Director Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer John Pederson, Asst. Dir. Planning Mayor Pederson, City of Airway Heights Mayor Van Orman, City of Liberty Lake Mayor Verner, City of Spokane odd Mielke, Vice hair Mark Richard, Commissioner Task 4 SEPA Process Draft EIS Final EIS • • Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Review Preliminary Ballpark Cost Estimate This ballpark cost estimate for environmental review services to support the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update is based on the Scope of Services prepared by Jones & Stokes /Weinman Consulting, LLC, on August 3, 2007. Costs are provided as a range and could vary, depending on the availability of data, need for meetings, efficiency of the decision - making process, need for review of private amendment requests, need for coordination between local jurisdictions and other factors. In particular, FEIS costs can vary significantly, depending on the number and nature of comments. Task Hours Task 2 Alternative Growth 32 - 50 Scenarios Cost $4,000 - $6000 Assumptions • ec It �'{'�' • ;'t ation • a he rs. �Uu, o ordlna io 1 rt i No action plus 2 growth scenarios. Lower range assumes scenarios are already well- defined; upper range includes time for scenario development and discussion. Tra 0: cor 3 nv�rnm • e n j ci T:?',f4Z4`a" �rnasrs �L. eraerais 4 Assumes EIS or SEIS 80 $10,000 documents and includes 160 $20,000 time for final Jones & Stokes /Weinman Consulting, LLC February 26, 2008 as P�roe� Coon! na Total 750 - $95,000 - $115,000 890 preparation /review of documents. Final EIS assumes a low number of substantive comments. TR W F � �, •r�`a°�3��sw•> :. V��Y�}Y `C!.S i ..- ::'Y� 7��.:JB'�� `c g ��.`� r i.� Jones & Stokes /Weinman Consulting, LLC February 26, 2008 Spokane County Scope of Services for Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Review Spokane County has requested assistance in preparing environmental review for the Spokane County 5 -Year Comprehensive Plan Update. The environmental review will support the County's efforts at regional collaboration in considering the impacts for growth in the Spokane Metro UGA. For the purpose oftliis Scope of Services, regionalcolhiboration include use of readily'availablc city' and regional data sources, provision of information in a form that will be usable by incorporated cities, and consultation with participating agencies as part of preparing this environmental review document. It is anticipated that the final task of this project will be to recommend to the County the appropriate environmental review process for the 5 -Year Comprehensive Plan Update. The environmental analysis that is developed prior to the recommendation will be prepared such that the information can be easily incorporated into an EIS, Supplemental EIS or EIS addendum. The focus on this project is on the Spokane County Metro UGA, which consists of the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Airway Heights, Liberty, Millwood and the unincorporated UGAs around these cities. The rural area and non - metropolitan cities and towns are being reviewed through a separate process and are not specifically analyzed as part of this project. Task 1.1. Regional Coordination Meeting Consultant will meet with County and other staff in the Metro UGA area to establish the process for regional coordination. For the purpose of this Scope of Services, it is assumed that regional coordination will include sharing of information between agencies, consultation with agencies during review of draft documents, and joint participation in public workshops or other events. Based on the direction established at this meeting, Consultant will document specific expectations for the regional process, points of contact and a communication protocol. It is assumed that Consultant will not be responsible for negotiating inter -local agreements between the County and cities as part of this Scope of Services. One meeting to discussion regional coordination is Spokane County 5-Year Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Review Introduction Task 1. Project Initiation August 3, 20D7 assumed. For efficiency, this meeting is assumed to occur on the same day as the project start -up meeting described in Task 1.3. These meetings may be combined as a single meeting. Task 1.2. Data Collection and Review Consultant will coordinate with County to identify and collect data pertinent to the environmental review. It is assumed that the County will serve as the coordinator of data collection from all agencies in the Metro UGA. The Consultant team will provide a data needs list to the County and will collect data based on direction provided by County staff. Task 1.3. Start -up Meeting Consultant will prepare for and participate in a project start -up meeting with the County and other • •-• -staff in- the•Metro UCA•ta-review•the proposal; data; environmcntal project contacts and the schedule. If any data gaps are identified, a plan to obtain the missing data and avoid project delays will be identified. Task 1 Work Products: Project team contact list, project schedule; list of resources; final refinements to the Scope of Services and budget, if necessary. Task 2. Alternative Growth Scenarios The Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Resolution 06 -0438 established a 20 -year population projection and allocation for the years 2006 though 2026. This projection is intended for initial planning purposes in the 5 -Year Comprehensive Plan Update. The Board's projection and allocation is between the Washington Office of Financial Management's (OFM) medium and high forecasts. Based on staff analysis, it is expected that this projection will require expansion of urban growth areas (IJGAs) in the County. As described in the Regional Collaboration Urban Growth Area Update (Planning Technical Committee, July 2007), if the OFM medium population forecast is assumed, there would be sufficient capacity within existing UGAs to accommodate projected growth. Task 2.1. Growth Scenarios In order to conduct the environmental analysis described in Task 3 below, the Consultant will prepare a conceptual description of two alternative scenarios. The first alternative will be based on the projection established by Spokane County Resolution 06 -0438 and the second alternative will be based on the OFM medium population forecast. The conceptual description will include population allocations to the County and cities, proposed areas for expansion, and other key [Document Title] 2 [Date] differences. Information will be provided in a summarized tabular format and is intended to provide the basis for the environmental analysis. Both forecasts will be extended to the year 2028. Task 2 Work Products Draft and final description of two growth scenarios This Scope of Services will provide a description of existing conditions and potential impacts to specific elements of the environrnent associated with the Spokane County 5 -Year Comprehensive Plan Update. The analysis will contain the following sections: [Document Title] • Elements of the Natural Environment • - - - Earth Water Resources • Plants & Animals • Air Quality • Elements of the Built Environment • Land Use • Plans and Policies • Population/Employment/Housing • Transportation • Public Services • Utilities Task 3. Environmental Analysis To the extent feasible and where information is relevant, the analysis will incorporate existing data from prior EIS or other environmental documents. As a programmatic document the analysis of impacts will be qualitative and comparative. Task 3.1. Natural Environment The Consultant will programmatically describe current conditions and impacts of the two growth scenarios on the natural environrnent. Consultant will prepare a brief description of natural environment resources in Spokane County based on readily available state, county, and city documents of natural features, including County GIS data. The natural resource topics, based on these existing documents, are anticipated to include: earth (soils and natural hazards), water resources, and plants and animals. The analysis will be focused on the growth scenarios and a comparison of differences between the two scenarios. 3 [Date] Task 3.2. Air Quality Consultant will outline requirements of state and federal regional air quality analysis regulations. The analysis will summarize air- monitoring data collected by state and local agencies and review traffic modeling data to determine potential future hot spots under the two growth scenarios. The air quality analysis will be based on available data; Consultant will not conduct field studies, project level conformity analysis, hot spot analysis or air quality modeling. Task 3.3. Land Use Consultant will document existing land use conditions and describe development trends and patterns in Spokane County. Potential land use impacts of the two growth scenarios will be compared. The analysis will be conducted at a programmatic level and will not be parcel specific. Task 3.4. Plans and Policies Consultant will describe the current Comprehensive Plan and review consistency with Growth Management Act goals, Shoreline Management Act goals and requirements, Countywide Planning Policies and municipal comprehensive plans. • Task 3.5. PopulationlEmploymentlHousing Consultant will summarize recent development trends and available data on employment, population and households in Spokane County. Growth forecasts for population and employment will also be summarized. Impacts of the alternative growth scenarios will be described, including a discussion of potential impacts to housing affordability. Task 3.6. Transportation Consultant will summarize data provided by the Spokane Regional Transportation Commission, the County and municipalities. It is anticipated that information will include miles of roadway by functional class, jurisdictional responsibilities, vehicle occupancy, indications of travel demand and level of service and other descriptive data. Information on freight routes, public transportation and bicycle /pedestrian modes of travel will also be provided as available. Impacts will be described based on the modeling data provided by the Spokane Regional Transportation Commission, which will be reviewed and summarized by the Consultant. Task 3.7. Public Services The Public Services analysis will address: [Document Title] 4 1 IDato] [Document Title] • Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services • Parks • Schools Based on available information, the Consultant will describe the services provided and service areas. Where appropriate due to proposed UGA expansion, the impact analysis will address future demand for services, and an assessment of estimated needs to meet projected demand for the two proposed growth scenarios. Task 3.8. Utilities The existing conditions and potential impacts associated with public/private utilities will be addressed for the following topics: • Sanitary Sewer • Domestic Water The affected environment analysis will be based on available service providers' plans and data, and will generally describe the services provided and service areas. Where appropriate due to proposed UGA expansions, the impact analysis will include projections for future demand, and an assessment of estimated needs to meet projected demand for the two growth scenarios. Task 3.9. Draft Environmental White Paper Based on the growth scenarios described in Task 2 and the elements of the environment described in sub -tasks 3.1 through 3.8 above, the Consultant will prepare a draft environmental analysis document for review by the County and municipalities. Consultant will participate in two meetings with County and municipal staff to review the document and receive comments. Consultant will provide one electronic copy and three paper copies of the draft document for review and comment. Task 3.10. Final Environmental White Paper Based on the review described in sub -task 3.9, the County will provide Consultant one set of consolidated comments on the draft document. One round of comments is assumed. Consultant will provide one electronic and three paper copies of the final document to the County for distribution to other agencies and the public. 5 (Date] Task 3.11.0ptional Public Workshop /Meeting As requested by the County, Consultant will participate in two public meetings on the environmental document. The County will prepare the public notice, agenda, make meeting arrangements, and provide summary meeting notes, if needed. Consultant will assist with the public notice contents, agenda and meeting facilitation, as well as be prepared to consider and respond to citizen and agency questions. Task 3 Work Products: Preliminary and final environmental document; facilitation of two public meetings as requested by County. Task 4.1. Recommended SEPA Approach Based on the findings of the environmental document, refinements to the proposed growth scenarios, and public and agency comments, the Consultant will evaluate alternative SEPA approaches for the County's 5 -Year Comprehensive Plan Update and make a recommendation to the County. Task 4.2. Meetings to Finalize SEPA Approach _ Task 4, . SEPA Process Consultant will meet with County staff to review and discuss options for SEPA review of the County's 5 -Year Comprehensive Plan Update. Up to two meetings with two consultant staff are assumed. Task 4 Work Products: Technical memorandum on recommended SEPA approach and two meetings with County. Task 5. Project Coordination This task includes completion of all services required to administer the Consultant role under this Scope of Services. These services include preparing and filing all correspondence, preparing monthly invoices and progress reports to the County, monitoring the project budget, regular coordination with project staff, and regular coordination with County staff and other consultants contributing technical analyses to the environmental assessment. (Document Title] 6 [Date] Each month the Project Manager will a prepare master invoice for County review which will be accompanied by a memo providing a monthly progress summary that highlights services provided and accomplished in the prior month, highlighting upcoming project milestones and listing any outstanding issues to be addressed. Billing will be provided'in accordance with the contract req Assumptions 1. Environmental analysis will focus on the Spokane County Metro UGA, which consists of the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Airway Heights, Liberty, Millwood and the unincorporated UGAs around these cities. The rural area and non - metropolitan cities and towns are being reviewed through a separate process and are not addressed in this document. 2. Spokane County will provide GIS services to support this project. - - 3-' -- Maps rind' graphits - p t e v i d e d y S p o k a n e County With ass istance gupportfronT Consultant. 4. Except as identified in the Scope of Services, all research and data collection will be based on readily available secondary sources of information, including reports, inventories, maps and other similar literature from local government and other sources. 5. Water quality and water quantity modeling are not assumed in the Scope of Services. Transportation modeling will be performed by the Spokane Regional Transportation Commission. 6. Spokane County will be responsible for document printing and distribution. 7. Each deliverable identified in the Scope of Services will consist of one draft and one final draft, unless otherwise specified. Unless specified differently in the Scope of Services, drafts for staff review will be provided electronically and final documents will be provided in electronic and paper formats. Paper copy will consist of one camera -ready copy for reproduction by the County. 8. Spokane County will have primary responsibility for public and agency meeting scheduling and logistics. 9. The budget presents cost estimates for each task. Time may be transferred from one task to another due to greater or lesser level of effort, provided that each task shall be completed and the total budget shall not be exceeded. 7 [Document Title] 1 i [Date) EIS and CFP Cost Allocation by Population Allocation 2006 — 2026 Population Allocation 190,085 City of Spokane = 70,235 = 37% County = 66,073 = 35% Spokane Valley = 33,125 = 17% Liberty Lake = 15,586 = 8% Airway Heights = 5,066 = 3% EIS approx cost = $115,000 (see estimate) City of Spokane = $42,550 County = $40,250 Spokane Valley = $19,550 Liberty Lake = $9,200 Airway Heights = $3,450 CFP approx cost = $90,000 (no estimate) City of Spokane = $33,300 County = $31,500 Spokane Valley = $15,300 Liberty Lake = S7,200 Airway Heights = ' $2,700 DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding re: Shared Costs with Spokane County , Other Jurisdictions Elements to be Considered 4 -22 -08 I. Financial contributions should be based upon area actually studied and population projections for that area. 2. include an agreement by Spokane County to support the designation of all adjacent Urban Growth Areas, existing or contemplated, as Joint Planning Areas. 3. Identify what steps each jurisdiction intends to take in the next 12 months regarding UGA's, Comprehensive Plan changes, and future annexation areas. 4. identify the area to be studied. It appears that only the increased UGA areas will be the subject of the study. 5. The agreement should reference and define its relationship to the ongoing MOU process being supported by CTED. 6. The agreement should specifically state that it will not affect the ability of jurisdictions to enter into Joint Planning Agreements for any area. Background • The timeline summarizes the process beginning in March 2007 tr • • Customer Service Improvements Report April 22, 2008 Kathy McClung, John Hohman, Mary Kate Martin, Greg McCormick ■ Key timeline issues: • Hiring new staff took approximately 6 months • Changes within existing staff meant that full staffing was not completed until March 2008 • New UDC presents additional training, interpretation, implementation challenges 1 • • Improvements Implemented • Re- organized development review staff under one department director • Established manager team oversight of development and permitting processes ❑ Provides direct access to a supervisor ❑ Ability to speak to a manager in any division regarding questions /concerns ❑ Validation of interpretations Improvements Implemented (coat.) • Revamped pre - application process with new, consolidated forms • Restructured BLA process ❑ priority task assigned to one staff person ❑ new screening procedure to determine when outside review is required ❑ reduced review time by approximately one - half (from 4 -6 weeks to 2 -3 weeks) ■ Improvements Implemented (cont.) • Project coordination meeting ❑ short weekly coordination meetings with review staff and managers • Over - the Counter Permit Review ❑ have conducted 15 reviews ❑ customer feedback has been positive 2 • • Improvements Implemented (cont.) • Target Date Sheets ❑ provides projected date for completion of first review -in writing ❑ explains review process • Restructured intake process ❑ complete and ready for routing at time of intake Improvements Implemented (cont.) • Eliminated "specialty" intake ❑ any permit specialist can take in an application • Dedicated cashier function • "Phones first" policy • Dedicated Permit Center e -mail Improvements Implemented (cont.) • New transmittal process ❑ one point of access for submittals to permitting system ❑ clear direction for routing ❑ accountability for staff and applicant • New routing center ❑ centralized location for organizing and distributing application documents 3 • • ■ . Improvements Implemented (cont.) • On -line sign off for two outside agencies ❑ Fire District ❑ Health Department • Added "QC" check within one week of submittal ❑ check for "Fatal Flaws" ❑ allows application to be routed, if possible, while waiting for corrected documents ■ Improvements Implemented (cont.) • New Certificate of Occupancy procedure ❑ on -site meeting prior to issuance ❑ inspector coordinated • all city reviewing divisions /outside agencies ❑ one point of contact for project manager or superintendant for first round inspections ❑ on -site sign off Staff Development • Started staff development program ❑ On - going program • Began with UDC training for all staff • Leadership Development identified core values ❑ Cooperation, Creativity, Integrity, Mutual Respect, Wisdom • Customer Service Training ❑ Refresher course 4 • • Timeframes -April 2007 Timeframes for the return of first review comments on commercial projects were 10 -12 weeks ❑ consistently in this range until new staff /processes were in place Timeframes -April 2008 Current timeframes for the return of first comments on commercial projects are 5 -6 weeks ❑ many projects receive comments sooner ❑ timeframes for first comments until February 2008 were 4 weeks or sooner ❑ informal "quick turn - around" queue for simple projects Improvements "In Progress" • New construction drawing submittal requirements informational handouts • New site plan informational handout • Check -list only pre - application process • New pre - application conference written comments format 5 • • Next steps • Continue Developer Forums • Review of land use processes ❑ subdivisions • Develop overflow review process for temporary periods of high- demand /volume • On -line permitting -as an option About on -line permitting • Challenges- o current database resides on county server ❑ home -grown system -no web interface has been developed ❑ needs dedicated database manager • Advantages- o proven customer service enhancement Challenges • 13 water districts ❑ complicates development coordination • Outside agency review ❑ variability in responsiveness, staffing for development process • Hearing examiner process ❑ increases timeframes for land use approvals 6 • • Challenges (coat.) • New UDC ❑ "Tweaks" require process as well as staff and council time • Staff experience ❑ Over half of the staff are new to the municipal work environment ■ Opportunities • Staff is highly motivated • Organizational structure is unique ❑ Created the ability to consolidate development related activities in one department • Creating more collaborative working relationships ❑ For both internal and external customers 7 Background • The timeline summarizes the process beginning in March 2007 Customer Service Improvement Timeline 4 -22 =08 Page 1 idr Ta}h Nair :ii"4d8i Pee de. /, GLI1i eiVi :rZ 67 133 or :34 rY, 0 1 Ch w.' DO va# Apr Mfr Jura - due 4i Sep Ocg I Mar vim ,ten ' ref 1.0 0 - .ecw Mry 'I :, ,n- 1 ft+lanager Meetings-Xi-monthly 3iIt2O 7 113112407 1750 2 Review /Priorit a perm tting/I nd -use processe s 4r2/2007 5d31t2o 7 44/ 3 Idenlifyr/begin development of regulatory changes needed to improve process- grading ordinance_ etc. Ad1312OD7 Oral (2007 1e1d Finalize re-organization of Connmurtity Development to include Development Engineering cup 7 rzrCF, 81 sca s Fill original 2007 budgeted positions 51 1"200 -drone 1 9.0d Draft changes to process flaw chart- pre- applir tion '11124{37 5/1 r007 Develop staffing plan 3/1/2007 5131/7.2007 Bad Staffing Plan to council 51112(x77 5 f29t20U7 44d Council Approval for Staffing Plan 5/1 /2007 6120/2007 23d 1 0 Begirt hiring newly approved positions 4/1/201J7 10/31 /2007 1001 11 First Developer's Forum- June 29 EJ1Y fir, 8t2O07 21d EMI 1? Re- 2s.s - ess priorities based on developer feedback -move up BLA process 7r2/2007 7r i Lk07 221 1a I plernent first round of process changes -on- trzooz a z0a i+ 1 4 Implement weekly project coordination meetings- on going n212007 SY0012004 240d 1$ Second Developer's Forum- September 7 Oil 512007 �rrr2c+aT 1a 1e Re- assess priorities based on developer feedback. Of7, 10/31i2O07 _ - 17 Street Standards Forum 1111.2047 1113131"20{77 221 Evatlluart&tpcorporate public comments 12/3/21107 ' 4t30122008 11:16d - 1 _r Staff training- UDC/Leadership Development/ Customer Service 1 iir2i147 a 2/7 +i 2ti ro Third Developer's Forum - April 4 3i 1 i1;70 1 41412003 15d 21 Re- assess priorities based er n d eveloper feedback .4171200 .4 5130/2001 4 O Background • The timeline summarizes the process beginning in March 2007 Customer Service Improvement Timeline 4 -22 =08 Page 1 0 0 et 190 180 14,0 151) 140 10 520 110 S- 201)6 Actual 2007 Projected =Operating Expense 8Co-Op l'rnicd Carr2o %cr Board Designated Reserve 2008 Ruder! Spokane Transit Financial Projection 6.85% Sale:Ins Grim in 2007 3.3% Sales Tria GrowiL in 2008 3.0% Sales T'as Growth is 2009 -2020 2007 Projection (a. of 11/15/2007) 20011 Rodeo, Pronnrml 21)0') 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2020 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected A_ I.ocai Capital Expense 81• Rrl.enue ('ash liaL•wcc 1 lil )ti' Carty over Local Capital 11=ICo-Op Pmjcct Expel tie Mice Revenue • Sell* Insurance Risk Reserve FISCAL PRINCIPLES • Invest in safe, attractive, well- designed, durable equipment and infrastructure. • Maximize use of available grants. • Plan with long -term perspective. • Efficiently employ staffing and control administrative costs. March 19, 2007 2 eSpolimeTrang • Avoid debt — capture savings of having no debt burden. • Avoid costs of payment to bond holders. • Maximize investment earnings revenue. • Minimize tax payer subsidy and maximize transportation service. • Pay as you go — capture savings of prompt payment to vendors, self- insuring risk and no retirement actuarial liabilities. Excel in our stewardship of assets that are entrusted to us by the public. March 19, 2007 3 FISCAL PRINCIPLES @SpoNmeVans! Cost of Debt: Approximately $3.6 million per year Example #1: Current Practice • Pay as you go • 2007 Budgeted Interest Earnings Example #2: Reduce Cash Reserve & Borrow for Vehicles • Annual Interest Earnings ($10,000,000 reserve at 5% return) • Average Annual Interest Expense ($45.9M Cost of Vehicles 10 Year Loan at 5.5 %) • Interest Gain or (Loss) Net Reduction In Financial Position March 19, 2007 4 Economic Equivalent - FR Revenue Hours ($93.50/RH 2007 Budget): 38,613 • FR Passengers ($4.42/Passenger): 812,439 • About 10 buses per year • 7.2% of the 2007 Operating Budget ($49.8M) AVOIDING DEBT FOR VEHICLES (Example) $ 2,592,720 $ 500,000 $(1,498,262) $ (998,262) $ 3,590,982 CsSprilimeTransit Annual Cash Balance After Reserves (Beg of Year) 2007 Modified $ 36.01. 2008 Projected $ 29.97 2009 Projected $ 32.14 2010 Projected $ 22.64 2011 .: Projected $ 22.37 2012 Projected $ 20.91 2013 Projected $ 15.55 2014 Projected $ 21.81 L 2020 Projected $ 32.22 Net increase / (Decrease) in Cash Page 10 September 20, 2007 In Millions $ Net Increase / (Decrease) in Reserves $ (5.68) $ (0.36) 2.70 $ (0.53) $ (9. $ (0.31) $ 0.05 0.32) $ (1.13) $ (0.3i $ (5.01) $ (0.35) $ 6.61 $ (0.36) $ 7.29 $ (0.37) $ (1.40) $ (0.47) Annual Cash Balance After Reserves (End of Year) 29.97 32.14 22.64 22.37 20.91 21.81 28.72 $ 30.36 Cash Balance After Reserves decreases by an estimated $20.5M between the beginning of 2007 and the end of 2012, leaving approximately $15.6M to fund current and future opportunities such as: • Service enhancements, • hybrid - electric bus upgrade, • Plaza alternatives, • downtown circulator or streetcar, • extension of cooperative road and street funding beyond 2012, • service linking Spokane and Coeur d'Alene, • further corridor preservation for high capacity transit (light rail or bus rapid transit), • temporary sales tax reduction. @SpoliffleTransi Spokane j Ualley. Memorandum To: City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager From: Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Re: Amendments to Appendix A, 2008 Budget (Employee Classification Schedule) Attached please find a draft Amended Employee Position Classification Schedule for your consideration. The following "housekeeping" changes have been made to the Schedule: 1. The Human Resources Manager at Grade 18 was added. This position was formally approved by City Council following adoption of the 2008 budget. The City is actively recruiting for this position. 2. Re- inserting the position of CenterPlace Coordinator at grade 15. This is to correct a previous error that removed this position from the schedule. The City is not actively recruiting for this position but it was intended that it remain in the classification schedule. 3. Revise the CenterPlace Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator from grade 15 to Grade 13. This position was approved by City Council and filled at grade 13 but was incorrectly printed in the schedule at grade 15. Position Title Grade 2008 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21 -22 $ 7,818 - 11,137 City Attorney 21 7,818 - 10,023 Community Development Director 21 7,818 - 10,023 Finance Director 21 7,818 - 10,023 Public Works Director 21 7,818 - 10,023 Parks and Recreation Director 19 6,332 - 8,119 Human Resources Manager 18 5,700 - 7,307 Planning Manager 18 5,700 - 7,307 Building Official 18 5,700 - 7,307 Senior Engineer - Capital Projects, Development 18 5,700 - 7,307 Deputy City Attorney 18 5,700 - 7,307 Senior Engineer - Traffic, CIP Planning /Grants 17 5,130 - 6,576 Accounting Manager 17 5,130 - 6,576 City Clerk 16 4,616 - 5,918 Engineer 16 4,616 - 5,918 Senior Plans Examiner 16 4,616 - 5,918 Public Works Superindendent 16 4,616 - 5,918 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 4,616 - 5,918 Senior Planner 16 4,616 - 5,918 Associate Planner 15 4,155 - 5,327 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,155 - 5,327 Assistant Engineer 15 4,155 - 5,327 IT Specialist 15 4,155 - 5,327 Engineering Tech II 15 4,155 - 5,327 Human Resource Analyst 14 3,740 - 4,794 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 3,740 - 4,794 Administrative Analyst 14 3,740 - 4,794 Assistant Planner 14 3,740 - 4,794 Building Inspector II 14 3,740 - 4,794 Plans Examiner 14 3,740 - 4,794 Public Information Officer 14 3,740 - 4,794 Engineering Technician I 14 3,740 - 4,794 Senior Permit Specialist 14 3,740 - 4,794 Maintenance /Construction Inspector 13 -14 3,365 - 4,794 Recreation Coordinator 13 -14 3,365 - 4,794 Customer Relations /Facilities Coordinator 13 3,365 - 4,314 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,365 - 4,314 Building Inspector I 13 3,365 - 4,314 Planning Technician 13 3,365 - 4,314 Deputy City Clerk 12 -13 3,029 - 4,314 Senior Center Specialist 12 -13 3,029 - 4,314 Human Resources Technician 12 -13 3,029 - 4,314 Administrative Assistant 11 -12 2,726 - 3,883 Permit Specialist 11 -12 2,726 - 3,883 Accounting Technician 11 -12 2,726 - 3,883 Maintenance Worker 11 -12 2,726 - 3,883 Office Assistant II 10 -11 2,453 - 3,495 Custodian 10 2,453 - 3,145 Office Assistant I 9 -10 2,208 - 3,145 *GIS /Database Administrator Pending Pending • P: \HR \Compensation \Employee Position Classification Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2008 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2008 Amended 4/14/2008 0 DRAFT N N budget amendment 4 -15 -08 Fund 001 General Fund 001 Total Gen. Fund 101 Street Fund 102 Arterial Street Fund 306 Com. Dev. Block Grnt 307 Capital Grants Fund City of Spokane Valley Exhibit A Amendments to 2008 Budget April 22, 2008 Grand Total $ 5,580,000 REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCREASE INCREASE $ 150,000 167,000 317,000 $ 47,000 $ 800,000 Beg. Fund Balance $ 800,000 Street Capital Projects $ 245,000 $ 4,171, 000 Beg. Fund Balance $ 47,000 Street fund master plan $ CTED Grant 150,000 CTED Grant - joint planning Beg. Fund Balance 167,000 Gen fund,share street masterplan 317,000 Explanation Com. Dev. Blk. Grants 48,612 Sprague ADA Improvements 196,388 Rockwell Sewer St. Improvements REET Beg. Fund Bal. and Grants $ 3,000,000 Appleway - Tshirley to Hodges $ 430,000 Broadway - Moore to Flora $ 741,000 Broadway - 190 to Park Rd $ 5,580,000 • SHERIFF 'OE IS AT IT AGAIN Maricopa County was spending. approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts irk animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given Update on Joe Arpaio 2/5/200$ them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals. I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand. He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard fron the Prison. Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he': in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git -R Dun' kind of Sheriff.